Merry Kitzmas +5!!

| 115 Comments

My, how the time has flown! NCSE has linked to several 5-year anniversary articles in Pennsylvania papers, including the York Dispatch and the Philadelphia Inquirer. I liked this bit:

Michael Behe said he doesn’t hear anybody talk about Kitzmiller v. Dover anymore.

Behe, a biochemist and professor at Lehigh University, testified as an expert witness in support of intelligent design. “I don’t hear anybody talk about it … except the guys on the side who won,” Behe said.

“It’s an interesting legal event,” he said in reflection. “But it doesn’t affect the science. The scientific case for intelligent design keeps getting stronger.”

In the five years since, Behe said scientists are discovering how complex cells are beyond previous understanding, and he believes that helps support intelligent design as a valid scientific theory.

Not that any of that would have affected Jones’ ruling, Behe said.

“It didn’t seem to me the judge understood any of the scientific evidence anyway,” Behe said.

Jones discounted Behe’s testimony, Behe said.

“There was a disconnect between how I thought I did on the witness stand, and how my testimony was characterized by the judge,” he said. “It really soured me on the legal system.”

If presented with the opportunity again, though, he’d be back on the stand. Intelligent design supporters have to participate, he said, or “people will think we were afraid to show up.”

Of course, the majority of ID experts were, but that’s all history now…

Just let us know when your argument improves beyond “I won’t believe evolution unless someone gives me every single mutation and every single selective step, literal piles of peer-reviewed literature on the evolution of e.g. the immune system aren’t good enough.” Then maybe you’ll have something ready for prime time…

Merry Kitzmas!

115 Comments

(Behe) “I don’t hear anybody talk about it … except the guys on the side who won,” Behe said.

That losers “not talking about it” might have something to do with it being so magnificently devastating to their case , Mikey.

Usually, the side that takes a shellacking is typically a little shy about talking about it. The worse the shellacking, the quieter, as a rule.

And ICR has been very, very quiet about the meat of the Kitzmiller case.…

“It didn’t seem to me the judge understood any of the scientific evidence anyway,”

Except for that part where the judge actively followed the tiny little details, regularly interrupting to make sure he got them right.

And except for that part where he commented in open court how much he liked the clear, concise discussion, and lamented that it would have been nice if his high school teachers could have been this good at explaining the complex science.

“But it doesn’t affect the science. The scientific case for intelligent design keeps getting stronger.”

Then, Mikey, Bubeleh, shut up and put evidence on the table, already.

You didn’t do that in Dover, and you haven’t done it since.

You got some cards? time to show em’ bro.

Otherwise, please, please, please be so kind as to shut up and quit soiling the name of my alma mater.

I’m re-posting this screed of mine from Summer 2010, it’s kind of an omnibus response to much of what has passed for response from the ID side to the Kitzmiller decision science issues over the years…

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/201[…]esponse.html

[edited to fix typos-Nick]

Sorry, stevaroni, but poor Mikey can’t help himself:

stevaroni said: Otherwise, please, please, please be so kind as to shut up and quit soiling the name of my alma mater.

I hope you didn’t major in biological sciences there. That departmental disclaimer regarding Mikey’s “peculiar” interest is embarassing to say the least.

On a more positive note, I do wish you, Nick and everyone else a most happy and Merry Kitzmas!!!!

Poor Mikey Behe, he’s so misunderstood. Wonder whether he’ll consider Ken Miller’s most excellent advice for Mikey to write a textbook on Klingon Biochemistry, especially when Mikey’s American publisher also publishes the “Star Trek” books (EDITORIAL NOTE: It was after dinner I had with Ken a few years ago here in New York City, that, out of the blue, he suggested that Behe write a textbook on Klingon Biochemistry. Wish I could claim credit for this, but I can’t.).

stevaroni said:

(Behe) “I don’t hear anybody talk about it … except the guys on the side who won,” Behe said.

That losers “not talking about it” might have something to do with it being so magnificently devastating to their case , Mikey.

At least Casey Luskin can’t stop talking about it (2 more parts are linked to at the bottom). He’s so massively butthurt.. ahem .. traumatised by Dover that he’s regularly posting multi-part whines about Dover and how mean everyone was to the poor IDists to the Disco’tutes propaganda blog.

John Kwok said:

I hope you didn’t major in biological sciences there. That departmental disclaimer regarding Mikey’s “peculiar” interest is embarassing to say the least.

No, I was an engineer.

Back before Behe, that was what Lehigh was known for, being a well respected, if somewhat dull engineering school with sports teams that were almost biblically abysmal.

Good excuse to drink, though.

Well, that, and the almost total lack of women.

I understand that the biology department is not at all happy whenever Behe opens his mouth, and they have some understanding with him such that if he does not use his Lehigh credentials when discussing his “work”, they will not see fit to pubicly repudiate him any further (apparently, other than putting a disclaimer on the biology department web site).

JLT said:

Results of a google search for “Judge Jones” site:www.evolutionnews.org restricted to last year.

Gee, all that gas wasted on public bitching sessions; yet never any energy expended for doing research that passes muster within the scientific community.

These guys keep beating the same dead horse hoping that politics will give them what they want.

Read through the article and over 100 comments at the York Dispatch.

Sorry the article didn’t call Behe on his lies and Bill Buckingham on his $100 offer to show him the words ‘Separation of church and state’ in the constitution.

The comment were surprisingly strong in support of the decision. A few fundie nuts babbling bible verses and tired DI canards. Not bad for the heart of Pennsyltucky.

JLT said:

Results of a google search for “Judge Jones” site:www.evolutionnews.org restricted to last year.

Awww, it’s so cute when ICR tries to argue science.

I especially like this one, where their learned scholars argue that these two strings

String A:

SHANNONINFORMATIONISAPOORMEASUREOFBIOLOGICALCOMPLEXITY

String B:

JLNUKFPDARKSWUVEYTYKARRBVCLTLODOUUMUEVCRLQTSFFWKJDXSOB

Refudiate everything that is known about information theory because… er… one string clearly has more information than the other.

Q.E.D.

Darwin is doomed.

( Off in the distance, a wolf howls, and it sounds like someone calling out “Waterloo One-eleven” ).

I liked the bit where Jen Miller says she moved evolution front and center in her biology class.

Also (for amusement value) Buckingham complaining how the board was shafted. Bill, when you lie to the judge in a bench trial, and then get caught via a whole series of videotape and written evidence of your lying, that’s a self-shafting.

You know, Behe has all that time that he’s not teaching (Thank Dog for that)… maybe he should have spent the last five years reading those 50+ books and journal articles that he admited to never having read… then said that they don’t say he’s wrong though. (I’m sorry, that’s my favorite line from the whole trial.)

Merry Kitzmas… when my son is a few years older, I’ll make it a tradition that he gets a science tool on this day… so he can use it before it gets lost in the 8000 toys he gets from his grandmother on Christmas.

aybe he should have spent the last five years reading those 50+ books and journal articles that he admited to never having read…

strangely enough, it looks like he has finally gotten that message.

did you read his last published paper?

no, I didn’t either, but evidently while some of his conclusions, of course, are entirely delusional, people involved with microbial genetics and evolution feel he was indeed spot on in calling for more research looking into the evolution of novel traits.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress[…]ies-to-behe/

so, this time at least, Behe DID take the time out to peruse the lit, DID notice some areas that needed more research, and only then tried to stuff his god into those gaps.

Is that progress?

maybe he’s trying to actually get interested in doing real science again.

We’ll see if his religious delusions keep getting in the way.

money quote, in response to the oft repeated canard by Behe (and other IDiots) that “evolution can’t create novel traits”:

My own view of the MB paper is that it has done a service to the study of evolution by pointing out where the next generation of experients[sic] should focus. We don’t yet have many studies on the long term evolution of protein novelty (to get extreme divergence), and the types of selection used are typically extreme. Answers to these problems aren’t yet available simply because we simply have not applied much effort. Indeed, there is still much we have yet to understand about the seemingly more mundane process of point mutation evolution in the simplest environments. As I noted above, we do have many dozens of ‘directed evolution” studies in which various functions and activities haven been evolved from random libraries of RNA molecules, and those studies have shown that selection can be a powerful and creative force.

so, bottom line, there are thousands of studies of both directed and undirected (e.g. Lenski) looking at the genetics of evolution in bacteria. What is lacking in the undirected studies is simply an accurate reflection of what are known, common, selective forces that operate in nature, and not in the lab.

phages, loose clumps of random genetic material, competitive and predatory pressures, etc, are not well studied in the lab.

My own opinion is that these questions will only gain further resolution via more experimentation on microbes in situ, instead of in vivo.

THAT’S where the research focus should be.

Wow, if he’s honest–and I really don’t have any reason to think that he isn’t (except intellectually)–he sure is delusional.

I especially like that ID case is “getting stronger.” I suppose when your reference point is zero evidence it’s easy to believe that you’re getting stronger, and yet the evolutionary approach just explains more and more (yes, there are a huge number of details that remain to be answered, and many may never have more than plausible answers), while ID stays at peg zero.

Here’s a thought Behe–look for evidence of design, not delusional BS that you people put forth as if it were evidence for design (like, ‘gee, it’s so complex’). You won’t find it, as you already know, but at least you’d be doing something that is at least science-like, as opposed to what IDiots usually do.

Glen Davidson

JLT said:

stevaroni said:

(Behe) “I don’t hear anybody talk about it … except the guys on the side who won,” Behe said.

That losers “not talking about it” might have something to do with it being so magnificently devastating to their case , Mikey.

At least Casey Luskin can’t stop talking about it (2 more parts are linked to at the bottom).

I was going to say… Maybe this is all a subtle jab at Luskin? Since Behe hasn’t heard “anybody” on their side is talking about it… Wait, I forgot two things:
1) IDists aren’t that subtle.
2) Behe hates reading.

:)

‘Tis Kitzmas! Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

Many thanks to those who were in the front lines of that particular outbreak of Teh Stoopidz. Your sacrifice and toil are remembered and appreciated.

The MadPanda, FCD

Ichthyic said:

aybe he should have spent the last five years reading those 50+ books and journal articles that he admited to never having read…

strangely enough, it looks like he has finally gotten that message.

did you read his last published paper?

no, I didn’t either, but evidently while some of his conclusions, of course, are entirely delusional, people involved with microbial genetics and evolution feel he was indeed spot on in calling for more research looking into the evolution of novel traits.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress[…]ies-to-behe/

so, this time at least, Behe DID take the time out to peruse the lit, DID notice some areas that needed more research, and only then tried to stuff his god into those gaps.

Is that progress?

maybe he’s trying to actually get interested in doing real science again.

We’ll see if his religious delusions keep getting in the way.

Is it progress or just trying to get science to tell him where ID can squeeze in?

SOB is to lazy to do any, you know, science.

What is it with creationists and review papers. Hell, I could write review papers and I don’t even have a masters degree.

SOB is to lazy to do any, you know, science.

hmm, paper suggests he did try to replicate some of the experiments, if poorly.

look, what he’s finding out is that when he actually DOES read or, you know, do science, the results don’t agree with his preconceptions, but he either spins the conclusions or outright denies them.

It’s really sad watching a person deal with such cognitive dissonance.

it’s cases just like Behe that make me actually angry that so many appear to think accomodationism is the way to go.

would you accomodate a schizophrenic, simply because there were a lot of them? Or would you feel obligated to point out that a large part of what is shaping their perception of reality is delusion?

Yeah well “accomodationists” were running the Kitzmiller case through-and-through and we did alright. It was the other side that couldn’t keep their eye on the ball (the ball was science education), and kept dragging apologetics for their preferred religious view into it.

If I didn’t think it would be a total disaster, it would be fun to see a bunch of obsessed-go-after-religion-at-all-costs, all-theists-are-dumb-creationists types attempt a court case like this. They sometimes seem to think they would get a judge to rule “science has disproved religion, everyone should be an atheist and this should be taught in schools.” Such an attempt would be an IDists/fundamentalists dream come true…

Nick (Matzke) said: Yeah well “accomodationists” were running the Kitzmiller case through-and-through and we did alright.

Ya’ll did … in hindsight Dover legally (and to an extent publicly) killed the pretense that ID was something other than “stealth creationism”. Five years on it seems even more significant than it in the immediate aftermath.

However, I am going to stand back from the argument that is sure to follow in this thread over “accomodationism”. “No please, I don’t have a personal dog in that fight …”

If it is ID it can’t be taught in school as science, if is not ID then it is evolution and can be taught in school as science, if it is not evolution it can’t be taught in school, then it is creation, that can’t be taught in school, what is ‘it’ well it is ‘life’ and if it is not evolution and science, then it is creation so ‘give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God’s’. If ‘it’ is ID it should be taught in school for what it is, the explanation of how things are. Plus, it is a phenomena all of it’s own anyway, and should be taught as a subject in it’s own category. The story of how life begins. The process creates one species and another, weather it did it that way in the beginning of life or not it does it that way now.

M.W. said: If it is ID it can’t be taught in school …

I’d like to run this through an online translator so I can read it. Can you tell me what language it was written in?

Yeah well “accomodationists” were running the Kitzmiller case through-and-through and we did alright

post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

M.W. said:

If ‘it’ is ID it should be taught in school for what it is, the explanation of how things are. Plus, it is a phenomena all of it’s own anyway, and should be taught as a subject in it’s own category. The story of how life begins. The process creates one species and another, weather it did it that way in the beginning of life or not it does it that way now.

ID provides no such explanation.

If the real history of ID were taught in the public schools, you would be screaming to have it stopped.

Evidently you don’t know the real history of ID; but it is out there and well-documented in court cases like Kitzmiller v. Dover, Edwards v. Aquillard, McLean v. Arkansas and a number of others.

You have doubts about that? Then check out the transcripts and decisions listed here.

After you have digested these, we can point you to much more; and then you can return here and make your case again.

If I didn’t think it would be a total disaster, it would be fun to see a bunch of obsessed-go-after-religion-at-all-costs, all-theists-are-dumb-creationists types attempt a court case like this.

If that wasn’t such a fucking HUGE strawman, I’m sure someone would take you up on it.

for someone with such keen intellect, you sure abuse it often enough.

If it is ID it can’t be taught in school as science, if is not ID then it is evolution and can be taught in school as science, if it is not evolution it can’t be taught in school, then it is creation, that can’t be taught in school, …

Now why did that scene with Kirk confusing the M5 computer come back to me all of a sudden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDMRzZpQ8q0

This from the York Dispatch article is absolutely golden:

Dover Area Senior High School biology teacher Jennifer Miller doesn’t hear her students talking about the Kitzmiller decision in the halls. Teachers don’t talk about it, either.

But its impact is evident in her classroom. Evolution used to be the last unit she taught each semester.

“Now I teach it first and make sure I emphasize it. And I keep referring to it, to show them how important evolution is to biology,” said Miller, who testified at the trial.

Ichthyic said:

it’s cases just like Behe that make me actually angry that so many appear to think accomodationism is the way to go.

I really, reeeeaaaally don’t want to see this turn into another ACCOMODATIONALISM argument, but would you mind outlining what it did wrong and what your alternative suggestion would be? In fact, what does this even have to do with the subject of the post? Just curious more than anything, it seemed to come out of the blue.

Wheels said: I really, reeeeaaaally don’t want to see this turn into another ACCOMODATIONALISM argument …

Dem things do get shrill, don’t they?

Isn’t it odd that the Dishonesty Institute forgets Kitzmas? As a Nota Bene subscriber (that’s its samizdat agitprop e-mail “newsletter”), I just got this personalized letter from Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer John G. West. Let’s see what the Dishonesty Institute has in store for 2011. I just can’t wait:

Dear John ,

Thank you for being a subscriber to one or more of the three e-newsletters put out by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (Nota Bene, Academic Freedom Update, and Faith and Science Update). By subscribing, you are helping us get the word out about the powerful evidence for intelligent design in nature. We are grateful for your interest in our work, and for all you do to share the information we provide with your family, friends, and co-workers. By making it possible for us to go around the Darwinian establishment and communicate directly with the public, you are an important partner in our work.

In the coming year, I’d like to invite you to partner with us in an even stronger way by making a tax-deductible donation to Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, the non-profit and non-partisan hub of the intelligent design movement.

Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture advances the case for intelligent design by funding cutting-edge science research, mentoring young people, defending free speech, and communicating to the public the compelling evidence of design in nature. Thanks to our supporters, we have been able to underwrite path-breaking research and writing by leading scientists and scholars such as Michael Behe, Guillermo Gonzalez, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Jay Richards, and Richard Sternberg. Also thanks to our supporters, we have been able to reach millions of people this year through our e-newsletters, books, articles, media interviews, events, videos, podcasts, and websites.

However, to continue our work in 2011, we need additional help. Specifically, we need support to carry out the following exciting initiatives:

Book Promotion. Next year will see the publication of several important books by our scientists and scholars. The Myth of Junk DNA by biologist Jonathan Wells will explode the fable that most of our DNA is “junk” left over from a blind Darwinian process. Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life by Michael Flannerywill reveal the long-suppressed story of how the co-discoverer of the modern theory of evolution was in fact a powerful advocate of intelligent design! And The Nature of Nature will feature our scientists debating leading scientists on the other side about whether nature is the product of impersonal chance or intelligent design. We need adequate funds to promote all of these books so they will have maximum impact.

Lawsuit Assistance. David Coppedge of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab was harassed and demoted merely for sharing with co-workers pro-intelligent design DVDs. His discrimination lawsuit goes to trial in June 2011. So does the free speech lawsuit against the California Science Center, a state government agency, for illegally stopping a privately-sponsored screening of the pro-ID film Darwin’s Dilemma. We are providing a lot of behind-the-scenes support in these cases, but we need the resources to be able to continue our help.

New Videos. Have you ever marveled at the beauty of a butterfly? In 2011, our media partner Illustra Media will be releasing Metamorphosis, a stunning film that will transform the way you look at butterflies. I am terrifically excited about this project, which holds the potential to communicate the truth about intelligent design to many people who are still undecided. We need funding to mount regional premieres, a talk radio campaign, and other promotional activities to make sure this film gets the exposure it deserves.

Education. If we are serious about changing the culture, we must reach the leaders of tomorrow. That’s why we need to continue next summer our mentoring program for leading students heading to graduate school. We need funds to pay for student travel, lodging, food, and educational materials.

Scientific Research. Over the past several years, we have been able to underwrite important experimental and lab research into the limits of natural selection and random mutations through the Biologic Institute. We need funding to continue this cutting-edge research over the next five years.

Unlike Darwinists, we can’t rely on tax dollars. Instead, we must rely on the sacrificial gifts of publicly-spirited individuals like yourself. I realize that the economy is in terrible shape, and you may be unable to help us this year. But if you can give, it will make a tremendous difference.

Our staff and Fellows would be incredibly grateful for any support you can provide. Again, you can make a tax-deductible donation by clicking here.

Sincerely,

John G. West, Ph.D.

Associate Director, Center for Science and Culture

Discovery Institute

P.S. We have to finalize our budget for 2011 in the next few days. For those who contribute $150 or more, we will be pleased to send you a free copy of the new book God and Evolution edited by Jay Richards or Darwin’s Nemesis edited by William Dembski.

mrg said: (Phillip) Johnson was annoying. Not so much for being a stealth creationist, but for claiming that his competence as a law professor gave him authority to pass judgement on science.

And then the christofascists have the gall to attack Judge Jones because he had (and used!) his authority as a Federal judge “to pass judgement on science.”

Of course, what Judge Jones passed judgment on was the science and non-science (=nonsense) that he saw and heard in his courtroom. The pro-science side was organized and coherent, while the pro-creationism side was disorganized, incoherent and produced witnesses who lied under oath. Small wonder his decision went the way it did.

John Kwok quoted the Dishonesty Institute’s John West as writing: In 2011, our media partner Illustra Media…

Illustra Media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of “Discovery Media,” which used to be known as the “Moody Institute of Science,” a well-known producer of fundamentalist Christian and anti-science media. “Discovery Media” is in turn the propaganda arm of the “Moody Bible Institute” - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moody_[…]le_Institute.

(For more on this, see NCSE’s 2003 article at http://ncse.com/creationism/analysi[…]lustra-media)

Discovery Media’s mission statement reads, “We believe that God reveals Himself, today, through His creation and the Biblical record. Our mission is to utilize every form of available media to present the reality of His existence through compelling scientific evidence and academic research.

(Stephen Meyer of the Dishonesty Institute co-wrote the script for one of Illustra Media’s anti-science videos, “Unlocking the Mystery of Life.”)

This is just more proof that intelligent design creationism is not - and never has been - about science. The whole scam is about religion.

(Lightly edited from my previous Illustra Media rant at PT this past May 17.)

John Kwok quoted the Dishonesty Institute’s John West as writing: Book Promotion. Next year will see the publication of several important books.… We need adequate funds to promote all of these books so they will have maximum impact.

As John Kwok knows all too well, “Book Promotion” in Dishonesty Institute-speak means Lying For Jesus™ on Amazon, pimping for each others’ books with claims about the author being the next Isaac Newton and predicting the imminent death of Darwinism.

Nice letter they sent you, John! When they said “By subscribing, you are helping us get the word out about the powerful evidence for intelligent design in nature.” did they happen to say what the evidence was?

Ask them what, exactly, is this ‘science research’ they are ‘underwriting’.

Marion Delgado said:

Behe is living in Beheland. On the plus side, the unicorn rides are said to be very enjoyable.

“O little clown in Beheland How oft I hear thee lie In thy deep and ig’nernt sleep Science facts slip by”

mrg said:

M.W. said: If it is ID it can’t be taught in school …

I’d like to run this through an online translator so I can read it. Can you tell me what language it was written in?

Oh good, it’s not just me.

Think it was Klingon translated into Russian translated into Mandarin Chinese and then, somehow, by some strange quirk of fate, American English:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

mrg said:

M.W. said: If it is ID it can’t be taught in school …

I’d like to run this through an online translator so I can read it. Can you tell me what language it was written in?

Oh good, it’s not just me.

Thanks for ruining for Christmas Mike:

Mike in Ontario, NY said:

Marion Delgado said:

Behe is living in Beheland. On the plus side, the unicorn rides are said to be very enjoyable.

“O little clown in Beheland How oft I hear thee lie In thy deep and ig’nernt sleep Science facts slip by”

Is the reason why you opted for this is because you know that Behe lives and teaches in Bethlehem, PA? Don’t want to think of the Vienna Boys Choir singing this, good grief!!!

Typo, corrected -

Thanks for ruining my Christmas Mike:

Mike in Ontario, NY said:

Marion Delgado said:

Behe is living in Beheland. On the plus side, the unicorn rides are said to be very enjoyable.

“O little clown in Beheland How oft I hear thee lie In thy deep and ig’nernt sleep Science facts slip by”

Is the reason why you opted for this is because you know that Behe lives and teaches in Bethlehem, PA? Don’t want to think of the Vienna Boys Choir singing this, good grief!!!

Ummmm, still they don’t get it. The reason Nick doesn’t have to do fundamental evolutionary biology research - and I don’t have to do fundamental climate research - is that we’re leaning on hundreds of thousands or millions of people worldwide already doing it.

John Kwok said:

Think it was Klingon translated into Russian translated into Mandarin Chinese and then, somehow, by some strange quirk of fate, American English:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

mrg said:

M.W. said: If it is ID it can’t be taught in school …

I’d like to run this through an online translator so I can read it. Can you tell me what language it was written in?

Oh good, it’s not just me.

1968, in Epperson v Arkansas .. The 1st amendment to the US constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principals or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine. Does that help put any pieces together for translation. It is they that think ID violates the US constitution because it represents religious belief. Unless Stephen Meyer has got his biology wrong I can’t see where religion comes into it, God the Intelligent Designer yes but religion I can’t see it myself. The cell does religiously go through the precise motions of construction, perhaps that is what they are referring to, but I can’t see how that is something that should prevent evolution together with creation being studied and evaluated to there extremes, if inclination and time permits.

M.W. said: Does that help put any pieces together for translation.

Yep: “Intelligent Design isn’t really stealth creationism.” Well, why didn’t you just say so?

M.W. said:

John Kwok said:

Think it was Klingon translated into Russian translated into Mandarin Chinese and then, somehow, by some strange quirk of fate, American English:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

mrg said:

M.W. said: If it is ID it can’t be taught in school …

I’d like to run this through an online translator so I can read it. Can you tell me what language it was written in?

Oh good, it’s not just me.

1968, in Epperson v Arkansas .. The 1st amendment to the US constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principals or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine. Does that help put any pieces together for translation. It is they that think ID violates the US constitution because it represents religious belief. Unless Stephen Meyer has got his biology wrong I can’t see where religion comes into it, God the Intelligent Designer yes but religion I can’t see it myself. The cell does religiously go through the precise motions of construction, perhaps that is what they are referring to, but I can’t see how that is something that should prevent evolution together with creation being studied and evaluated to there extremes, if inclination and time permits.

Do remember that Intelligent Design is not science, period. It is a deliberate appeal to ignorance. Ergo, why should one teach a pseudoscience, like Intelligent Design, in a science classroom?

Furthermore, the motive behind Intelligent Design is purely religious in nature. Hence we have the Wedge Document and Philip Johnson stating how the goal of the Intelligent Design community is to Jesus-ify American/Western Culture and Society, starting with the Scientific Community, and how Philip Johnson, Bill Dembski, Michael Behe and everyone else in the Discovery Institute boasting to their Christian financiers about how Intelligent Design will Jesus-ify science and education.

mrg said:

M.W. said: Does that help put any pieces together for translation.

Yep: “Intelligent Design isn’t really stealth creationism.” Well, why didn’t you just say so?

What about all of the evidence that does show how Intelligent Design really is Stealth Creationism?

Like, for example, all of Bill Dembski’s boasting about it being Stealth Creationism?

I believe, Stanton, that you do realize that I know such a statement is Jedi Mind Tricks … but do watch where you point that thing.

Think you need to read carefuly again Judge Jones’s well-reasoned, and most eloquent, ruling:

M.W. said:

John Kwok said:

Think it was Klingon translated into Russian translated into Mandarin Chinese and then, somehow, by some strange quirk of fate, American English:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

mrg said:

M.W. said: If it is ID it can’t be taught in school …

I’d like to run this through an online translator so I can read it. Can you tell me what language it was written in?

Oh good, it’s not just me.

1968, in Epperson v Arkansas .. The 1st amendment to the US constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principals or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine. Does that help put any pieces together for translation. It is they that think ID violates the US constitution because it represents religious belief. Unless Stephen Meyer has got his biology wrong I can’t see where religion comes into it, God the Intelligent Designer yes but religion I can’t see it myself. The cell does religiously go through the precise motions of construction, perhaps that is what they are referring to, but I can’t see how that is something that should prevent evolution together with creation being studied and evaluated to there extremes, if inclination and time permits.

Intelligent Design can be viewed as creationism hidden behind a Romulan cloaking device. In plain English, it is “stealth creationism”.

Oh yeh Stanton and Mr Kwok what part of it pulled the wool over your eye’s then.

M.W. said:

Oh yeh Stanton and Mr Kwok what part of it pulled the wool over your eye’s then.

I believe I can answer for both gentleman: it didn’t.

I prefer to think of it as a Trojan Horse rather than a cloaking device. Anybody paying attention knows that the big ol’ wooden horse is probably a booby trap, and ignoring the obvious warning signs can be hazardous.

You, however, seem perfectly willing to teach ignorance and superstition…so long as it’s your ignorance and superstition.

Ought we teach astrology in astronomy courses? Why or why not?

The MadPanda, FCD

Ichthyic said:

If it is ID it can’t be taught in school as science, if is not ID then it is evolution and can be taught in school as science, if it is not evolution it can’t be taught in school, then it is creation, that can’t be taught in school, …

Now why did that scene with Kirk confusing the M5 computer come back to me all of a sudden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDMRzZpQ8q0

Quite .… set a course for the second star to the right and on till morning ******* Happy Christmas all.

M.W. said: Unless Stephen Meyer has got his biology wrong I can’t see where religion comes into it, God the Intelligent Designer yes but religion I can’t see it myself.

OK, try this.

Make the factual case for ID without invoking God.

There is a certain amount of absolutely objective information about life on Earth. We know a lot about how DNA works. We know that if you did in the dirt you find very weird, very old things. If you dig in the dirt in certain parts of Africa, you find very old quasi-human, quasi chimp things. We know that, as you read this, you are sitting on a structure that has all the appearance of a vestigial tail.

Lay out the ID explanation for all this.

Don’t bash evolution, just pretend that Darwin never existed.

Tell me, specifically, how ID correlates with, explains, and predicts the patterns we see in the world, and do it without invoking God, or any mysteriously un-named entity with mortal, but merely god-adjacent, powers.

Unless Stephen Meyer has got his biology wrong I can’t see where religion comes into it, God the Intelligent Designer yes but religion I can’t see it myself.

I always chuckle at this sort of comment. To the Believer, his god is not religion, or anything to do with religion. He’s just god, no more religious than cottage cheese, and just as real.

But as Sarker wrote, any gods are intrinsically, inherently, unavoidably religion. They aren’t and can’t be anything else, not even a little bit. And if you remove any gods (or pseudonyms like “intelligent designer”) from Intelligent Design, there is nothing left. ID is all religion, pure religion, exclusively religion.

So once again, we revisit Behe sputtering on the stand that there can’t be and needn’t be any “scientific test” for design, because design is simply a property of whatever Behe sees design in. You just LOOK at it, that’s the test. Provided, of course, that the wrong (or lack of) faith hasn’t blinded you to what’s self-evident only to Behe’s particular religious cult. But religion? Oh no, it’s science.

If their goal is to re-Christianize America, starting with defeating science, then isn’t the behavior of the DI at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial embarrassingly reminiscent of some of the behavior of the apostles?

Where were you when they crucified our school board, William?

Im not going to say what everyone else has already said, but I do want to comment on your knowledge of the topic. Youre truly well-informed. I cant believe how much of this I just wasnt aware of. Thank you for bringing more information to this topic for me.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on December 20, 2010 1:33 PM.

Sciurus carolinensis was the previous entry in this blog.

The immune system cross-examination still burns 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 4.361

Site Meter