This Month in Intelligent Design - June 2011

| 12 Comments

Intelligent design news and discussion for the month of June, 2011.

I thought it would be best to wait until a month had passed to start doing TWiID again, mainly because:

  1. I think whole anthropochronological divisions are beautiful, in a rather frivolous way, and
  2. Not many overtly, over-the-top exciting ID things happened in June that warranted immediate attention by my loosely serious writings.

As such, this will be a slight departure from the usual TWiID style you might be used to. Instead of going into detail on only three or four pieces put out by the intelligent design movement, I’ll briefly to semi-briefly touch on a large number of them: in essence, all the vaguely interesting ones. But don’t worry, the regular weekly schedule will be back from next week.

So, on with the show!

12 Comments

My favorite quote:

“It is not logical to have both sides of an argument represented? It is a part of the scientific process to test a hypothesis, but if you only test the one variable, how are our future generations going to know the validity of the other side?”

Spoken like a true fourteen year old.

Do both of those sides have arguments that haven’t already been refuted?

Is the proposed representation in a place that has space for arguments that haven’t been settled yet, or is it intended primarily for basics that have already been settled?

DS said:

My favorite quote:

“It is not logical to have both sides of an argument represented? It is a part of the scientific process to test a hypothesis, but if you only test the one variable, how are our future generations going to know the validity of the other side?”

Spoken like a true fourteen year old.

A classic case of “thinking too hard”. Instead of over-analyzing rhetorical nothingness, I would suggest getting out there and doing something about it. Like for example going to church and learning some more biology stuff and then have people give you donations, and then you can build your own church and give others biology lessons too.

Jack,

I disagree that PZ’s “tone” was inappropriate for John M’s question(s). I think PZ was entirely correct in calling him out and ridiculing him in public.

Consider that: PZ already knew what the questions were going to be. (He posted a link to them on his blog before the conference.) John M. Knew what the questions were going to be, obviously. This vague muddle of questions was engineered (designed?) to confuse or stump PZ and, thereby, embarrass him in public. Jonathan M. knew this was his intention beforehand. John M. knew this as did PZ. When it actually came to the scene in the pub John M. muddled the question(s) even further by spewing out a “Gish gallop” of drivel (a typical creationist tactic that PZ recognized.) PZ asks him why he isn’t “… a little bit ashamed of being responsible for this bullshit?” John M. says, “No!” PZ asks, more specifically, “… so you have no sense of shame that you concocted this series of questions that are built on ignorance?” John M. replies, “Ah No!, because I don’t think it is.”

Now try and imagine asking a series of inept questions intended the way John M. did of one of your professors that you knew, or should have known, were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject of the course subject. Perhaps “misunderstanding” is the wrong word. More like “intentional misrepresentation.”

I know that it is probably hard to imagine, but try anyhow.

How do you think your professor would or should respond? What sort of response do you think such a question would deserve?

About PZ’s tone. It was likely harsh on some newbie, but when was the last time anyone encountered an informed, competent and honest ID proponent? Who are the likely candidates for such a distinction. I have never encountered one. All of them either don’t know what they are talking about, can’t understand the issues, or are like Luskin and have decided that lying is the best policy. When did all the IDiots decide to go along with the bogus bait and switch scam that went down on all of them when the guys that sold them the ID claptrap decided to run the bait and switch on their own creationist support base instead of putting forward the wonderful ID science to teach. Where is the ID in the “Teach the Controversy” Switch scam? It seems like some secret that no IDiot is willing to discuss. Heck the bait and switch has gone down on every rube that has popped up and wanted to teach the science of intelligent design for over 9 years. The Ohio bait and switch occurred a couple years before the ID perps lost in court, so they don’t even have that excuse for running the bogus scam on their own supporters. They did not run the bait and switch on the science side. They ran it on their own creationist support base.

Where are the IDiots that know where they came up short and are talking about ways to fix that instead of just carry on as if ID didn’t turn into a bogus scam? Really, who got the promised ID science to teach in the public schools? Why support the ID perps that lied to their own creationist supporters and have tried to weasel out of the scam they ran by putting the blame on the creationist rubes with claims like “We never wanted the ID science mandated.” They admit that they targeted legislators and school boards so what did they expect the creationist rubes to do? What does it mean to the IDiots when all they have gotten out of the guys that lied to them about ID is a switch scam that doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed? The ID perps don’t deny that they sold the rubes the ID claptrap, they only make excuses for never putting the nonexistent ID science forward when it is time to put up or shut up.

What kind of IDiots are left supporting the dishonest scam artists?

If anyone knows of an honest and competent IDiot point them out. I’d like to see what such an person would write on this subject.

Ron Okimoto said:

What kind of IDiots are left supporting the dishonest scam artists?

If anyone knows of an honest and competent IDiot point them out. I’d like to see what such an person would write on this subject.

I certainly don’t fault PZ for any scathing response he gives to an ID/creationist. I’ve been watching these characters for over 40 years and I have never ever encountered an honest one. They are always scheming, playing games, trying to lay traps, and trying to take over other people’s venues.

They poke, they provoke, and they skulk around behind the scenes attempting to subvert the law and public policies on education. They are constantly aware of anyone who has expertise in science who is giving a public talk. And any time there is a public discussion that relates to science, society, and various religious beliefs, you know damned well there will be ID/creationist rubes and perps there loaded up with “gotcha” questions they just have to get in. They line up at the microphones attempting to dominate the discussion sessions after the talk.

I hope that most people in the science community have learned never to give an ID/creationist a ride on their coattails. I think these ID/creationist idiots need to be thoroughly exposed and taken down hard, without mercy or emotion; nearly a half century of their tactics has earned them that treatment. They should not be given a chance to respond, weasel, and Gish Gallop, EVER. And this can be done while being polite and respectful to the general public.

And if anyone who has had hundreds of encounters with ID/creationists gets a bit testy with any of them, I think I can totally understand and sympathize.

DS said:

My favorite quote:

“It is not logical to have both sides of an argument represented? It is a part of the scientific process to test a hypothesis, but if you only test the one variable, how are our future generations going to know the validity of the other side?”

Spoken like a true fourteen year old.

Spoken like a true fourteen year old.

Mike Elzinga said: I certainly don’t fault PZ for any scathing response he gives to an ID/creationist.

Neither do I.

PZ is an honest Atheist/Darwinist: evolution is against God (Creationism-ID) to a fanatical degree. “Christian” Evolutionists are buffoons.

Ray Martinez the delusional psychotic Xian mendicant shrieked:

Mike Elzinga said: I certainly don’t fault PZ for any scathing response he gives to an ID/creationist.

Neither do I.

PZ is an honest Atheist/Darwinist: evolution is against God (Creationism-ID) to a fanatical degree. “Christian” Evolutionists are buffoons.

I wouldn’t refer to the likes of Theodosius Dobzhansky (one of the architects of the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution), Francis Collins (Director, NIH), Ken Miller (this year’s recipient of the Society for the Study of Evolution’s Stephen Jay Gould Prize) and Simon Conway Morris (a leading expert on the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale fauna) as “buffoons”. The only ones I see are the likes of you and your fellow mendacious creotards and certain New Atheist fanatics who shall remain nameless.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

My favorite quote:

“It is not logical to have both sides of an argument represented? It is a part of the scientific process to test a hypothesis, but if you only test the one variable, how are our future generations going to know the validity of the other side?”

Spoken like a true fourteen year old.

Spoken like a true fourteen year old.

More like a mentally challenged fourteen year old of which you, my demented decomposed arse licker are a most “noteworthy” example.

Mike Elzinga said:

Ron Okimoto said:

What kind of IDiots are left supporting the dishonest scam artists?

If anyone knows of an honest and competent IDiot point them out. I’d like to see what such an person would write on this subject.

I certainly don’t fault PZ for any scathing response he gives to an ID/creationist. I’ve been watching these characters for over 40 years and I have never ever encountered an honest one. They are always scheming, playing games, trying to lay traps, and trying to take over other people’s venues.

They poke, they provoke, and they skulk around behind the scenes attempting to subvert the law and public policies on education. They are constantly aware of anyone who has expertise in science who is giving a public talk. And any time there is a public discussion that relates to science, society, and various religious beliefs, you know damned well there will be ID/creationist rubes and perps there loaded up with “gotcha” questions they just have to get in. They line up at the microphones attempting to dominate the discussion sessions after the talk.

I hope that most people in the science community have learned never to give an ID/creationist a ride on their coattails. I think these ID/creationist idiots need to be thoroughly exposed and taken down hard, without mercy or emotion; nearly a half century of their tactics has earned them that treatment. They should not be given a chance to respond, weasel, and Gish Gallop, EVER. And this can be done while being polite and respectful to the general public.

And if anyone who has had hundreds of encounters with ID/creationists gets a bit testy with any of them, I think I can totally understand and sympathize.

I don’t blame PZ for his tone, however, had it been someone else like Ken Miller or Genie Scott, then it might have been handled differently, in a more diplomatic manner, but still one that would have resulted in a strong rebuke of John M.. Sounds as though John M. was seeking a deliberate provocation, and the creation of yet another “incident” to show how a militant atheist like Myers treats Xian creobots like John M.

John said:

Ray Martinez the delusional psychotic Xian mendicant shrieked:

Mike Elzinga said: I certainly don’t fault PZ for any scathing response he gives to an ID/creationist.

Neither do I.

PZ is an honest Atheist/Darwinist: evolution is against God (Creationism-ID) to a fanatical degree. “Christian” Evolutionists are buffoons.

I wouldn’t refer to the likes of Theodosius Dobzhansky (one of the architects of the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution), Francis Collins (Director, NIH), Ken Miller (this year’s recipient of the Society for the Study of Evolution’s Stephen Jay Gould Prize) and Simon Conway Morris (a leading expert on the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale fauna) as “buffoons”. The only ones I see are the likes of you and your fellow mendacious creotards and certain New Atheist fanatics who shall remain nameless.

Sorry, if evolution supported Bible or Christianity Atheists would not support evolution. Since all Atheists support evolution fanatically, Christian Evolutionists are buffoons.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Scanlan published on July 5, 2011 8:23 AM.

Haliaeetus leucocephalus was the previous entry in this blog.

Carnival of Evolution 37 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 4.37

Site Meter