I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Kenneth Miller the hypocrite

Kenneth Miller, who was an expert witness for the plaintiffs in both the Kitzmiller v. Dover and the Selman v. Cobb County (evolution-disclaimer textbook sticker) cases, doesn't really care about the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state, because his own belief in Darwinism is based on religion. If Darwinism were purely scientific, Miller would not have to invoke his belief in god to support it -- no scientist would write a book with a title like "Finding Copernicus's God -- A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Heliocentrism" (a spoof on the title of one of Miller's books, with "Darwin" replaced by "Copernicus" and "Evolution" by "Heliocentrism"). Heliocentrism, just like evolution theory, is contrary to the bible; the bible says that the earth was created first and that the heavenly bodies were created afterward, implying that the earth is supposed to be the center of the universe. Miller just wants the courts to abuse the church-state separation principle to suppress scientific ideas that he disagrees with. The following review of the Discovery Institute's new book "Traipsing into Evolution" exposes the truth about this hypocrite (the reviewer says that the Dover decision is "one of the most irresponsible I have ever read") --

"Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller V. Dover Decision" is a response to Judge Jone's decision. Having read most of the trial transcript, I must conclude that this book is on target. My only complaint is the book is far too brief; many more problems exist with the decision that could have been included. It is very clear in his opinion that the Judge does not like Darwinism Skeptics as people. The judge in his decision largely accepted everything the ACLU said as true, and most everything the other side said as false (or he ignored it). This decision is one of the most irresponsible I have ever read (and I have read many court decisions). The Judge used numerous labels that he never clearly defined, or defined accordingly to his narrow purpose. An example is "creationist" and "evolutionist," and then concluded the creationists were the bad guys and evolutionists were the good guys. Reality is far more complex. For example, Dr Michael Behe, who the judge labeled a "creationist" testified that he was an evolutionist (he accepted common ancestry). It was the existence of the cell that Behe concluded Darwinism has difficulty explaining. Behe believes life beyond the cell could have evolved by mutations and natural selection. Conversely, Kenneth Miller testified that he was a creationist "in the ordinary meaning of the word" yet the judge labeled him an evolutionist. The difference between these scientists (both Roman Catholics and both labeled creationists) is in the degree of creating they have concluded that naturalism can achieve. It is obviously difficult to draw a clear line between the two theistic evolutionists, Behe and Miller, yet the judge did just that. This is important because the judge ruled that ideas given the creationist label cannot be taught in the public schools, and those given the evolutionist label can. The fact is, Kenneth Miller's ideas are clearly creationist as he explained in detail in the second half of his book "Finding Darwin's God." The judge thus ruled that Miller's theistic evolution creationism can be taught in the schools but Behe's theistic evolutionism creationism cannot. The court, contrary to the constitution, has ruled which religious ideas are orthodox, and thus OK to teach, and which religious ideas are forbidden. It is exactly because of rulings such as this why separation of church and state is a very good idea. Now we have state sectioned religion!
-- review written by "The Professor." From
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0963865498/104-7079811-9172749

Labels:

19 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry, it ain't our problem if you ain't bright enough to understand why the reconciliation of faith and science doesn't mean that science is religion.

Saturday, April 29, 2006 4:00:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said ( 4/29/2006 04:00:52 PM ) --

>>>>Larry, it ain't our problem if you ain't bright enough to understand why the reconciliation of faith and science doesn't mean that science is religion.<<<<

What is your problem is that you are not bright enough to understand the points that I made in my opening post.

And what do you mean by "our" ? You remind me of the story about the Lone Ranger and Tonto being surrounded by Indians and the Lone Ranger saying, "it looks like we are in big trouble," and Tonto answering, "what do you mean, 'we,' paleface?" Remember, you are not on Panda's Thumb anymore -- you are on the reservation.

Why doesn't heliocentrism need to be "reconciled" with faith? The bible says that the earth was created first, and then the heavenly bodies -- including the sun -- were created, so the bible implies that the earth is the center of the universe, right ? The Catholic church persecuted Galileo for espousing heliocentrism. The reason why heliocentrism does not have to be reconciled with faith is that heliocentrism is real science, whereas Darwinism is not.

And if evolution theory has religious implications, as Miller admits, then why doesn't teaching evolution in the public schools also violate the establishment clause? Indeed, some of the critics of teaching evolution in the public schools have raised this very argument.

And I am astonished that a theistic evolutionist -- i.e., Kenneth Miller -- was chosen as an expert witness by plaintiffs claiming that teaching public-school students to question evolution theory violates the establishment clause. This happened in both the Dover and the Cobb County lawsuits.

Kenneth Miller not only opposed ID in Dover, but in the Cobb County textbook stickers case he opposed all questioning of evolution theory. Miller's attitude is that "it's my way or the highway."

And Anonymous, when are you going to get a "real" name, even if it is just a pseudonym ? How is posting under "Anonymous" any better than posting under multiple names? For all I know, different people could be posting under "Anonymous," so if you are just one person, you might as well be using multiple names.

Saturday, April 29, 2006 7:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Catholic church persecuted Galileo for espousing heliocentrism. The reason why heliocentrism does not have to be reconciled with faith is that heliocentrism is real science, whereas Darwinism is not."

Sunday, April 30, 2006 8:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Meant to say that you're well on the way to becoming the second most funny ID crank on the internet.

Second only to Davison.

Oh my, you are such a silly boy.

When do we get to hear your holocaust denial rap, boy? We're waiting ...

Sunday, April 30, 2006 8:38:00 AM  
Anonymous VoiceInWilderness said...

It doesn't appear that the problem is others not understanding the points that you thought you made. The problem is that you didn't make them to begin with. You never answered the issue raised by anonymous. There is no connection between a claim that science and religion can be the reconciled and your absurd assertion that this makes science a religion.

Sunday, April 30, 2006 11:54:00 AM  
Blogger JohnADavison said...

The reason the Roman Church put Galileo under house arrest is because he refused to present heliocentrism as an unproved alternative to the Ptolemaic geocentric alternative and for no other reason. It was Galileo's fault alone. He is lucky they didn't fry him. He also treated Kepler shabbily. Nobody is perfect. That includes Spravid Dinger that is for damn sure!

I love it so!

Sunday, April 30, 2006 6:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, no, John, not exactly:

"In 1633 Galileo was formally interrogated for 18 days and on April 30 Galileo confesses that he may have made the Copernican case in the Dialogue too strong and offers to refute it in his next book. Unmoved, the Pope decides that Galileo should be imprisoned indefinitely. Soon after, with a formal threat of torture, Galileo is examined by the Inquisition and sentenced to prison and religious penances, the sentence is signed by 6 of the 10 inquisitors. In a formal ceremony at a the church of Santa Maria Sofia Minerva, Galileo abjures his errors. He is then put in house arrest in Sienna. After these tribulations he begins writing his Discourse on Two New Sciences."

Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:06:00 PM  
Blogger BWE said...

no scientist would write a book with a title like "Finding Copernicus's God -- A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Heliocentrism" At the time of Copernicus? Have you read any history? Why do ID theologians want to be like Galileo?

The judge in his decision largely accepted everything the ACLU said as true, and most everything the other side said as false (or he ignored it).
That's because the ACLU presented sane people with good ideas as opposed to the other side. What is the point of posting this PR bit? It is wrong and absolutely boilerplate PR. I could have predicted this response without knowing anything about the case by simply sayiong that the loser wasn't given a fair trial. yada yada. It's exactly the sameas any loser writes

For example, Dr Michael Behe, who the judge labeled a "creationist" testified that he was an evolutionist (he accepted common ancestry). It was the existence of the cell that Behe concluded Darwinism has difficulty explaining.

And you Larry, do you accept common ancestry? What exactly are you defending here? The DI's position or your position? What is your position? That life evolved or that life didn't evolve?

Do you know what god wants Larry? Would you tell me? Not that it would influence me but I am curious.

And, in answer to your comment above, If my religion tells that 2+2=3, should they avoid math in school or say that, even though I certainly have a right to my religion. it has some factual problems and so we will ignore those while we teach what evidence does seem to support rather than what is exactly contrary to what the evidence seems to suport.

You know, if you were to start from the assumption that god is either nonexistent or irrelevant, I don't think you could support ID. You would say, hhmmm. What does it look like might have happenned here? Oh, of course, RM+NS=Speciation. But how (you might then ask) did the first RNA or even DNA form? Ahhh! and you would go about devising ways to find out. But since you are stuck on your provincial, barely superhuman god, you can't even manage to see what is out there. Read Mr. JAD's papers. Learn what Behe is saying. Not the god part, the science part. Your god has ever smaller gaps in which to live. Eventually, thing change till he was a she she said hey babe, take a walk on the wild side. C'mon sugar, take a walk on the wild side. ANd the colored girls go do do do do do do do...

Sunday, April 30, 2006 11:20:00 PM  
Anonymous VoiceInWilderness said...

BWE said...

> I could have predicted this response without knowing anything about the case by simply sayiong that the loser wasn't given a fair trial. yada yada. It's exactly the sameas any loser writes <

Larry has an unbroken record of having his frivolous lawsuits thrown (or laughed) out of court. He has great empathy for losers, being one himself.

Monday, May 01, 2006 4:07:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

BWE said ( Sunday, April 30, 2006 11:20:36 PM ) --

>>>>no scientist would write a book with a title like "Finding Copernicus's God -- A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Heliocentrism"
At the time of Copernicus? Have you read any history? Why do ID theologians want to be like Galileo?<<<<<<

I am not talking about the time of Copernicus -- I am talking about now. If Miller's sole reason for writing the book "Finding Darwin's God" was to reconcile science with religion, then he might as well have written a book titled "Finding Copernicus's God," because heliocentrism, like Darwinism, is contrary to the bible. He wrote the book about Darwin's god because he thinks that Darwinism is so questionable that it needs religion to support it.

>>>>(from book review) "The judge in his decision largely accepted everything the ACLU said as true, and most everything the other side said as false (or he ignored it)."
That's because the ACLU presented sane people with good ideas as opposed to the other side. <<<<

The scientific claims of the defense's expert witnesses were actually quite modest compared to those of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses. The defense expert witnesses did not make such outlandish claims as the notion that jawbones evolved into middle-ear bones.

>>>>What exactly are you defending here?<<<<

First and foremost, I am defending the idea of open scientific inquiry.

>>>>And, in answer to your comment above, If my religion tells that 2+2=3, should they avoid math in school or say that, even though I certainly have a right to my religion.<<<<

Well, why don't you start arguing "teach the controversy" in support of teaching your belief that 2+2=3 ?

>>>>You know, if you were to start from the assumption that god is either nonexistent or irrelevant, I don't think you could support ID.<<<<

ID does not -- or is not supposed to -- speculate about a supernatural "designer." I think that the name "intelligent design" is unfortunate because it implies the existence of a supernatural designer. I feel that they should have just stuck with names like "irreducible complexity." Anyway, I have already made all of this stuff clear in my previous writings on this blog.

And as I pointed out, it is grotesque that the plaintiffs in establishment-clause lawsuits -- Dover and Cobb County --- would choose an expert witness who is motivated by religion, Kenneth Miller.

Some people have actually gone beyond just trying to reconcile Darwinism and religion and are actually using religious and theological arguments to support Darwinism. Some people are actually arguing that questioning Darwinism is somehow sacrilegious or blasphemous. Father George Coyne, the Vatican's chief astronomer, has said that ID "belittiles god," and over 10,000 members of the clergy signed a letter that contains the following statement --

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris." From http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm

Monday, May 01, 2006 7:40:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VoiceInWilderness said --

>>>>Larry has an unbroken record of having his frivolous lawsuits thrown (or laughed) out of court.<<<<<

You know nothing about my lawsuits, and you are like an attorney who claims in court that he does not have to answer opposing arguments because the opposing attorney does not have a good record of winning cases. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Monday, May 01, 2006 7:44:00 AM  
Anonymous VoiceInWilderness said...

>You know nothing about my lawsuits<

You mean your lawsuits against the State of California filed in Los Angeles that you went to great lengths to publicize? Why are you so shy about them now? You have already admitted on this blog that they were all thrown out. You use the usual losers excuse that the judge was against you.

Let's clear the air here. Have you ever won a lawsuit in your life? Have you ever succeeded at anything in your life? Are you currently living off of welfare or are relatives supporting you. You obviously are unemployed.

Monday, May 01, 2006 8:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Space alien, time traveler, or gawd, which is it? Who is the intelligent designer, damn it!

Inquiring minds want to know!

Monday, May 01, 2006 9:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The defense expert witnesses did not make such outlandish claims as the notion that jawbones evolved into middle-ear bones."

Comments like this just crack me up ...

Monday, May 01, 2006 10:22:00 AM  
Blogger JohnADavison said...

anonymous

The two articulations of the reptilian jaw DID transform into two of the three ossicles of the mammalian middle ear. If you knew anything about comparative vertebrate anatomy you would know that. Are you Spravid Dinger by any chance?

I love it so!

Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JAD: "The two articulations of the reptilian jaw DID transform into two of the three ossicles of the mammalian middle ear. If you knew anything about comparative vertebrate anatomy you would know that."

Ummm, look up the word "sarcasm" when you have the time, OK?

Larry's comment cracks me up because it is makes clear his FUCKING IGNORANCE. I was laughing at HIS COMMENT, not the plaintiff (not defense) witness's testimony (which was, of course, accurate).

Thursday, May 04, 2006 7:54:00 AM  
Blogger JohnADavison said...

Anonymous

When a self-identified anonymous coward posts something how the hell am I supposed to know if he knows what he is talking about? If you were a half way decent human being you wouldn't be cowering behind your shabby false idenity. Lightweights like you make me sick. The internet is crawling with the likes of you, useless as tits on a boar. Ten to one you are a Darwimp.

I love it so!

Friday, May 05, 2006 7:12:00 AM  
Blogger BWE said...

Larry said,
He wrote the book about Darwin's god because he thinks that Darwinism is so questionable that it needs religion to support it. Have you read the book? I just finished it. hmmmm. Larry, I am starting to think you might not be a potential MENSA member like I used to think. -Don't worry, I know you wouldn't join such an obviously liberal ("We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
----- Ray Mummert, creationist from Dover, Pennsylvania, 2005) group.

Mr. Davison said,
The internet is crawling with the likes of you, useless as tits on a boar. Ten to one you are a Darwimp. In fact, tits on a boar are irriducably complex. And they have been ever since evolution stopped happening and we entered the "best of all possible worlds" where history has come to an end.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>When a self-identified anonymous coward posts something how the hell am I supposed to know if he knows what he is talking about? <<<

Ya got me. This surely must be one of life's great mysteries. Be sure to let someone know when you've figure it out.

Thursday, May 18, 2006 1:35:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home