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.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Darwinist Richard Dawkins' speech at Kansas Univ.

A Lawrence Journal-World news report on Richard Dawkins' recent speech at KU said,

“I know you here are in the front-line trench against powerful forces of darkness,” Dawkins told a more-than-full audience at Kansas University’s Lied Center Monday night. “I salute the science teachers of Kansas. Fight the good fight.”

The good fight, Dawkins said, was one in favor of the science of evolution rather than the “rotten logic” of intelligent design and creationism, he said.

Wow -- "powerful forces of darkness." And the Darwinists condemn the fundies for pushing those Darwin-to-Hitler theories!

And "rotten logic" of intelligent design and creationism? There is "good" logic and "bad" logic, that sort of thing, but "rotten" logic? Dawkins is really getting desperate.

BTW, the LJW report falsely identifies Dawkins as a physicist -- he is an evolutionary biologist.

“I.D. is granted immunity from the rigorous standards of science,” he said.

Wrong. ID, unlike Darwinism, makes no claims beyond what can be demonstrated by science.

Those gaps in theories are what scientists fill with research, with their lives’ work. It’s also what creationists and intelligent design proponents fill with a divine being.

“If you don’t understand something, forget it,” Dawkins said. “Just say God did it. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away.”

ID and other scientific criticisms of evolution theory actually spur scientific research by forcing scientists to confront weaknesses in the theory. For example, research to determine possible evolutionary pathways for irreducibly complex systems is really ID research or ID-inspired research. Suppression of scientific criticism of evolution theory is anti-science and anti-intellectual.

The Red State Rabble reported,

Early on in his talk, Dawkins cited British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle as saying that the probability of producing life from evolutionary processes was about same as finding that a fully operational Boeing 747 jumbo jet had been assembled by a tornado passing through a junkyard.

Turning that argument back on itself, Dawkins observed that any designer must be at least as complex as the objects designed.

"God," Dawkins said to loud applause, "is the ultimate 747."

An atheist saying, "god is the ultimate 747"? That is strange.

One blogger reported that infamous KU Prof. Paul Mirecki was in attendance. Mirecki wrote on a semi-public Internet forum that his new course describing ID and creationism as "mythologies" would be a "nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies." Mirecki's misadventures are described in several articles in the "Evolution in Kansas" series of Lawrence Journal-World.

Dawkins' speech at KU is also discussed here, here, and here.

Labels:

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

< An atheist saying, "god is the ultimate 747"? That is strange. >

You missed the point. Obviously. (What else is new?)

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Wrong. ID, unlike Darwinism, makes no claims beyond what can be demonstrated by science. <

Wrong. ID makes no claims that can be demonstrated by science.

> ID and other scientific criticisms of evolution <

Wrong. ID is not scientific.

You have never even attempted to support ID except by making unsupported claims. If you have any scientific support for ID, why are you keeping it to yourself?

Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> that infamous KU Prof. Paul Mirecki <

Why would you call him "infamous". Is it just that you disagree with him?

> describing ID and creationism as "mythologies" <

As they are.

Thursday, October 19, 2006 8:19:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

La la la la la. I can't hear you. I will cover my eyes and you will disappear.

Thursday, October 19, 2006 8:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can picture Golum sitting in his cave and Googling "creationism" and "Intelligent Design" in an effort to add more trash to his blog and distract us from the fact that he answers nothing.

Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry fafarman said: La la la la la. I can't hear you. I will cover my eyes and you will disappear.
If this just your reiteration of the standard fundamentalist way of dealing with science, we've heard it before. If you're trying to be ingratiating by poking fun at our conception of fundie thinking, er, okay, ha ha. But where's the science?

Show us a testable theory that ID has come up with. I don't know of a single one. Cheers, zilch

Friday, October 20, 2006 7:19:00 AM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

< Larry fafarman said: ... >

Um, Anonymous, the Larry quote here was an impersonation. It may or may not be an accurate picture, but it is not in itself evidence of anything.

Friday, October 20, 2006 12:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> Um, Anonymous, the Larry quote here was an impersonation. <

Why should we believe that? According to the Imbecile in Chief, you are an impersonation.

Friday, October 20, 2006 4:37:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

> Why should we believe that? According to the Imbecile in Chief, you are an impersonation. <

Who impersonating whom (and for what purpose)?

I think the IIC considers me to be an imaginary creature, kind of like a griffin. (Implications of new fossil discovery for ID/evolution controversy at 11.)

Friday, October 20, 2006 5:11:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home