More Judge Jones bashing
In an article in the WorldNetDaily website, Roddy Bullock said,
There is a lot more good stuff in the article.
Now Judge Jones is going to respond by shouting, "judicial independence, judicial independence . . . ."
Never before in American history have so many given so much weight to the opinion of a single judge.
I previously quoted Roddy Bullock on this blog.
Overreacting to teachers informing students of a library book on intelligent design, Jones not only found an egregious establishment of religion, he indignantly made it a violation of the Constitution to require so much as critical analysis of evolution in the science classroom. Let freedom ring.
Yes, what you thought was science is now constitutionally protected dogma in William Penn's back woods, federally sheltered as untouchable and immune from criticism. In delivering his opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Jones became a hero to beleaguered Darwinists who, unable to hold off scientific criticism much longer, gladly traded freedom's ring for a protective ring of federal marshals. Turning the bench into a pulpit and the Constitution into a papal decree, Jones preached:To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment … we will enter an order permanently enjoining [the school board] from . . . requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution. . . .
. . . . Jones' salutary effectiveness, technically binding only in his little Vatican, chilled freedom nationwide. Now any talk of "critical analysis of evolution" is heard as "disparaging revealed dogma," with theophobic evolutionists alleging religious motives behind every attempt to educate rather than indoctrinate.
There is a lot more good stuff in the article.
Now Judge Jones is going to respond by shouting, "judicial independence, judicial independence . . . ."
Never before in American history have so many given so much weight to the opinion of a single judge.
I previously quoted Roddy Bullock on this blog.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/09/2008 07:59:00 AM
35 Comments:
Maybe you should try writing for the worldnutdaily. You'd fit right in with your lunatic rantings and ravings and amazing but incomprehensible abuses and twists of logic.
I can only gather that Mr. Bullock feels the same way about Judge Jones as you. You don't like him, so nothing he ever does will be right in your eyes. Fine. It would be pointless for me to try to change your mind. And I won’t. Try to, that is.
But it would have been nice, or even, say honest if Mr. Bullock could have described the situation surrounding the case the Judge was ruling on as a little more serious than he makes it out to be.
Bullock writes: "Overreacting to teachers informing students of a library book on intelligent design…".
The Dover case was NOT about a teacher wanting to say to students in class, "Oh, and by the way kids, if you want to read more about differing opinions on the subject of evolution, there's are several books in the library ..." (Mr. Bullock must be on the older side. Surely teachers tell kids to Google it).
But internet or no, there's a big difference in a teacher INFORMING students of other ideas and where they can go for materials, and what actually happened in the Dover case. Informing is neither teaching nor endorsing. Teachers are perfectly free to inform.
What the Judge actually ruled was correctly quoted in the article (with omissions), but not apparently correctly interpreted. Judge Jones wrote:
“To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.”
If we snip it together, relevant to Mr. Bullock’s point, what he said was (emphasis and paraphrasing mine):
-To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by First Amendment rights, we will enter an order to permanently stop, now and in the future, the Defendants [the Dover School Board] … from REQUIRING teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.
So his ruling had nothing to do with what individual teachers could and could not do, his ruling was that one specific School Board could not REQUIRE teachers to “denigrate or disparage” evolution. There is no prohibition here at all that a teacher cannot inform students of other alternative ideas or resources, or cannot suggest that other possibilities to evolution exist.
But really, if a student is to be able to evaluate the evidence for and against evolution, don’t they actually have to UNDERSTAND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION FIRST? Doesn’t a K-12 teacher have the responsibility to see that science students, who may want to one day have scientific careers, get the foundation education they will need to be able to argue intelligently for their positions, which may later differ from evolutionary biologists?
You can slog through the whole case and Judge Jones’ findings here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
On further posts I will try to add links to places where you can find the specific relevant source info I am referencing.
Wasn't it Lord Acton who said that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?" Judges have too much power in this country, and the result is biased, incompetent judges like Jones, who was driven, it appears to me, by extreme pro-Darwinist zealotry and by an ego-charged urge for publicity and fame.
Jones is so incompetent that he told a newpaper that he had seen Inherit the Wind, the grotesquely distorted pro-Darwinist propaganda movie about the Scopes trial, and was thinking of seeing it again before making his decision, for the "historical context" that it might provide! What sort of judge thinks that Hollywood movies are a source of reliable historical information that might be useful in any way whatsoever?
This goofy judge said that "he plans to watch the movie again, soon" (the weirdly distorted propaganda movie Inherit the Wind),in an interview in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct 16, 2005.
I didn't know that judges pranced around giving interviews to newspapers while trying a case! Does that happen?
The movie itself has been discredited by Edward Larson, a sociologist and historian who is an ardent believer in Darwinism (i.e., in conventional evolutionary doctrine.)
What the full quote from that article actually says:
'"It would help put things in historical context," he said. "I don't know if it would be helpful to the decision I have to make."'
(emphasis added by me)
In addition, the article utterly fails to indicate he was going to see it before his decision, it only says he plans to see it 'soon'.
So? "Soon" would imply to many that he wants to see it before the decision. And in the amplified quote he doesn't say that he shouldn't see it before the decision; he leaves open the possibility that seeing it before the decision might be helpful to the decision. The newpaper evidently didn't publish a clarification, since I can't find one in the newspaper index I check. So it appears that the judge, who thinks Hollywood movies might provide historical context, didn't request one. And what was he doing granting an interview, anyway, during the trial?
Jim wrote, "So? "Soon" would imply to many that he wants to see it before the decision. And in the amplified quote he doesn't say that he shouldn't see it before the decision; he leaves open the possibility that seeing it before the decision might be helpful to the decision."
But he states clearly that it may not be relevant at all. The note about him seeing it soon was not placed in quotes, meaning that it's a paraphrase.
I would guess that he's aware of the differences between the movie and the trial itself, though I have no idea if the trail was worthy of study from a legal point of view. It certainly doesn't take much work to find out the differences between the Hollywood version and the real version of other films -- see Hoosiers, Remember the Titans, and the TNT movie Passing Glory for examples from the sports world.
Besides, all cops, lawyers, and judges know that trails are very different from what we see in movies and on TV in shows like Law & Order, CSI, etc.
Also note the classic Jim Sherwood comment over two successive posts here.
The Anonymice are squeaking more and more desperately for Judge Jones, their buffoonish, publicity-hound "savior." And who can blame them?
Jim Sherwood said ( Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:15:00 PM ) --
>>>>>> Judges have too much power in this country, and the result is biased, incompetent judges like Jones, who was driven, it appears to me, by extreme pro-Darwinist zealotry and by an ego-charged urge for publicity and fame. <<<<<<<
Yes, Judge Jones "ego-charged urge for publicity and fame" is described in this post on this blog.
Judge Jones has been criss-crossing the country lecturing about the virtues of "judicial independence," but "judicial independence" is a two-edged sword.
Jim Sherwood said (Wednesday, July 09, 2008 6:20:00 PM) --
>>>>> So? "Soon" would imply to many that he wants to see it before the decision. And in the amplified quote he doesn't say that he shouldn't see it before the decision; he leaves open the possibility that seeing it before the decision might be helpful to the decision. <<<<<<<<
Rather than admit it when Judge Jones sticks his foot in his mouth, his fans are always denying the literal meaning of what he said. For example, he told a newspaper that the Dover school board election results would not affect his decision, but his fans interpret that as saying that he was going to follow the law. And though he clearly said in his Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions, his fans insist that he really meant something else. Here for the umpteenth time is what he said in the commencement speech:
. . . this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.
> his fans are always denying the literal meaning of what he said. <
No. We are taking the literal meaning of what he said at face value.
> For example, he told a newspaper that the Dover school board election results would not affect his decision, but his fans interpret that as saying that he was going to follow the law. <
...Which would require him not to take election results into consideration.
> Here for the umpteenth time is what ... <
... Larry fails to understand.
This is not a terribly entertaining topic. Alas, I'll take what Larry I can get at the moment, since I have no other dancing monkeys of comparable idiocy.
For example, he told a newspaper that the Dover school board election results would not affect his decision, but his fans interpret that as saying that he was going to follow the law.
Isn't that what such a statement means? As a judge, he is required to decide the case based on the evidence before him and the law, not new officials. Had the new school board been in a legal position to settle the suit and moved to do so, that would be the only time such a new election would be relevant.
And though he clearly said in his Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions, his fans insist that he really meant something else. Here for the umpteenth time is what he said in the commencement speech:
. . . this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.
That would seem to have absolutely no bearing on the matter. Are you saying that Intelligent Design is associated with religion? If that is the case, then his decision was correct. If you are saying that Intelligent Design is not associated with religion, then how does his alleged preference for unorganized religion have anything to do with it?
>>>>>>For example, he told a newspaper that the Dover school board election results would not affect his decision, but his fans interpret that as saying that he was going to follow the law.
Isn't that what such a statement means? <<<<<<
No. As I said, there is no evidence that he believed that the law required him to ignore the election results or a repeal of the ID policy. And even if he believed that, he could speak only for himself and could not speak for judges who might review his decision. And he could not even speak for himself, as he could have been presented irrefutable evidence that he was not required to ignore those things.
>>>>>> As a judge, he is required to decide the case based on the evidence before him and the law, not new officials. <<<<<<
Wrong. The Federal Rules of Evidence's Rule 201, which I cited in the preceding post, says that a judge may take judicial notice of something outside the record of the case:
Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
- - - - - - - -
(b) Kinds of facts.
A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
(c) When discretionary.
A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.
>>>>>> And though he clearly said in his Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions, his fans insist that he really meant something else.
That would seem to have absolutely no bearing on the matter. Are you saying that Intelligent Design is associated with religion? <<<<<<<<
Why would I be saying that? My point is that his "true religion" statement showed extreme prejudice against ID and the defendants, regardless of whether or not ID is associated with religion. The extreme hostility that the statement shows towards organized religions implies that Jones would bend over backwards to attack anything that he could hallucinate as being associated with organized religions. The obtuseness of you trolls is astonishing. You cannot perceive obvious implications even when they are pointed out to you. Also, Judge Jones has made a big deal about following judicial precedent, but nothing in judicial precedent supports his "true religion" statement, and there is a lot of judicial precedent that is contrary to that statement (e.g., the Endorsement Test, which prohibits government disapproval of religion).
If you don't believe that Jones showed hostility towards organized religion, imagine what the reaction would have been had he substituted the words "mosque" for "church" and "koran" for "bible."
Larry voluminously vomited...
>>>>>>Why would I be saying that? My point is that his "true religion" statement showed extreme prejudice against ID and the defendants, regardless of whether or not ID is associated with religion. The extreme hostility that the statement shows towards organized religions implies that Jones would bend over backwards to attack anything that he could hallucinate as being associated with organized religions.<<<<<<
Nope, it only states that the Founding Fathers believed that true religion was not restricted to what a religious organisation or book says, and, as such, the prohibition of links between church and state does not simply apply to church organisations or books, but to the religion itself as well. The assertion that this means he would be hostile to ID regardless of whether it was based on religion or not is a hallucination of your own. As for the 'hostility' towards organized religions, what hostility? If what he says is 'hostile' to religions, so is the First Amendment - in essence, all he is saying is that he will enforce it.
>>>>>>The obtuseness of you trolls is astonishing. You cannot perceive obvious implications even when they are pointed out to you.<<<<<<
Well, as this 'obvious implication' seems to be entirely in your mind, it's no real surprise you had to point it out.
>>>>>>Also, Judge Jones has made a big deal about following judicial precedent, but nothing in judicial precedent supports his "true religion" statement, and there is a lot of judicial precedent that is contrary to that statement (e.g., the Endorsement Test, which prohibits government disapproval of religion).<<<<<<
Except he's not disapproving of religion, he's saying he will enforce the principle of 'separation of church and state' on it. See, I've seen this sort of argument before. Basically, it seem that, according to this, ID should be a science when it comes to whether or not it should be taught in schools at all, but it should be a religion, and thus protected from criticism, when it comes to actually examining the evidence of it, or criticising it for it's lack of evidence.
You can't have it both ways - if it's a religion, it shouldn't be taught in schools, due to the First Amendment (and therefore definitely not be taught as science), but if it's science, then it should be open to examination, testing and criticism, as that is one of the fundamentals of science (of course, this would mean that it still shouldn't be taught in schools simply due to a lack of evidence, and, indeed, detail in the 'theory').
>>>>>>If you don't believe that Jones showed hostility towards organized religion, imagine what the reaction would have been had he substituted the words "mosque" for "church" and "koran" for "bible."<<<<<<
Well, it would maybe cause some upset - amongst those looking to create an Islamic State of America. Amongst most other Muslims, as long as they were fully aware that the Founding Fathers of America were NOT Muslims, I'd imagine they would probably agree on the accuracy of that.
Larry vomited (nasty), "imagine what the reaction would have been had he substituted the words "mosque" for "church" and "koran" for "bible.""
Yeah, I can imagine. You wouldn't have said anything. Life is beautiful. Or would have been, now we've got you -- raving, moronic lunatic -- running around, posting nonsense.
I'm sorry, Larry, I didn't quite get what you were saying there. Would you mind clearly answering the question: is Intelligent Design a religious concept?
Larry, can you tell me whether judges, while trying a case, give interviews to newspapers about the case? It strikes me as highly improper.
If the case had been tried before a jury, each juror would surely have been asked whether they had seen the absurdly distorted movie Inherit the Wind, and any who had seen it dismissed, for cause. No peremptory challenge needed.
Yet Jones not only says that he has seen the movie, but stupidly indicates that he thinks that a Hollywood movie is a source of "historical context." He then adds that he plans to see it again soon, and says nothing about waiting until after he reaches his decision. He leaves open the possibility that seeing it might or might not be useful in reaching his decision.
Aren't judges supposed to have some skill in evaluating the reliability of information? How can anyone defend a judge who evidently doesn't know that Hollywood movies are not reliable?
And this is the guy who tries a case of considerable importance?
Zmidponk wheezed (Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:29:00 PM ) --
>>>>> Nope, it only states that the Founding Fathers believed that true religion was not restricted to what a religious organisation or book says <<<<<<
HIs statement went beyond that, dunghill, he said, "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible." Period.
As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.
I'm snapping my whip in the face
Of IDists. They'll go, for I'll chase
These doubters to dwell
In Alaska. To Hell
With heresy! I'll give 'em some space!
(My friend Cornelia Mean tells me that, because of increasing difficulties facing the Darwin-set, The New York Times is about to employ her as their official Darwin-propagandist, replacing Cornelia Dean. Cornelia Mean advocates shipping all Darwin-doubters to forced labor camps in Alaska. I'm not inclined to believe anything she says: but I post her comments. --Jim Sherwood.)
Larry bubbled...
>>>>>>>HIs statement went beyond that, dunghill, he said, "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible." Period.<<<<<<
Interesting, you say that his statement 'goes beyond' what I said it did, then, basically, repeat what I said it said, then finish with 'Period.', making it clear it goes no further
Rarely have I seen such a clearcut example of someone contradicting himself and completely undermining his own argument.
Zmidponk wrote, "Rarely have I seen such a clearcut example of someone contradicting himself and completely undermining his own argument."
Read this blog some more.
>>>>>Read this blog some more. <<<<<
Anonymous, you no-good sack of ^%^&#@, I am fed up about this blog being cluttered up with comments that are only abusive and that do not contribute to the discussion. Your only purpose is to try to sabotage this blog by cluttering it up with your crap. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Hey, no one's responded to my comments yet. What's the fun of being a sock puppet if no one responds to you? Phae, perhaps my sock puppetry could be nearly as entertaining as Larry's dancing?
Actually, I'm not sure if I am a sock puppet. I don't even know what a sock puppet (on the internet) is. But I like the sound of it, it sounds cute.
Anyway, y'all could at least give me a yes or no on this:
"But really, if a student is to be able to evaluate the evidence for and against evolution, don’t they actually have to UNDERSTAND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION FIRST? Doesn’t a K-12 teacher have the responsibility to see that science students, who may want to one day have scientific careers, get the foundation education they will need to be able to argue intelligently for their positions, which may later differ from evolutionary biologists?"
Larry wrote, "I am fed up about this blog being cluttered up with comments that are only abusive and that do not contribute to the discussion. Your only purpose is to try to sabotage this blog by cluttering it up with your crap."
Why didn't you ignore my comment and answer zmidponk's comment? You're the only one cluttering your blog with garbage. Why don't you stop posting altogether?
Zmidponk said...
>>>>> Interesting, you say that his statement 'goes beyond' what I said it did, then, basically, repeat what I said it said <<<<<<
I cannot carry on a discussion with someone who does not understand simple English. You don't understand the difference between "true religion was not restricted to what a religious organisation or book says" and "true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible." The term "not restricted" in the first statement means that things other than organized religions can be true religions, thus the first statement indicates that organized religions can be true religions too -- the second statement says that organized religions are not true religions.
And you have the nerve to say, "Rarely have I seen such a clearcut example of someone contradicting himself and completely undermining his own argument." And then Anonymous makes things worse by chiming in, cluttering up this blog with even more crap.
Jim Sherwood said (Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:00:00 PM) --
>>>>> Larry, can you tell me whether judges, while trying a case, give interviews to newspapers about the case? It strikes me as highly improper. <<<<<<
It's probably not a good idea. And Judge Jones' joking about "Inherit the Wind" was particularly offensive -- it suggested that he considered the Dover school board members to be like the caricatured fundies in the movie. He even joked, "You know, nobody ever remembers who played the judge in that movie." I have an article about the Philadelphia Inquirer interview here.
I know examples of judges speaking or being interviewed in public, but not in regard to a court case that they are currently hearing. Some examples:
(1) Ex-justice O-Connor has been giving a lot of public speeches about Judge Jones' favorite subject, "judicial independence." Here she makes a joint appearance with Justice Breyer.
(2) CJ John Roberts spoke about a supposed need to increase the pay of judges -- I think that was self-serving and a conflict of interest.
(3) After his decision in the infamous Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain case, Justice Stevens made some public statements defending the decision.
>>>>> If the case had been tried before a jury, each juror would surely have been asked whether they had seen the absurdly distorted movie Inherit the Wind, and any who had seen it dismissed, for cause. <<<<<
I'm not sure of that -- I don't think that the movie was that prejudicial.
The Darwinist trolls who say that judges should not be influenced by things outside the court record think that it was OK for Jones to be influenced by "Inherit the Wind" but not by the school board election results (or, hypothetically, by repeal of the ID policy).
Nope, still not very entertaining. I appreciate the efforts, Anonymous, but without some real Larry-insanity, this just doesn't fit the bill.
He's spending all his time attacking Judge Jones rather than discussing the merits of evolution or Intelligent Design. Those are subjects he carefully avoids, because every time he wanders into objective facts, they clobber him like Tyson on a midget. He won't even discuss the merits of Jones' ruling or the case! Very boring.
Larry, step it up. The continual ad hominems are not as funny as when you try to argue actual facts or important things and get destroyed.
Larry sputtered...
>>>>>>I cannot carry on a discussion with someone who does not understand simple English. You don't understand the difference between "true religion was not restricted to what a religious organisation or book says" and "true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible." The term "not restricted" in the first statement means that things other than organized religions can be true religions, thus the first statement indicates that organized religions can be true religions too -- the second statement says that organized religions are not true religions.<<<<<<
I begin to see what your problem is. You read things into other people's statements that only exist in your head, then get confused because people aren't aware of the things that exist only in your head. Judge Jones' statement makes no such implication, connotation or anything else. He simply indicates that the Founding Fathers echoed the idea espoused by some religions, or particular sects of religions, that the church is not the building, or even the priests with all their robes, pomp, ceremony, etc (although they are still important), but, instead, the true core of any church, and therefore any religion, is the people in the congregation.
Whoooosh!
That was the sound of your post flying over Larry's head.
I feel like vaporizing a few arguments made over the past few days.
NOTICE: Sorry I took a few days of to enjoy 5 new ID books that I received the other day: Privileged Planet, Darwin Day in American, The Design Revolution, The Edge of Evolution, and A Meaningful World. I would recommend them all. Now let’s critically analyze what has happened since I’ve been gone and annihilate anything I disagree with.
Alright Larry I hear yah. I hope you've become accommodated on Uncommon Descent though, and keep up the good work on your blog!
(defense mode activated)
But you didn't avoid it.
Then why is your comment appearing???
Or corrections of lies that Larry tells about himself.
Careful Larry. If this guy knows as much about as he says he does, he just might have a man-crush on you. ;D
Then why do you practice it?
What lies? I think he can pretty much excuse himself from anything with the accuracy of what your all asserting.
What is your point here? If Judge Jones said that the school board election would not affect his decision, that meant that he would follow the law. You lied and said that this was giving legal advice. Why was your lie not censored?
Hate to say it, but that is legal advice. Seems like the outcome of that election might have given him a hint as to which side he would receive less public criticism from.
"Neither can evolutionists?" I assume you will actually back that statement up?
Anyone can read your posts and make up their own minds. Plain and simple.
And it's very nice that a religion is so diverse and open-minded, but generally in science it is advisable to be open only to what can be verified through experimentation.
See the above point. There is no proof of ID being religious in any shape or form. It might have religious implications but if that were an issue we may as well ignore the concept of the big bang for the same exact reason.
Can you blow us all away and provide some proof that ID is religious?
I guess that's WHY there are so many different kinds of ID... none of them can be proven, so it doesn't really matter what one says about it.
I think the same exact thing applies to evolution. But hey man, here's a challenge, find functional outcomes for all 10 to the 270 millionth power combinations of base pairs in the effective coding region of the human genome and design can be ruled out.
That's why I'm a Last Thursdayist. I believe everything is too complex to have evolved, but was instead created last Thursday, around three in the afternoon. And look - I have the same evidence for my perspective that any other IDer has!
That really does sound a lot like the basis for evolution! I honestly couldn't agree more. Now stop dodging my challenge (see the above point) and try to make a case for your religion/philosophy/theory.
You have defined it, but you haven't come up with a testable coherent theory.
How is it not a testable coherent theory? Can you at least provide evidence for at least one of your claims?
That's kind of important in science.
Exactly.
But don't worry, you can just call your brand of ID Reformed ID, and someone else can be Pentecostal, and so on.
Ad hominem attack. Like I said before, every debate I enter leads to more name calling from the other side before they finally leave in frustration.
You do realize that an attack on evolution doesn't prove ID, right? Even if evolution was proven wrong, it wouldn't prove intelligent design was correct.
Actually yes it would. We call it the inference to the best explanation, in this case it's done by the process of elimination. Unless you can find another explanation other then evolution that isn't the result of design, I'll stick with ID.
You posted eight links or so, and have refused to actually point me to any items.
Sorry they aren't in audio format so you can understand what they say, but if you think nature magazine is a creationist magazine then perhaps you should get out more. See the first result of the following google search and come back when someone's helped you read it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=2Vb&q=darwinism+and+immunology&btnG=Search
"Darwinism and immunology: from Metchnikoff to Burnet."
That's the title of the nature article (strike one up for our side Larry!).
If you think you can just keep linking me to essay after essay on creationist places, you are sadly mistaken.
Which links did I provide were creationist links? Please do what no other design critic has done and provide proof that ID is religious please.
If you have something to say, you're going to have to actually say it.
Exactly.
You must be having trouble, then, since I have repeatedly said that it's pseudoscience because it's not testable. Please tell me how it could be tested.
What a sec, it can't be tested? Then why on earth are there countless people who have publicly
stated that not only is it testable, but they've already falsified it?
(1) Intelligent design is clearly just creationism.
Holy hell, will there be proof of this claim now?
When asked for the differences between the two theories, no one can provide an answer aside from saying that the designer might not be god.
Here's the video again since (judging by the above claim) you refused to watch it:
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-01-03T00_27_59-08_00
Who else it could conceivably be, they can't answer.
So now I see you have made no attempt to actually research that issue. They've suggested anything from Aliens to teleological processes built into nature.
And there are pretty good reasons why ID does not try to claim they KNOW what the designer might be (if any)
http://telicthoughts.com/they-love-to-smear-us/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/principled_not_rhetorical_reas.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/principled_not_rhetorical_reas_1.html
Saying that you can't possibly imagine the designer being anything other then god is an argument from ignorance.
ID is also not science, because it cannot be tested or falsified. There is no conceivable result that could disprove the "theory" in an experiment.
Then why are there countless people who have claimed they falsified it
altogether???
Thanks for proving my point!
Which was???
Wow, see how that works? I didn't even have to think of anything clever, I just waved my hand like you! Neat.
I agree, you don't think of anything clever that could possibly back up your case.
I'm not sure how much stupider you could be. I mean, I thought Larry had the bar pretty low, but this is a pretty impressive new feat.
I guess you are running a little low on the good ol' Darwinian fuel.
I think I'm starting to see why Larry doesn't respond to comments.
I was demonstrating how that absurd little handwaving works for every concept, and how it was not actually backed up in any reason.
Which I'm done for the vast majority of all statements you've made.
If a guy in robes can't decide, based on prolonged evidence and hearings from expert witnesses, whether or not something is religious in nature, then how could he decide whose civil rights are being violated in a trial?
I totally agree. If jones can't pull that first one off then I guess civil rights isn't a walk in the park for him either.
Science doesn't work by debating.
Not only can any person who knows a thing or two find out for themselves that this is wrong, they can simply find that an entire site rebuts your claim:
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=8
It works by... well, doing science. Naturally IDers prefer the former, since they can't do the latter.
Naturally Darwinists prefer the later since they would (as we see now) get smashed in the latter. I agree though, when people lose their jobs over such a dangerous set of ideas it can be hard to pull off any experiments.
Since you have ceded the point and admitted it was a deception and that Stein was biased from the start (we'll assume you're an analog for Jim), I guess I have nothing to reply if you think Dawkins believes ID is scientific.
I'm glad Stein gave them the same treatment they give us. He's more then just a martyr, this guy is a pure absolute freedom fighter. But wait...
How you concluded that, I have no idea.
So you seem to be commenting on a movie you've never even seen! Take a look at the pwnage in the following clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmzFDRR7rCA&feature=related
And the following article:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/dawkins-admits-that-life-could-be-designed-is-id-therefore-scientific/
Yeah, remember that huge blockbuster movie exposing ID as a creationist fraud? Oh, shit, neither do I.
Because no such thing would be possible. I can guarantee that.
It's almost like the scientists are more interested in science, instead of PR like the IDers.
True, while they waste away with scientism, we also take the time to make our views as clear as possible, we don’t call anyone who disagrees with us idiots, and all that adds up to more support. I guess you could take a step with a better PR campaign but you’ve flushed that down the toilet a while ago.
Not at the Smithsonian as such, but he was with an associated institution for which he had a medium-level research position.
Good call. I forgot that in the Expelled super trailer it said affiliated with the Smithsonian. Thanks for the correction.
…After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years.
Do they really expect us to believe that he suddenly decided to just not show up anymore and spend all this time crying censorship time and time again if nothing even happened???
At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected.
Sorry that’s not an accurate account of what happened at all.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508
Incidentally, see how you are supposed to use links in a discussion? Actually quote or paraphrase the relevant parts in the future, when you spam your links at me.
Pretty much all the text I cite is relevant to the point being made but I will take this into account in future cases. For now, listen to the NPR story and take the time to reflect on it.
But I can't help but notice that you address the issue of the identical language throughout much of the document, such as the description of creationism being identical to the description of intelligent design - only with a pretty new hat.
Clearly the difference is more then a pretty new hat:
http://www.discovery.org/v/21
Uh, no, not really. It shows they never even bothered to change their definition from creationism's definition.
Ok then. 1.Tell me what you think creationism is. 2. Tell me what you think ID is. 3. Explain to me the similarities between the two.
It's not a hard leap to thus conclude that the two "theories" are identical. Unless you'd care to point out a difference?
I’ve done this numerous times already, but as with any debate it takes about a dozen or so times before their brains actually turn on to make the distinction. I’ll point out ten differences:
Creationism holds the following to be true:
1.Sudden creation of the universe out of nothing. 2. Mutations and natural selection are insufficient to bring about any development of different “kinds” from a single organism. 3. There is no common descent between living things, apes and humans therefore do not share ancestry. 4. There was a global catastrophic flood that resulted in much of the geological features we see today. 5. The Earth and everything that inhabits it is not any older then 10,000 years. 6. Scriptural text is entirely true and is to be taken literally as a manuscript.
Intelligent Design holds the following to be true:
1. There are systems in biology which are irreducibly complex. 2. Most if not all of these systems also exhibit specified complexity, they are both improbable to come about by undirected means, and also are consistent with what would be the result of a teleological force. 3. The Earth has conditions which both support life AND discovery; a coincidence that might not be. 4. The laws of physics and cosmology work in tandem in a way that suggests they were probably pre-programmed to their settings. 5. All of the above is thus best explained by an intelligent cause, and not the result of random particle collision, or undirected means. 6. Rather then trying to explain the very existence of all matter it is only concerned with how material forces and constituents got that way. 7. No sacred text is reliable to explain how things came to be.
You asked for one difference, I gave 13. ;D
Nope, they were advocating a faith-based concept. They were just also lying about it.
OMG! Will you provide proof of this now???
The proof is in what we have already seen: the definition they had for creationism was identical to that of intelligent design,
I’ve shredded this argument to pieces several times already, including the 13 differences I mentioned above.
…and that definition is nontestable.
Then why do people claim to have falsified it?
Sorry, not so good with the thinking, are you?
No, you aren’t.
I was indicating that it's kind of hard to run repeatable empirical experiments on the nonmaterial.
Who said anything about the non-material?
Unless you have managed to put God on a slide.
Please don’t drag religion into the discussion and then accuse us of doing the same thing.
The only thing that can test an empirical conclusion is an empirical method.
That’s been done many times already. Here’s one such example:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2181
If you sat down and prayed about it, you wouldn't be doing science.
So then ID is science. Good.
I am still waiting, endlessly, for an example of how ID can be tested.
Here’s a testable prediction that (surprise!) turned out to be true:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/05/another_intelligent_design_pre.html
So when he says they are different, it is reasonable for me to ask how they are different. That's what I did, you complete moron, and it's what you protested.
I was protesting your lack of comprehension on the differences that I’ve been highlighted, and the fact that you have yet to provide any proof that they are the same thing.
I'm seriously not following your continual blind links.
Just download a program that will read the text for you. It’ll make life easier for you.
If you have something to say, you need to say it, I'm not going to hunt down what you MIGHT be saying on other websites.
That’s been taken care of. I’ve made statements and provided sources, plain and simple.
If you can't state the difference coherently and concisely, I think you'll agree that indicates that it's a point you can't make.
So now that I’ve stated the differences several dozen times now, tell me how they are similar.
I guess an argument could be made that I'm hiding from your point by refusing to hunt it down through your links, but one hardly sees me just replying to you by linking to talkorigins archive.
They don’t have much to say on the supposed similarities either. Just a couple quote mines to try and insist otherwise, and that’s really about it.
The main argument Behe proposed for this is the flagellum, which he claimed would not work without any of its components, and that those components couldn't have had any other prior use.
Nope, that’s not what Behe claimed at all. I can tell you have trouble learning how to read (ID books in particular) if you claim to be getting that from an ID source.
And indeed, if you remove the shaft, for example, the flagellum doesn't work. That would conclude, under your logic, that the flagellum is irreducibly complex.
In part, yes it would. Aside from the straw man I pointed out above, you have a raw (very uncooked so to speak) understanding of what IC actually is.
However, another biologist has pointed out that the flagellum, absent one of its motor parts, is functionally almost identical to another cell's mechanism that serves as an injector.
Not that same Ken Miller straw man again! Here’s the definition Behe made clear in 1996 in the book “Darwin’s Black Box”: by irreducibly complex, I mean a system that is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts where the removal of any of these parts causes the original system to cease functioning.
So since the original system (a rotary flagellum) has ceased functioning, the flagellum is thus still IC. And keep in mind that the TTSS is SIMILAR to the base of the flagellum, you can’t actually use a TTSS in place of those flagellar parts. And one link I cited above gives evidence that the TTSS probably came AFTER the flagellum:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2181
Moving on from there, the TTSS hardly explains the evolution of the flagellum any more then the Hawaiian Islands explain how to cross from Tokyo to LA on foot.
Accordingly, it would be entirely viable absent a part or two.
Unless you can build (my bad, evolve) something by building upon the same function, the system is still IC.
Larry has asked the same thing, and I told you: you are my dancing toy.
Something which you probably still wish you had. Stop dreaming dude.
You especially, now, since you showed up all "time to flame some darwinists" but lost your footing about one post into the discussion. I like watching you caper.
You’ve never even had a case, or any footing. I’m going to start reposting a list of things you have yet to provide evidence for until you answer the questions.
I provided an example of evidence against evolution, not for ID. Sorry about that, I was wrong.
So what other choice is there again if ID cannot be taken into account?
It's hard to think of some testable evidence for ID, you see. You can't even do it, so I am hard-pressed to imagine one.
I’ve taken care of that many times before, so nothing damaging in what you said there.
But here is an example: if the Human Genome Project found a lengthy line of code in a human gene that expressed an intelligible message that was enormously improbably by the statistics (taking into account the law of large numbers),
Ok then. The part of the human genome that is known to have function consists of about 450 million base pairs. With four possible options for each base pair (AT, TA, CG, GC) that means the odds that you would get any particular arrangement would be on the order of 4 to the 450 millionth power. There, you have an improbable code that could not have come about by chance and necessity because it is virtually impossible to have a functional change in a creature’s genome with steps as small as one base pair at a time.
…or that gave us a new piece of technology explicitly
That’s been done already…
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/biology_replaces_technology_as.html
…so that request has been fulfilled. And you yourself admitted:
…that would be a great start of evidence for ID.
Now that I’m right, time to add even more evidence against this claim:
It's not an experiment, admittedly, but that's because I can't think of any experiments that can be done with ID. Can you?
Here’s even more ammunition against that claim:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/intelligent_design_lab_is_goin.html
http://biologicinstitute.org/research/
Why does each possible combination have to be viable?
Because then selection has less work to do. Not all combinations of scrabble letters on a tabletop will actually spell anything, thus they have a high rejection region. The same applies to the language of life, because of the smaller fraction of sequences that will result in anything promising selection becomes a crapshoot. All you can do is hope that there is trillions of years at hand for mutations to possibly strike gold.
Humans didn't appear out of a soup of nucleotides, they evolved from slightly less complex animals.
I agree, though I disagree it was all undirected.
You're asking the absurd, and it's scarcely even relevant to evolution.
The amount of functional sequences in an organism’s genome isn’t relevant to evolution??? Perhaps you’re the one who needs to open up a biology text book.
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when that authority is not warranted.
Exactly
But we're talking about biology by biologists, so that appeal is not just valid, but necessary.
And some biologists doubt the idea that we arrived here by means of an entirely undirected process, so no, it has no relevance.
Argument from consensus is predicated on the understanding that an untrue statement cannot be made true even if everyone just agrees.
Actually no, it applies to any appeal to popularity in which you use the number of supporters for a given premise to insist that the premise is true.
But everyone doesn't agree, and ID would be welcome in journals if it could produce any decent papers.
….
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1026
http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=389
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/journal_of_molecular_biology_a.html
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/book85.html
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=639
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html
…..Now what? Not that peer review really means anything but clearly ID has achieved that.
Every scientist dreams of overturning the status quo and making their names last forever, even just as peer-reviewer or editor.
Which thanks to people with your mentality; this is now a messy process.
I just wanted to see you understood (as you appear to) that you couldn't even attempt to provide evidence for ID.
Along with what I’ve already provided, here’s a cool article on the flagellum:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html
The editor customarily follows the procedures. He did not, which is why the journal immediately disavowed the paper, which was not up to their standards, and indicated that he had breached the usual procedure by reviewing it himself.
So because something challenges dogma it should be shunned altogether? Elaborate on the policies he broke, and why he deserved what he got.
I'm seriously not chasing your blind links.
Yes, I noticed. You’re choosing not to follow them at all.
Quote it here. Maybe this is me stonewalling, but I don't think it is unreasonable for me not to follow links to large essays and try to guess what your point might be.
The points don’t require specific quotes for you to take a quick skim and see why I referred to them. If you expect me to re-read a biology textbook then I don’t think I’m asking for much.
You're right, I didn't link anything. It was all from my own head, except for this post with expelledexposed.
Except….
I have read talkorigins, certainly, and it is also a valuable resource.
Ok so they do come from a source.
But notice that every time I smash your arguments to flinders,
Like what? Can you name any argument I’ve made where this is the case?
But you were analogizing to the universe/life, were you not?
I was explaining the difference between an argument from ignorance and an argument from evidence.
If it had no relevance to the topic at hand, why did you bring it up?
See the above point. I was enlightening you on the difference between an argument from ignorance and an inference to design.
If it does have relevance, then it is the argument from incredulity, since it simply says you can't believe it could have happened that way
So you believe after millions of years that wind and erosion will form Mt. Rushmore? Wow, I guess you really are crazy. :?
- you didn't have much firsthand experience at millions of years, did you?
Millions of years of wind and erosion won’t achieve any good with getting the great sphinx either will it?
You must argue this topic a lot.
If I told you how much, you wouldn’t believe me.
I do not, unfortunately; Larry's blog here was brought to my attention from Rationalwiki and this is the first internet discussion on the topics I have had.
And that certainly is starting to show.
You have a significant leg up on me.
I sure have. ;D
So why are you doing so badly?
I should be asking you the same thing.
This is sad to see. Every time I return to this Blog I see that Larry's mental deterioration has progressed even further.
Well sherry can you enlighten us on this mental deterioration? I agree such a thing is occurring but it sure isn’t happening with larry.
Why do you people continue to torture an obviously helpless creature?
Because Pee is a side dish. I will soon be gearing up for the main course.
You know that he will never admit to the error of his "arguments".
No pee certainly won’t. But he may change his mind.
He doesn't even admit when he makes factual mistakes and they are pointed out to him.
Well, he was honest once or twice on his mistakes. I think that’s a start.
His redefinition of words and belief that his "interpretations" are actually facts are clearer signs of his malady.
Which is why I’ve come to cure him. And I think it might actually work out quite well in the near future.
Ed Brayton laid off of Larry once he realized that Larry was clinically insane.
No sherry, I can tell it was you he was afraid of, if he really knew what he was doing.
That you basically hold that vast swathes of modern biology is not based on the precepts of evolution, contrary to the vast majority of actual biologists.
Evidence for this please? How many articles can you find that specifically use the term random mutations and natural selection to explain something?
That DNA holds 'too much information' for evolution to be true by, basically, making an argument from incredulity (because you don't understand how it can work, it can't)
It’s an argument from evidence. Unless you can find functional outcomes for at least half the sequences, I’ll stick with what I hold true at this very moment.
and completely misunderstanding what 'information' actually is.
Well gosh darn, let’s see what you have to say on this subject.
I'll see if I can educate you on this one. 7504. That number probably means absolutely nothing to you. Does this mean it is not 'information'? No. It means something to me, so it is, indeed, information.
With absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the genetic code, it also has no relevance to what is mean by information. If there is a restriction put on how characters or base pairs are arranged (in other words, they form a sequence), and they also carry an arrangement that is detachable, in other words it cannot be explained strictly by having them randomly shuffled into that arrangement, then it constitutes information.
Well, actually, you're right. I misread what you wrote.
Thanks for being objective.
However, what Behe is essentially saying, according to you, is even more absurd - that anything that pops into his head, regardless of whether there is any material evidence to support it, is solid science, basically, because he says so.
Where did I say that what he calls science is whatever pops into his head and is science because he says so?
That calling creationism 'Intelligent Design', and, instead of saying,'God made all life', saying,'an Unknown Designer made all life', makes it something different.
Straw man. Find the specific quote where I said those were the only differences as I have pointed out many times that the differences go way beyond that.
I think the above summary actually speaks for itself.
You’re right, it sure is pathetic.
Unfortunately, what F2xl has done is typical of creationists/IDists - he leaves out the parts of what Dawkins said that he doesn't like, for example, that the alien intelligence would, in turn, have to have come about by some method, with evolution, or something very much like it, being the most likely explanation.
Which does nothing to change the fact that Dawkins explicitly admitted for millions of Americans to see that life could have been the result of an intelligent cause. So what you say even if it were true would mean nothing.
What's funny is that panspermia is one of the proposed ID ways in which there might be a non-God Intelligent Designer.
And Dawkins admitted that such a scenario might in fact be true. So it looks like he is partly on our side after all.
Dawkins thinks it's ludicrous - and apparently so does Stein, since they made fun of it - but many IDers such as Behe have seriously proposed it as an example.
Actually Dawkins thought it was pretty realistic as seen in the movie. What Stein made fun of was the fact that Dawkins seemed to believe anything, as long as it wasn’t any kind of god hypothesis.
Evolutionary theory and social darwinism are two different things, hence the necessity of 'social' when referring to 'social darwinism,' although too many make the mistake of equating the two (Larry, religious fundamentalists, other morons).
Well gee mr. anonymous, I sure wonder where on earth social Darwinism came from.
I am archiving this page for posterity, so I can remind him of this, just in case he decides to censor all the comments.
Nothing is really here to remind anyone of anything that would be in favor of your position, just repeated attempts at ignoring the evidence I present to you and you repeatly ignore.
You've been watching too much Ben Stein. Try actually doing a little research into what evolution actually says about 'purifying the race' like Hitler advocated (I'll give you a term to look up that'll start you off - 'gene flow'), and also do a little reasearch into what kind of texts were seized by the Nazis for burning.
I sure as hell did, and it states the same thing over and over again. Any imbecile is just another mouth to feed, if we are to become a more advanced race, we need to exercise the same measures used with dog and pigeon breeding. It’s really sad that people are just now beginning to accept this fact.
And now ladies and gentlemen, let’s see what discourse occurred on the post about the Ben Stein interview. :D
"Admits"? Hahahaha. Admit != Dissemble. Redefining words again, are we?
He had beliefs about whether or not we’re all just a random accident but of course he had no opinion about ID, he was not aware of what it was. And apparently neither are you.
I think that the recent obvious mental deterioration that Larry is exhibiting may be due to a change in diet or medication.
What mental deterioration? To be honest, I think Phea gets the award for that one. For someone who insists that IDers don’t cite references he sure has had some real trouble reading what I’ve referred him to. And even the links that cite something in audio format are tough for him to grasp. But as with any design critic, this takes time.
Corollary: If you do not respond, then you don't agree, you don't approve, you are not "unable to respond", and, especially, you are right goddammit!
If this is the way you interpret Larry’s words, then I can only imagine how you interpret the evidence for your own theory. XD
Of course, if you bend over backwards to be kind to Stein, and the makers of the 'Expelled' film, most of the content of that film falls under that category too.
Please, give further examples if you will. What other content falls into that category and why? I see a huge similarity between criticisms of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Expelled, they are both regarded as dishonest. But I also see a huge difference: people who cite Moore as dishonest can point out scene by scene the level of dishonesty he employs in his films. But with expelled, it just “creationist porn” so no need to try and elaborate on anything.
Except it did rather poorly. Very bad. Really, really bad.
You vs. reality:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=politicaldoc.htm
And reality won.
Just because it climbed up the ranks of all-time box office documentaries means nothing -- especially when considering the propaganda machine that powered it to... well, a wide opening (one that never expanded).
Then what one earth are you trying to justify your original claim with????
Surprisingly, the movie did really poorly considering the number of people against scientific theories of evolution in the country (the vast majority).
So you’re admitting that it’s rallying the revolution against evolution. I agree.
Maybe it wasn't that smart having a Jewish actor play the lead role in a movie whose main audience were Christians and other fools who think ID is science (like Jim).
Why does that matter? And please do what pee has yet to do, and explain what you think science is, and why is doesn’t fit that role.
Just because someone like Jim who isn't a Christian fundamentalist (this would include agnostics and even Jews like Ben Stein) can support ID doesn't mean it isn't creationism.
Right, there are far more reasons it isn’t:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1416
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/thomas_jefferson_intelligent_d.html
Jim Sherwood's logic: I'm not a fundamentalist and I support ID, therefore ID is not creationism.
Sounds pretty good to me.
Jim, is there any evidence for Intelligent Design? If so, would you mind sharing it?
Time to add even more ammunition against this claim:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2184
http://www.discovery.org/a/3415
http://www.discovery.org/a/2676
http://www.discovery.org/a/2187
The Lenski experiment…
Thank you for citing even more evidence of ID!
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/561#comment-2007
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/first-paragraph-of-lenski-paper-contains-an-error/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/lenskis-40000-generations-of-e-coli/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-scientist-the-first-time-evolution-has-been-caught-in-the-act/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/behes-multiple-mutations-needed-for-e-coli/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/michael_behe_on_e_coli_mutatio.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O
…transitional fossils such as Archaeopteryx…
Except fossils in principle don’t really prove anything:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/fossils_fossils_fossils_does_k.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02/title_7.html
They don’t prove that anything happened through an undirected process any more then different makes of corvette prove that cars change over time without guidance.
…genetic similarities following the theorized evolutionary tree…
Actually the correct term should be genetic DIFFERENCES, and they fit the design inference more:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/more_troubles_in_the_tree_of_a.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_9.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_8.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/humanchimp_evolution_dialogue_1.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/francix_x_clines_an_excellent.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/and_the_miller_told_his_tale_ken_miller_.html
http://www.discovery.org/a/3914
http://www.discovery.org/a/4529
http://www.discovery.org/a/2136
…stratified fossils preserved in a chronological order that implies the same tree...
Here’s more information that contradicts that:
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Cambrian.pdf
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/darwinists_obsession_with_tikt.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/no_steps_forward_acknowledging_1.html
I guess that's all the evidence for "macroevolution" I can name off the top of my head.
That’s really really sad.
Now, can you name any evidence for Intelligent Design?
Never mind, that’s been taken care of.
If you take creationism, and replace the word 'God' with 'an unknown designer', and be a bit vague on a few details, you get ID. So ID is creationism.
I agree, that’s not good logic at all.
Not a single piece of evidence from you, then, Jim? Not surprising.
I’ve taken care of that, and vaporized the evidence you’ve provided for your case.
The nearest seems to be that, on occasion, someone will post a link to, for example, the Discovery Institute, that defines ID in such a way that, basically, confirms they're right.
Exactly, the links do confirm we are right about the differences between ID and creationism! Thank you!
It is blindingly obvious that this God/Unknown Designer specifically designed a whale to have a functionless lump of bone in it's body, not connected to any other part of the skeletal structure that appears to be a vesigial pelvis left over from when evolution says whale ancestors walked on land.
It’s called VESTIGIAL organs, not “vesigial.” You don’t have to know what you’re talking about, that’s asking for too much, but you can at least make a futile attempt to sound like you do. And they really don’t prove anything, whether it’s common descent or common design. Take a look at one such example you’ve all been touting:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/for_decades_darwinists_have_be.html
Well, I'm convinced, I guess I better start getting out my Bible...oops, sorry, meant my 'Intelligent Design science book'. Thanks for making me see the light, Helpful One.
Why has no one provided any proof that they are the same thing?
The reason I like commenting on your blog is that your various incoherent rants about things that are so obviously well in excess of your intellect are extremely entertaining, and it is doubly entertaining to see you so blatently proven wrong on a regular basis, and your reaction to this happening.
No one has provided proof of anything against Larry. Pee did his best, but with all that vaporized I think you guys need to be a bit more systematic about how you critique larry. If you guys ever provided any evidence whatsoever of your mindless grunts, I would be impressed. Until then you guys all seem to fit this persona:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/profundusmaximus.htm
Most creationists have enough sense to pretend that co-evolution does not exist, since it is inherently and embarassingly strong evidence for evolution.
Actually it shows exactly how ridiculous your view really is:
http://www.discovery.org/a/1256
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/evolution_by_cooption_just_add.html
I wouldn’t argue a mousetrap once started off as a paperweight would I?
http://www.discovery.org/a/1205
http://www.discovery.org/a/3718
http://www.discovery.org/a/2248
http://www.discovery.org/a/3537
http://www.discovery.org/a/287
http://www.discovery.org/a/3536
Then we have zmidponk who seemingly likes to make all sorts of wild accusations, allegations and nonsense that, as far as I can see, simply has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Yes, I did in fact make a few corrections in the above statement to make it more well-grounded in reality.
Larry, how many times do I have to tell you that you are my dancing puppet of retardation?
Yes, that is exactly what you want, because that is exactly what you are. XD
A promoter of evolution seems to think he must have all the posts on the first page...
Yeah, I know exactly what you’re talking about Michael. KHP totally imploded on himself.
The only parts that actually support the book are where he seemingly accepts the debunked ideas of 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity',
Can you do what no other ID critic has done and explain how they have been debunked? There really is no evidence for this, but at least try.
And you still don't understand it. If you censored everything you didn't understand there wouldn't be anything remaining on the blog.
Which makes you all crazy. Yes, I too have a hard time understanding why you’re all convinced that hitting the same message over and over again will actually make it reality.
Speaking of comparisons to Nazi Germany. . .
…an entire book is available to make it synonymous with evolution:
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-03-16T14_07_18-07_00
http://www.darwintohitler.com/
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2172
Maybe you should try writing for the worldnutdaily. You'd fit right in with your lunatic rantings and ravings and amazing but incomprehensible abuses and twists of logic.
Awesome site! I would recommend it to anyone who wants a taste of reason:
www.worldnetdaily.com
Alas, I'll take what Larry I can get at the moment, since I have no other dancing monkeys of comparable idiocy.
You have yourself, so no worries.
Larry, aren't you embarrassed by the athletic "supporters" you attract to your blog?
We seem to have here someone who's so enamored of his own writing, that he deems it appropriate to make a 6400-word post. Rude, quite apart from the weak content.
Are we taking bets on who's more demented -- Larry or f2xl? A week ago I didn't think it was possible for Larry not to lead that category against the vast majority of the human race, but now I'm not sure.
F2xl -- get a clue. Too bad you wasted a lot of time reading the wrong books. You need to read some better ones -- soon.
We seem to have here someone who's so enamored of his own writing, that he deems it appropriate to make a 6400-word post.
Well thanks for the stats I guess, I didn't get the chance to comment for the past couple days and spent an hour looking over the statements made since that time.
Gotta admit, I may as well take days off anyways. I've finished reading The Design Revolution (awesome book!), and will soon move onto The Privileged Planet soon, just prior to a visit to a public observatory. Which in turn, will be followed by a laser show, one of the coolest friggin' things on the planet (yes, there will be RadioHead).
Rude, quite apart from the weak content.
May you consider reviewing your own content first before making such a statement? At least I've taken the time to elaborate on why I believe what I believe instead of throwing insulting rhetorical thrusts and believing it proves something.
Are we taking bets on who's more demented -- Larry or f2xl?
Yo Larry, I got $20 on anonymous, and $5 on 'nonymous, and I'll say about $10 on phae.
A week ago I didn't think it was possible for Larry not to lead that category against the vast majority of the human race, but now I'm not sure.
Yep, phea sure beat him out on that the moment he set foot on this blog. Why didn't you take notice of that sooner?
F2xl -- get a clue. Too bad you wasted a lot of time reading the wrong books.
I beg to differ. They are some of the most fulfilling investments I've ever made. Not only do I see a sense of purpose and meaning in every aspect of nature and cosmology I see now, but I also have yet another collection of ideas I would die for.
You need to read some better ones -- soon.
You're right, From Darwin to Hitler is next on the list, and I get the feeling my own grandfather, who I barely knew, might have known a lot more about the subject then I did.
Of course The Blind Watchmaker will probably come in the same shipment. Though I detest the premise which Dawkins holds as truth in his book, I would gladly fight for his right to openly believe it. That is the foundation upon which all free societies are built.
Wow! Thanks for the big comments, F2XL. The trolls should be kept busy for a long time trying to answer them. Of course, if they fail to answer, then according to their own rules they've lost the argument. LOL
That really does sound a lot like the basis for evolution! I honestly couldn't agree more. Now stop dodging my challenge (see the above point) and try to make a case for your religion/philosophy/theory.
You started taking comments from other threads out of context and posting them in one megapost? A little sad, buckaroo.
I've listed potential proofs or disproofs of evolution a dozen times. Transitional fossils, genetic similarities according to apparent descent, stratified descendant fossils, and the Lenski experiment itself! Every time someone asks this question, you snerdily demand it back at them, and then ignore the answer along with your colleagues. It's a little embarrassing to watch.
How is it not a testable coherent theory? Can you at least provide evidence for at least one of your claims?
The Lenski experiment. Or archeopteryx. Or the second human chromosome. Or a dozen other examples.
Now, before you go on, name ONE for ID. The only things you could name might be the flagellum, which was pretty handily disproven by the injector mechanism on some bacteria which is a reducibly complex version of the flagellum, or the eye, which has predecessors throughout the animal kingdom.
Ad hominem attack. Like I said before, every debate I enter leads to more name calling from the other side before they finally leave in frustration.
Really? It looks to me more like you showed up and made a hysterical post some days ago, then vanished when challenged until now, when you show up in a different thread. ;)
Actually yes it would. We call it the inference to the best explanation, in this case it's done by the process of elimination. Unless you can find another explanation other then evolution that isn't the result of design, I'll stick with ID.
Science isn't done by "elimination," but it's good to hear you admit that. See, this is the classic "god of the gaps" theory... you attack scientific theories to try to find holes to cram full of Jesus. You have no evidence for your theory, you just believe it on faith and attack the science.
Hint: real scientists have evidence for their theories. Like the Lenski experiment.
Sorry they aren't in audio format so you can understand what they say, but if you think nature magazine is a creationist magazine then perhaps you should get out more. See the first result of the following google search and come back when someone's helped you read it.
This is pretty weird... I say something, and then you respond to something going on in your head. I never said Nature was a creationist magazine, and neither did anyone else. I just said that I'm not going to follow your list of blind links and try to make your arguments for you. If you can't make your own statements, you should probably go cower with Larry.
That's the title of the nature article (strike one up for our side Larry!).
I found the article which you were describing. I don't have a subscription to Nature, however, and I'm not at work to look it up. Do you have a source I can actually see, perhaps?
Which links did I provide were creationist links? Please do what no other design critic has done and provide proof that ID is religious please.
"Cdesign proponentists" might ring a bell for you?
It's just repackaged creationism, calling a god the "intelligent designer." There is zero functional difference. Just like creationism, it is a proposition to accept on faith or as a god of the gaps, not a scientific theory.
What a sec, it can't be tested? Then why on earth are there countless people who have publicly
stated that not only is it testable, but they've already falsified it?
I can't help but notice that you can't actually come up with a testable proposition for ID. Instead, you cower. Well done.
Here's the video again since (judging by the above claim) you refused to watch it:
As said a dozen times before, if you have something to say, you're going to have to say it. Linking to videos or essays or other things and expecting me to make your argument for you is just not going to work: I have no interest in doing your research. I'm sorry if it's hard for you, but here in a discussion with adults we customarily have to say things when we want to make a point, not just spam links.
So now I see you have made no attempt to actually research that issue. They've suggested anything from Aliens to teleological processes built into nature.
Geez, I'm sorry. I was misled when Ben Stein mocked the idea of alien design in "Expelled."
So some sort of creature that descended from above and designed us, like a god or an alien, or else they built the processes into nature to design us automatically? The theory is diversifying. Maybe, now that you've broadened it quite a bit, you could state it succinctly?
Saying that you can't possibly imagine the designer being anything other then god is an argument from ignorance.
Surprisingly, you used that concept correctly. However, I'm not sure you really thought this out. Who else could design something into nature other than what we would commonly call a deity?
Then why are there countless people who have claimed they falsified it
altogether???
Because some people are wrong on the evolution side, just like they are on the religious side. It's impossible to gather evidence for or against creationism or ID, since they aren't testable. Even right now, you're trying desperately to avoid this question. Again. Name a testable proposition.
I guess you are running a little low on the good ol' Darwinian fuel.
I think I'm starting to see why Larry doesn't respond to comments.
Because he's a coward who has as much trouble avoiding questions as you, with all the subtlety of a truck? Name a testable proposition for ID.
Naturally Darwinists prefer the later since they would (as we see now) get smashed in the latter. I agree though, when people lose their jobs over such a dangerous set of ideas it can be hard to pull off any experiments.
There are literally thousands of scientific papers examining falsifiable facets of creationism. The second human chromosome, discovered with genetics well after Darwin, is a great example. We have one less chromosome than our great ape ancestors, and evolution predicts that this would be because two of the chromosomes became fused together by mutation as we evolved. As it turns out, this is the case; our second chromosome has "end piece" coding in the center, where two chromosomes were once joined.
This is just one of many, many examples that have been mentioned here. And those are only a tiny subset of the thousands of papers based on evolution.
So where are those ID propositions again?
I'm glad Stein gave them the same treatment they give us. He's more then just a martyr, this guy is a pure absolute freedom fighter. But wait...
Ah, the classic ID proposition Larry has made famous: two wrongs make a right. If you think something bad has been done to your religious theory, your proponents are allowed to do it back. Very moral.
So you seem to be commenting on a movie you've never even seen! Take a look at the pwnage in the following clip:
Oh, I saw Expelled, assuming that's what you are linking to (again, I won't do your research for you). It was pretty funny. The very idea of setting Sternberg up as a martyr... a guy who got a promotion and voluntarily moved his office!
True, while they waste away with scientism, we also take the time to make our views as clear as possible, we don’t call anyone who disagrees with us idiots, and all that adds up to more support. I guess you could take a step with a better PR campaign but you’ve flushed that down the toilet a while ago.
"While they waste away with scientism" is the best quote from you yet. Do you really think scientific truth is arrived at through a popularity poll? "Wasting away with scientism" is how science is done, not PR. This is classic... "scientism" isn't even a word!
Do they really expect us to believe that he suddenly decided to just not show up anymore and spend all this time crying censorship time and time again if nothing even happened???
Of course no one expects YOU to believe that. You don't really care about what happened. I suppose this comes down to "he said, she said," but there are some pretty clear facts: Sternberg didn't lose his position, his term as a research associate expired normally. He didn't lose his office, he voluntarily moved along with his neighbors for renovation, and he wound up with a larger research space. He has suffered no harm at all from his actions, aside from the obvious and expected results: he can't find anyone to sponsor him at the Smithsonian for a new research position after accusing them of oppressing him.
I mean, what censorship do you think occurred? He was already on his last issue as editor of the Proceedings, so he didn't lose that position (even though he probably would have, for violating their protocol).
Sorry that’s not an accurate account of what happened at all.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508
I'm seriously not going to do your research for you. You have posted many many links... if it was one or two, you might be justified in asking me to read them. But I'm not going to go watch videos and read essays of all of these dozen links. I'm not going to go look up your arguments and construct them for you. If you have something to say, say it.
Pretty much all the text I cite is relevant to the point being made but I will take this into account in future cases. For now, listen to the NPR story and take the time to reflect on it.
No. Quote it, or describe its claims. That's how its done. I'm not going to listen or read things and then try to guess what point you are making. You have to actually make arguments, not spam links.
Clearly the difference is more then a pretty new hat:
http://www.discovery.org/v/21
Wow. A blind link to a discovery.org essay. Yeah, I'm sure going to run right out and do your research for you.
Seriously, if you have some sort of mental disability that makes you unable to make arguments or the like, just bow out. It won't be graceful, but then nothing you do ever seems to be.
Ok then. 1.Tell me what you think creationism is. 2. Tell me what you think ID is. 3. Explain to me the similarities between the two.
I'd rather not. Any definitions I provide you will simply claim is incomplete. Plus, I am not confidence in my ability to paraphrase pseudoscience... I'd have to ask Sylvia Browne. Why don't you go ahead and define it, since it's YOUR point.
This is just you trying to get me to do your work again. If you can come up with distinctions between the two, then provide them. But it's hardly a valid response to demand I try to do it for you.
I’ve done this numerous times already, but as with any debate it takes about a dozen or so times before their brains actually turn on to make the distinction. I’ll point out ten differences:
Creationism holds the following to be true:
1.Sudden creation of the universe out of nothing.
Whoa whoa whoa, kemosabe. That's not accurate. There are several different flavors of creationism, and one of them holds that Jesus "guided" natural processes or influenced them in some way, giving the probabilities a nice little nudge.
2. Mutations and natural selection are insufficient to bring about any development of different “kinds” from a single organism.
That's true, indeed.
3. There is no common descent between living things, apes and humans therefore do not share ancestry.
Again, not necessarily. You seem to be defining creationism along young-earth literalist lines, but that's only one of several varieties. Some creationists have said that humans and apes are related, but that God made man take the necessary divinely-inspired leap.
4. There was a global catastrophic flood that resulted in much of the geological features we see today.5. The Earth and everything that inhabits it is not any older then 10,000 years. 6. Scriptural text is entirely true and is to be taken literally as a manuscript.
Well, you said you would provide ten, so first of all there's a bit of a problem with your math. But we'll let that slide.
The main problem here is that you are advocating a very strict and singular creationist notion: young-earth literalist creationism. That is only one of several kinds. For example, there is day-age creationism, which has a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis occurring over huge periods. Accordingly, most of the points you cite above are null, since a lot of them are not embraced by different kinds of creationism.
Now, if you say that ID and old-earth literalist creationism are not the same: sure, that's true. But that's not what I've been talking about. I gave some specific examples and arguments (hint hint) but you can read more on the Wikipedia article about it. Note how I link to something, but first make my argument and talk about it. I don't just reply with a link and try to make you do my work. ;)
Intelligent Design holds the following to be true:
1. There are systems in biology which are irreducibly complex. 2. Most if not all of these systems also exhibit specified complexity, they are both improbable to come about by undirected means, and also are consistent with what would be the result of a teleological force. 3. The Earth has conditions which both support life AND discovery; a coincidence that might not be. 4. The laws of physics and cosmology work in tandem in a way that suggests they were probably pre-programmed to their settings. 5. All of the above is thus best explained by an intelligent cause, and not the result of random particle collision, or undirected means. 6. Rather then trying to explain the very existence of all matter it is only concerned with how material forces and constituents got that way. 7. No sacred text is reliable to explain how things came to be.
So you have listed a set of qualities for one style of creationism, and then a set of qualities of ID. The problem is that your listed qualities of ID also fit old earth gradualist creationism. Whoops!
You asked for one difference, I gave 13. ;D
Well, in point of fact you listed none.
"The proof is in what we have already seen: the definition they had for creationism was identical to that of intelligent design,"
I’ve shredded this argument to pieces several times already, including the 13 differences I mentioned above.
Except, as we have seen, you tried to build a nice little fable by defining creationism in a specific way that would help your argument. Or are you pretending you actually thought all creationists had a literal interpretation of the Bible?
Then why do people claim to have falsified it?
Again, you duck the question. This is the fourth or fifth time you have avoided a simple request for a testable theory of ID.
"Sorry, not so good with the thinking, are you?"
No, you aren’t.
Oh, BURN! OUCH! You retorted by saying my assertion was instead true about ME! OH HOLY SHIT, your wit is devastating!
That’s been done many times already. Here’s one such example:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2181
Wow. A blind link to yet another discovery essay that you want me to read do that I can try to construct your own argument for you. Yeah, sure.
Is it really so hard to actually say things? I mean, you're already so busy ducking questions, you have plenty of time to make assertions.
So then ID is science. Good.
It sure is, exactly as soon as you come up with a testable thesis for it. I.e. not yet.
Here’s a testable prediction that (surprise!) turned out to be true:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/05/another_intelligent_design_pre.html
Wow. Another blind link to a discovery institute page you want me to follow to try to make your argument for you. I did you the favor of reading this one out of curiosity, and I must admit I simply cannot construct your argument. You're going to have to do it. That page has a broken link to a study, but doesn't even name the study or its authors... how is this useful?
Regardless, that page claims that ID predicts that "junk DNA" or "pseudogenes" will have a purpose. But I never saw this claim made until now, so how exactly is it a testable proposition? Plus, since their utility is just as explainable through evolution, how is this evidence for ID?
Now, it is true that when I went through the past issues of Nature from about this time, I found a Japanese study published by Shinji Hirotsune that claimed pseudogene function. Yet it only took another few moments to discover that those conclusions has been overturned by another study that examined the same evidence (repeatability! Another thing ID doesn't have!) and found the study the ID article seems to be citing to be enormously flawed: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/32/12039.abstract
Now, admittedly, that study can't overturn the ID article entirely, because the link to the paper in the ID article is broken and so there are no facts to back them up. But it is pretty telling that the only thing you can point to as a testable prediction of ID is not something that ID actually predicted ("prediction" means "before it happens," like the human second chromosome prediction) and is unverifiable! Hahahha! I may check out more of your links, if they're all of this quality!
That’s been taken care of. I’ve made statements and provided sources, plain and simple.
Well, no. Often you reply to an assertion or question with just a link and a claim that it will explain.
So now that I’ve stated the differences several dozen times now, tell me how they are similar.
Old-earth gradualism creationism has virtually all of the same tenets you describe for ID.
They don’t have much to say on the supposed similarities either. Just a couple quote mines to try and insist otherwise, and that’s really about it.
That's because they generally have responded to coherent arguments. When you try to define all creationism as young-earth literalism, it's not a coherent argument... it's just a lie.
Nope, that’s not what Behe claimed at all. I can tell you have trouble learning how to read (ID books in particular) if you claim to be getting that from an ID source.
You have the most amusing habit of telling me I am wrong and then quietly declining to explain how.
In part, yes it would. Aside from the straw man I pointed out above, you have a raw (very uncooked so to speak) understanding of what IC actually is.
So explain it. You keep telling me I am wrong, but refuse to explain IC. So go ahead and educate me. Hint: that doesn't mean link me to more DI essays, you may have to actually make statements this time.
Not that same Ken Miller straw man again! Here’s the definition Behe made clear in 1996 in the book “Darwin’s Black Box”: by irreducibly complex, I mean a system that is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts where the removal of any of these parts causes the original system to cease functioning.
That's not a very good concept. My knee is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts. And if you remove any of these parts, the system stops functioning. If you remove the femur, it won't work. The kneecap, it won't work. The patellar ligament, it won't work. And so on. Yet it is trivial to show the evolution of the system from less complex joints in related species.
So since the original system (a rotary flagellum) has ceased functioning, the flagellum is thus still IC. And keep in mind that the TTSS is SIMILAR to the base of the flagellum, you can’t actually use a TTSS in place of those flagellar parts. And one link I cited above gives evidence that the TTSS probably came AFTER the flagellum:
Well, I will agree that fits your definition of IC. But your definition is useless, since it describes such an enormous amount of systems that can be easily shown to have evolved. The knee is a good example, as I stated above. Evolution makes the point that a system such as the knee or flagellum may not function AS a knee or flagellum as we know them, but that they still have utility and thus may confer an advantage. This is kind of hard stuff, so it makes sense that you didn't get it.
Moving on from there, the TTSS hardly explains the evolution of the flagellum any more then the Hawaiian Islands explain how to cross from Tokyo to LA on foot.
That is an admirable analogy, if wholly inaccurate. An intermediary stage with utility is clearly available, and component evolution has also been suggested. If you would like to see examples of some of the research, you could read this.
Unless you can build (my bad, evolve) something by building upon the same function, the system is still IC.
By your definition, I suppose. But that hardly demonstrates it must have been designed. You are demanding that any system, minus a part or two, must still perform the same function. But evolution specifically suggests otherwise.
You’ve never even had a case, or any footing. I’m going to start reposting a list of things you have yet to provide evidence for until you answer the questions.
That would be delightful. Please do so immediately. Also, provide a testable proposition for ID.
I’ve taken care of that many times before, so nothing damaging in what you said there.
Like? Refresh me, and remind me of a testable proposition made by ID.
Ok then. The part of the human genome that is known to have function consists of about 450 million base pairs. With four possible options for each base pair (AT, TA, CG, GC) that means the odds that you would get any particular arrangement would be on the order of 4 to the 450 millionth power. There, you have an improbable code that could not have come about by chance and necessity because it is virtually impossible to have a functional change in a creature’s genome with steps as small as one base pair at a time.
You don't understand the process. The pairs weren't thrown together by chance. Instead, they started with a very few number of them, and then each subsequent evolution mutated new ones thanks to replication errors or the like. "Random chance" only supplied the enormous number of mutations over the years, for natural selection to work on. You seem to think that humans came from random coalescing of nucleotides, but in fact evolution suggests we "evolved."
That’s been done already…
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/biology_replaces_technology_as.html
…so that request has been fulfilled. And you yourself admitted:
…that would be a great start of evidence for ID.
Now that I’m right, time to add even more evidence against this claim:
Wow, another blind link to a discovery institute essay. I am just so surprised. But reading it, I am not sure why you think that ID provided this bit of technology. It mimics the flagella, found in nature. ID has had literally nothing to do with it.
...do you actually read the things you link?
Here’s even more ammunition against that claim:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/intelligent_design_lab_is_goin.html
http://biologicinstitute.org/research/
I'm not going to all of the various links you have spammed, I have visited enough already. I think it is pretty obvious to anyone reading that you can't make arguments, so you are trying to link to things and hope I will make them for you.
Because then selection has less work to do. Not all combinations of scrabble letters on a tabletop will actually spell anything, thus they have a high rejection region. The same applies to the language of life, because of the smaller fraction of sequences that will result in anything promising selection becomes a crapshoot. All you can do is hope that there is trillions of years at hand for mutations to possibly strike gold.
It is a crapshoot, indeed. Mutations seldom yield viable results, and even less seldom yield superior results. That's why it takes millions of years. But rather than waiting to strike gold, it is better to say that evolution produced one grain of gold every few thousand years, until it arrived at our golden selves.
The amount of functional sequences in an organism’s genome isn’t relevant to evolution??? Perhaps you’re the one who needs to open up a biology text book.
No, it's not. You seem to be trying to argue that the number of possibilities for the human genome, if you scramble the nucleotides, is so huge that it couldn't have been arrived at by chance. And that's true. But no one is saying it did. It evolved. Are you really as stupid as you seem?
And some biologists doubt the idea that we arrived here by means of an entirely undirected process, so no, it has no relevance.
Then I assume that their alternative hypothesis has testable propositions? Name one.
"But everyone doesn't agree, and ID would be welcome in journals if it could produce any decent papers."
….
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1026
http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=389
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/journal_of_molecular_biology_a.html
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/book85.html
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=639
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html
…..Now what? Not that peer review really means anything but clearly ID has achieved that.
I'm obviously not going to read all of those, since not even you can be bothered to tell me what they say. But the first few have links to papers in such journals as "Darwinism, Design, and Public Education." Do I really need to point out that this publication was created just for ID proponents, and is not a respected scientific publication? Do you have any citations for ID papers published in a real journal, like Nature? Otherwise, I will happily cede the point that ID papers have been published in journals created for ID papers.
Which thanks to people with your mentality; this is now a messy process.
Not really. At least, not unless you are Sternberg and decide that you personally are the best peer-reviewer for a paper on a period of paleontology in which you are not trained, even though there are three other scientists on the review board who possess specific expertise in that field. In that case, the journal will have to issue an embarrassed statement that says that normal peer review processes were circumvented and that the paper does not meet their usual standards. Oops.
So because something challenges dogma it should be shunned altogether? Elaborate on the policies he broke, and why he deserved what he got.
He decided he should be the staff reviewer of the Meyers paper, even though he had an ideological position on the matter (since he had belonged and was speaking at an ID organization, the DI affiliate International Society for Complexity, Information and Design). Further, he was clearly not the best choice for a paper on paleontology, since he was an expert on taxonomy instead. It is pretty obvious he just didn't want anyone else to see it, otherwise he would have given it to a paleontologist. Three members of the board were experts on the pre-Cambrian period the Meyer paper examined, and Sternberg wasn't one of them. He tried to pull a fast one, so naturally he deserved the ignominy that resulted when the journal he had been editing was forced to disavow a paper he personally slid through.
The points don’t require specific quotes for you to take a quick skim and see why I referred to them. If you expect me to re-read a biology textbook then I don’t think I’m asking for much.
If you're going to discuss biology, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect you to be familiar with basic concepts. On the other hand, you have posted literally dozens of links now, and the few I have followed are either useless or non-topical.
"You're right, I didn't link anything. It was all from my own head, except for this post with expelledexposed."
Except….
"I have read talkorigins, certainly, and it is also a valuable resource."
Ok so they do come from a source.
Sure. I am not a biologist, and numerous sources have contributed to my knowledge. But notice how I actually make my arguments and only link to things as supporting evidence. You have a tendency to post a link with little or no explanation, and assume I will make up your argument for you. For example, above you post a link about pseudogenes. But you don't say what is says, or why this proves your point. Do you really not understand the difference here?
I was explaining the difference between an argument from ignorance and an argument from evidence.
You were trying. Try harder.
So you believe after millions of years that wind and erosion will form Mt. Rushmore? Wow, I guess you really are crazy. :?
No. Mt. Rushmore is a rock and we have empirical evidence it was sculpted, if that were to be questioned. This has almost no bearing on the matter at hand.
If I told you how much, you wouldn’t believe me.
Considering how poor you are doing, I can assure that is true.
And that certainly is starting to show.
That's too bad. And here I thought I had asked a question you were forced to continually avoid: what is a testable proposition of ID?
F2XL, I noice you are still linking to that nature article on 'Darwinism and Immunology', presumably to continue your claim about 'Darwinism being used to refer to the modern evolutionary synthesis by evolutionists, not creationists/IDiots (though it is difficult to tell, as you are quoting posts and talking about completely different comment threads). I already pointed out that it uses the term 'Darwinism' to refer to Darwin's original theory, and not as a synonym for evolution.
As to the bulk of your very long-winded post, it seems to be, essentially, repeating over and over that ID is not creationism, and 'backing that up' by repeating various things that are generally used as arguments to support ID, not a definition of ID, and claiming that ID is testable by pointing out that people have claimed to have falsified ID. Well, in fact, to my knowledge, no-one has ever said they have falsified ID. They've just said they have falsified the arguments of IDiots, without falsifying ID itself. As you have yet to actually give anything that you would consider to be a definitive falsification of ID, I can only conclude that Phae is, indeed, correct, and ID is non-falsifiable.
Now, to address another couple of things. Firstly, the 'link' between 'Darwinism' and Hitler. You say you did the research, so I'll take it you realise how wrong that assertion is, then, now that you realise that Hitler and the Nazis burnt, amongst others, books on Darwin and his theories, and that the concept of 'racial purity' actually sets back evolutionary progress.
Secondly, as to your question, 'What other content falls into that category and why?' The answer is, 'most of the film because it's just plain wrong'.
Thirdly, about your link regarding Expelled's takings, by that same link, it opened in 1052 theaters - and hasn't expanded to even one more. Doing a simple calculation, it's made a grand total of just $7238 per theater - in the entire time since it was released, almost three months ago. In comparison, way down on the list, Body of War, released about a month or so before it, has made $14,343 per theater. Additionally, Expelled made just under $25,000 in it's opening weekend in Canada - the WHOLE of Canada. So the guy you were replying to had it right - Expelled had good marketing, which meant it had a good opening, but fell completely flat on it's face once people actually began to see it.
Fourthly, yes, I meant 'vestigial'. That's not being dumb, that's called 'a mistype'. Hence why I have never stooped to level of trying to argue by calling people stupid for misspelling something, as, basically, it's an utter non-argument, in my experience, usually used by those who don't have a better one.
Post a Comment
<< Home