More evidence that the Kansas Kangaroo Court didn't go well for ID

Wedges, Vices, what's next? Screwdrivers? Or maybe some medieval torture devices and Inquisition fantasies.

Indeed we should subpoenae the evolutionists too! We could have a show trial and require everyone to testify. We could call it something flashy like "Epperson vs. Arkansas".

-Evil(tm) Evolutionist

Darwin is cross eyed. This proves his theory is just a theory.
Also, crossed eyes are irreducibley complex.

M Behe

I used to think the only people making money off of this were the lawyers. Now apparently it includes the Mattel Toy Company.

I'm sorry, but that's just far too silly to be taken seriously. I have to assume that he's just joking. There's no way he can mean the things he's saying. He's second only to Ann Coulter, the greatest living comedian.

Actually the vise is irreducibly complex. But if you remove just one part it can't catch mice.

"What I propose, then, is a strategy for interrogating the Darwinists to, as it were, squeeze the truth out of them. For a glimpse of what I have in mind, see the examination of Eugenie Scott by Robert George before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights."

Dembski thinks that his picture of a Darwin doll with its head in a vise was funny enough to print twice in the same entry.

It's hard to tell what's more disturbing: the casual sadism itself or the fact that a leader in the ID movement reacts to setbacks by torturing voodoo doll representations of his opponents (might this behavior be rightly called "petulant", Bill?).

I think this entry might reveal more about Dembski's character than he realizes.

There are ways for this to happen, and the wheels are in motion

slight technical point:

It might be an idea to host that picture somewhere else. By hotlinking it from uncommondescent.org, you're leaving yourself wide open for someone to play a dirty trick and switch the image.

Yeah, Genie Scott's 1998 testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was superb, and far better than I can imagine almost anyone else doing with the range of complex scientific/religious/legal/political issues involved. Stephen Meyer, who was there, appeared to be flailing just to get a word in edgewise.

Poor Darwin doll! He didn't expect the Dembski Inquisition.

*pause for dramatic effect. door bursts open! enter Dembski wearing red cape and tights*

"Nobody expects the Dembski Inquisition! We have ways to make you confess that Evilution is Wrong. Two ways, no, three. Three ways to make you confess...four! Yes, four ways."

"One, we will make your Cambrium explode. That's gonna hurt!"
"Two, we'll whip you with an irreducably complex flagellum!"
"Three, we'll read you chapter 12 of my book Infinite Improbability Driven Improvisation until your ears bleed."

"Finally, the most diabolical torture of all! Brother Behe will show you 10,000 slides of his vacation to Mount Rushmore!"

"Bwwaaahahahahahahahaha!" <--maniacal laughter.

The recent writings of Bill Dembski strongly suggest the following question. Are they handing out PhDs to anyone these days in the US?

PS, for those of you who are slightly worried by what Dembski wants (did I hear someone mention theocracy?), then you are more than welcome to cross the pond and live in the UK. We don't suffer fools quite as gladly.

lol. *wipes a tear away* thanks for the python reference, bill. couldn't have said it better myself.

I find python's brand of intelligent sarcasm never seems to be out of place when talking about IDiots.

cheers

Dembski's post is not just fantasy, it is factually incorrect in its recounting of the Scopes trial. Dembski says that immediately after Clarence Darrow's examination of WJ Bryan, Darrow asked the judge to declare Scopes guilty, thereby avoiding examination by Darrow on his own beliefs. Wrong. The trial was adjourned until the next day immediately after Darrow's examination of Bryan. Darrow never asked the judge to declare his client guilty. He did, in his summary, tell the jury that they must find his client guilty because the court would not allow him to present all of the evidence he wanted to, and because the issue would have to be settled by an appeal to a higher court. This is a substantive difference. Dembski's use of this incorrect statement must stem either from ignorance or from an intentional misrepresentation of the facts to suit a point.

Serves us scientists right for thinking that "Dumbski" was the height of subtle wit! But I wonder, will the Grand Inquisitor have read the charges?

But seriously, doesn't Dembski realize that scientific theory is already constantly on trial--in the court of scientific review and discourse? Would he convene a special court of intellectually-challenged ID choirboys to judge science from a theological basis?

I find it entertaining that the first poster on Demsbkis article seems to be SCordova who says:

"They know their theory will not be seen favorably once it is examined by the standards of real science. Phil Johnson was right, we need "Darwin on Trial". He foreswaw what must be done."

So, does that mean that courts are actually scientific laboratories? I guess so. That explains where the ID research budget is going.

As an aside, is Dembski substantially correct in his telling of what happened at the Scopes trial?

Honest question from someone with absolutely no axe to grind on any of these issues: I've noticed that virtually everything that guys like Dembski say, no matter how apparently trivial (e.g., a silly humor graphic on a blog post) are unanimously hailed as yet further evidence of their idiocy, malice,etc. I'm fully willing to stipulate for purposes of this discussion that there is absolutely zero merit to any of Dembski's scientific or mathematical claims. But is there any slight possibility, no matter how remote, that everything the man says is not further proof of his stupidity and evil character, but rather that some PTers just sieze on anything he says and spin it in a reflexively negative way? Just asking. The asides about the innocuous little picture on his blog seem a particularly stark example. I know they are tangential to the main point, but that just makes it all the more clearer a case of what I'm asking about.

Thanks for your consideration.

Rudolf Carnap

Does anyone else find it vaguely surreal that someone who is supposedly posting a serious blog and who wishes to be taken seriously from an intellectual point of view would include these odd pictures? I'm seriously starting to wonder about Dembski's sanity.

Would he convene a special court of intellectually-challenged ID choirboys to judge science from a theological basis?

Does anyone else find it vaguely surreal that someone who is supposedly posting a serious blog and who wishes to be taken seriously from an intellectual point of view would include these odd pictures? I'm seriously starting to wonder about Dembski's sanity.

I'm glad you folks explained that this was a Darwin Doll, because this lovely plush doll looked like he must be an obscure South Park character, and I could not for the life of me figure why Dembski was trying to drag South Park into this.

Honest question from someone with absolutely no axe to grind on any of these issues: I've noticed that virtually everything that guys like Dembski say, no matter how apparently trivial (e.g., a silly humor graphic on a blog post) are unanimously hailed as yet further evidence of their idiocy, malice,etc. I'm fully willing to stipulate for purposes of this discussion that there is absolutely zero merit to any of Dembski's scientific or mathematical claims. But is there any slight possibility, no matter how remote, that everything the man says is not further proof of his stupidity and evil character, but rather that some PTers just sieze on anything he says and spin it in a reflexively negative way? Just asking.

Does anyone else find it annoying that crypto-creationists still post to this blog claiming to be completely neutral with regard to ID vs evolution?

Mr. Carnap. Unfortunately, Dr. Dembski has forfeited whatever amount of credibility he originally possessed - a brief review of the incident of the quote from Ward should be sufficient to establish that it is not unreasonable to react the way most posters here react.

When I first read this thread, my initial reaction was that Dembski must be engaging in satire, and that some folks were missing what surely must have been some sort of attempt at humor.

But when I read Dembski's original post, I had the distinct impression that he was indeed serious -- at least at the time when it was written. The recent hearings in Kansas must have really stung him.

It's kind of sad, in an odd sort of way.

I think that the "Prof. Steve Steve" suggestion could be correct. Dembski wants a hand puppet.

It's hard to tell what's more disturbing: the casual sadism itself or the fact that a leader in the ID movement reacts to setbacks by torturing voodoo doll representations of his opponents (might this behavior be rightly called "petulant", Bill?).

Mark Paris tells us that Dembski:
". . . is factually incorrect in its recounting of the Scopes trial. . . "

Dembski says:
". . . a little known fact that . . . "

No wonder it's so 'little known', it was wrong.

I think Carnap asks a pretty good question. Look, ID folks like Dembski are wrong, and theocracy is toxic. We must do everything in our power to resist the cloud of unknowing that threatens our land. Except stoop to their level. If we do a really good job of pointing out how factually wrong ID is, I don't think we'll ever have to resort to ridicule the way some of them seem willing to. It's a luxury of being right that one does not have to act childish.

I take no offense to your response at all, Mr. Personality. I disagree with you, though, that my question was loaded. I'm just asking whether there could be any merit to the point I was asking about. If not, you can respond in good conscience that no, the response is appropriate; a similar graphic posted by, say, a Richard Dawkins or another person with better scientific views would receive comparable ridicule; etc.

I would only respond to Rilke's Granddaughter that Dembski's (conceded for present purposes) scientific incompeetence or even his (let's grant) intentional quote-mining does nothing to "forfeit" the right to a dispassionate and objective response to other things one says. If you disagree with that, then you should candidly admit that you are not judging the current statement putatively under discussion, but rather are responding merely to a past history of other statements.

In any event, thanks to both for the response.

Rufolf C.

William Dembski, in a post entitled "The Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth out of Darwinists," is now fantasizing about "the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas that compel evolutionists to be deposed and interrogated at length on their views."

People like Dembski who have repeatedly demonstrated both their ignorance and dishonesty are not going to be treated the same as people who have demonstrated both intellectual honesty and knowledge.

If Dembski wishes his statements to be treated with the respect that statements from an honest, well-informed person get, then he needs to show that he has become an honest, well-informed person.

Of course, this would require him to abandon his current ID obsession, since it is impossible to be a supporter of ID and still be both honest and knowledgeable.

Truth hurts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7832407/

During a two-hour attack on language proposed by intelligent-design advocates, Irigonegaray lectured presiding members, telling them they are damaging science education and the state's reputation.

"You have a responsibility to the children and the future of this state that you have sadly --- sadly --- failed," Irigonegaray told them.

But board members didn't let Irigonegaray's comments go unanswered, saying that he and other evolution defenders had engaged in character assassinations.

"I believe your behavior here was abusive," said Board Member Connie Morris. "I want you to know I forgive you."

"I believe your behavior here was abusive," said Board Member Connie Morris. "I want you to know I forgive you." Ms. Morris later admitted that she was inspired to pardon Irigonegary after watching "Schindler's List".

But is there any slight possibility, no matter how remote, that everything the man says is not further proof of his stupidity and evil character, but rather that some PTers just sieze on anything he says and spin it in a reflexively negative way?

RGd wrote: Does anyone else find it vaguely surreal that someone who is supposedly posting a serious blog and who wishes to be taken seriously from an intellectual point of view would include these odd pictures? I'm seriously starting to wonder about Dembski's sanity.

Rudolph C.

I am confused. I didn't see this...

"I've noticed that virtually everything that guys like Dembski say, no matter how apparently trivial (e.g., a silly humor graphic on a blog post) are unanimously hailed as yet further evidence of their idiocy, malice,etc. I'm fully willing to stipulate for purposes of this discussion that there is absolutely zero merit to any of Dembski's scientific or mathematical claims. But is there any slight possibility, no matter how remote, that everything the man says is not further proof of his stupidity and evil character, but rather that some PTers just sieze on anything he says and spin it in a reflexively negative way?"

Rather, I saw that Dembski has been making rather disturbing, if not disturbed, remarks, insinuating that scientists should literally be subpoenaed and forced to defend themselves in court. What would the charge be, I wonder? The image is fairly humorous (its inclusion on this page is a tacit acknowledgement of that), but it also shows, how can I put this, a lot of hostility, and suggests at some very unhealthy fantasies. Richard Dawkins can be needlessly undiplomatic, but I can damn well guarantee you that if he started suggesting that people who disagree with him be dragged into "court" and forced to "testify", and publishing images of them being tortured in effigy, humorous or not, it would meet with strong criticism from the pro-science posters here.

Sadly, my experience with creationist arguments has made me cynical. With apologies, do you really not have a "bone to pick"? It seems to me that you're trying to paint a false picture of Dembski being "persecuted", when in fact, the criticism is fair and well-warranted.

As an aside, I've noticed that the pro-science posters always make their views clear, whereas creationists sometimes try to disguise their true views, in a vain attempt to "trick" others into making "admissions". If that doesn't apply to you, I apologize for even bringing it up.

Dembski thinks that his picture of a Darwin doll with its head in a vise was funny enough to print twice in the same entry.

Followed of course, by ones with him wearing a dunce cap and being set on fire...

Harold, I can assure you I'm not tyring to "trick" you into making an "admission." I have no sinister agenda, and have never posted to Panda's Thumb before today. Honest to God, I'm happy to defer to experts on scientific questions in the absence of strong reasons not to do so, and I'm not a biologist. My question was motivated simply by having read a bunch of "threads" or whatever they're called in internet parlance, and having come to the conclusion that wholly apart from the merits of the science, the tone of many of these discussions is pointlessly abusive, particularly on issues (like this) that have nothing to do with the underlying scientific issues. So I asked a straightforward question about it.

As to your (rhetorical?) question about the legal procedure Dembski was proposing, I frankly don't understand the details, but I believe he was not discussing procedures involving "charges" against anybody, but rather some sort of hearings involving compulsory testimony. Generally, the subpoena power is not restricted to testimony from one against whom charges have been made.

Carnap,

There are hundreds of serious responses to Dembski's stuff on this blog -- look around.

In fact, there are several hundred serious responses that were posted at Dembski's own blog -- but he routinely deletes anything that doesn't fawn over him. He runs a blog as Caligula would run a blog, if Caligula had been an accountant.

Do you think the ridicule of this one thread might be prompted by the incredible, towering hubris Dembski presents?

And, thinking I hear just a hint of sympathy for Dembski in your post, do YOU think life is analogous to a telephone signal in a telephone wire? Do you think we can determine whether life is divinely inspired by applying telephone statistical measures to it?

Oh, and Carnap, the ID folks are doing everything they can to avoid a real hearing with subpoenas. They've taken that route before -- and lost every time. Go check it out on NCSE's site.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3747_8_major_court_decisions_agains_2_15_2001.asp

May 12, 2005 Dr. Steve E. Abrams, Chair Kansas State Board of Education C/o Kansas State Department of Education 120 SE 10th Avenue Topeka KS 66612-1182 Fax: (785) 296-7933 Dear Dr. Abrams: I have been following the controversy over the adoption of new science standards in your state with interest. I am writing---as a member of the National Academy of Sciences---to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory. All too often, the issue of how to teach evolutionary theory has been dominated by voices at the extremes. On one extreme, many religious activists have advocated for Bible-based ideas about creation to be taught and for evolution to be eliminated from the science curriculum entirely. On the other hand, many committed Darwinian biologists present students with an idealized version of the theory that glosses over real problems and prevents students from learning about genuine scientific criticisms of it. Both these extremes are mistaken. Evolution is an important theory and students need to know about it. But scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. I have found that some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view of biological origins. Darwinian evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life. Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science that do not address questions of biological history (largely based on stones, the fossil evidence). Modern biology is engaged in the examination of tissues from living organisms with new methods and instruments. None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution---it provided no support. As an aside, one might ask what Darwin would have written today if he was aware of the present state of knowledge of cell biology, rather than that of the mid 19th century when it was generally believed the cell was an enclosed blob of gelatin? As an exemplar, I draw your attention to what Prof. James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist, U. of Chicago, wrote (http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html). For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me. In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals. Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the scientific method. Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive. Encouraging students to carefully examine the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism, therefore, will help prepare students not only to understand current scientific arguments, but also to do good scientific research. I commend you for your efforts to ensure that students are more fully informed about current debates over neo-Darwinism in the scientific community. Yours sincerely, Professor Philip S. Skell Member, National Academy of Sciences Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus Penn State University

Hi, Ed. Thanks for the response. I have already conceded that I do have sympathy for Dembski in the sense that I believe he is subjected to excessive verbal abuse here -- but in only that sense. I recognize that Dembski has been critiqued on the merits, and nothing I have said should be taken as any sort of criticism of such responses (except to the extent that they are accompanied by needlessly abusive comments).

I don't know why everyone is so interested in my views on the merits of these scientific issues. As I've said, I have no competence in this area, so I can't form an independent evaluation whether Dembski is right or not. I guess the way I see the state of the merits situation is basically that (1) Dembski has proposed certain methods he claims can detect design. I have no ability to assess the merits of these methods. (2) These methods have been vigorously critiqued by people who I assume are qualified to do so, and I'm happy to assume that the critiques are valid. My only hesitation here is that my observation about the excessively heated rhetoric makes me wonder whether the treatment of his ideas is fully dispassionate. (3) Even if Dembski's methods are wholly without merit, I see nothing in principle wrong with trying to come up with formal methods for explicating our intuitive sense that we can (at least sometimes) separate designed artifacts from artifacts resulting from natural processes. But the fact that natural selection can simulate design would presumably place serious obstacles on such a task in its application to realms in which natural selection operates (such as biological systems). So rather than demonizing people who are trying to do such things, I see no reason why that endeavor should not be encouraged, even if initial attempts are faulty. None of this has anything to do with whether the basic evolutionary history of life on Earth is exactly as set out in modern scientific theories (e.g., common descent from a biologically simple ancestor).

If that assessment is wrong, I apologize -- I'm not an expert in this area, and I never claimed any merits expertise. It has nothing to do with my point about the tone of discussions on this forum. If you think those views disqualify me from discussion, you're welcome not to engage in discussion with me.

Regards,

Rudolf C.

Honest to God, I'm happy to defer to experts on scientific questions in the absence of strong reasons not to do so

Correct that question to Carnap:

What are some examples of "strong reasons" where it would be reasonable for a person without any background in a particular area to NOT defer to scientific experts?

I think Dembski would be great to have for dinner. (Check out my postings about the newly discovered rat (sorry, biologists) and you'll get my drift.)

But, I digress, as usual.

Dembski in a nutshell (how appropriate), my view: smart guy, articulate, loves a good debate, cool under fire, good conversationalist, committed to his faith. I would not rate him evil nor stupid.

Dembski is not a scientist (imho) nor does he understand the ethics of science, and possibly ethics in general. I believe he's an "end justifies the means" sort of guy and a shameless self-promoter. Who else would boast that he writes books because it takes too long to get peer-reviewed articles published? Please, Dembski, we're not stupid!

Since I gave up debating creationists for the next 100 Lents, my job is to lampoon them and Dembski is the Great White Whale in my view. Open season. You can't reason with a creationist. All you can do in the end is laugh at them. Dembski is the Alfred E. Neuman of the Whatever. What, me worry? The only thing Dembski contributes is entertainment value, and we're grateful for that mainly because it's free and we're cheap bastards, speaking for myself and possibly Sir_Toejam.

Dembski, like Garner Ted Armstrong before him, will enjoy a long, if sordid, career hawking his snake oil creationism from one rural town to another. At some point he will end up in the monkey cage with Davison and I'm sure they'll find each other great company.

Meanwhile, mainstream science will move forward, with or without Kansas biologists, which may become an oxymoron if Steve Abrams and his creationist cronies have their way, and Dembski, the Discovery Institute and all the other creationist loonies will find themselves in the toxic waste dump of History under the label: Mostly Harmless.

Great White, I included that hedge precisely because I hadn't thought through all the permutations, and I wouldn't want to commit myself to a blanket statement. I don't have a grand unified theory of expert deference, but it certainly should be a strong default position in my view. In the meantime, I have set out my views on the merits in an intervening post so there shouldn't be any lingering concern about where I stand on these things. I'm not a "lurking biblical creationist" or whatever you're worried about.

Best,

Rudolf C.

Dembski is proposing something like the McCarthy Hearings and we're supposed to be polite. A suggestion like that doesn't deserve a polite responce.

Salvador,

What exactly are those debates about neo-Darwinism in the scientific community? How do the attempts by creationists in Kansas to cast evolution as a less-powerful theory and offer a shoehorn for religiously-motivated theories encourage the students to learn properly and prepare them to do better science?

Salvador,

Let me recast my questions in as plain and open-ended a light as possible.

What exactly are the debates that Skell alludes to about neo-Darwinism in the scientific community?

How does the recent events in Kansas encourage students to learn properly and prepare them to do better science?

There. I await your answers.

Does Dembski even have a sense a humor? Has anyone actually seen it?

The asides about the innocuous little picture on his blog seem a particularly stark example. I know they are tangential to the main point, but that just makes it all the more clearer a case of what I'm asking about.

My only hesitation here is that my observation about the excessively heated rhetoric makes me wonder whether the treatment of his ideas is fully dispassionate.

So rather than demonizing people who are trying to do such things ...

Great White, I have indeed read things about the alleged sinister intent of the "Wedge" crowd (indeed, I even read the whole book coauthored by Gross cataloguing the evidence for it), and, to be honest, I was underwhelmed. Clearly, religious crackpots will latch onto these things, and some supporters may have politically questionable designs, such as improper changes in the public school curricula. But in my opinion, nothing about that changes the need to be "fully dispassionate" in discussing and evaluating the underlying ideas if we want to get at the truth. Indeed, to me, this just calls for an even greater need to bend over backward to be evenhanded with the ideas where there are a lot of genuine concerns about the political repurcussions, because it is in just those areas that our objectivity could conceivably be obscured by our passions about the implications (again, even where those passions are fully justified). Again, I appreciate your letting me know your views on these things, and I suspect that you and I come out the same way at the end of the day on most of these questions.

Russell, I appreciate your comments. I realize that there is a sort of selection bias at work here, and also that the problem tends to be exacerbated in these internet fora. To answer your question, I really can't give you a view on the merits of what Dembski is proposing, because I have no idea what it is.

Rudolf C.

The heroic efforts of the defenders good science, those who believe in the power of the wedge of truth, inspired a defection from the National Academy of Sciences:

The heroic efforts of the defenders good science, those who believe in the power of the wedge of truth, inspired a defection from the National Academy of Sciences: [followed by a letter from retired chemist - not biologist - Philip Skell]

— Cordova

I don't know why everyone is so interested in my views on the merits of these scientific issues.

To answer your question, I really can't give you a view on the merits of what Dembski is proposing, because I have no idea what it is.

Indeed, to me, this just calls for an even greater need to bend over backward to be evenhanded with the ideas where there are a lot of genuine concerns about the political repurcussions, because it is in just those areas that our objectivity could conceivably be obscured by our passions about the implications (again, even where those passions are fully justified).

And for another sign that the hearings didn't go as well as the ID proponents had hoped...

A few minutes ago, I saw "See BS" News run a news segment that showed John Calvert pointedly refusing to shake hands with Pedro Irigonegaray. Ol' Calvert sure looked cranky....

Darwinian evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life. Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science that do not address questions of biological history (largely based on stones, the fossil evidence).

— Skell

kwickcode, don't you mean that the other way around?

Salvador, let me also extend my line of questions, now that Russell has asked a similar one. Skell is on the list of "Scientists who dissent from Darwin" and he is not a terribly recent signatory. What actions, certainly not last week's hearings in Kansas, by the authors of the Wedge document do you believe contributed to his "defection?" Do you think that the Wedge authors convinced Skell against his previous thinking, or did they merely provide a big enough tent for him to get underneath?

I note that his letter, despite its length, can be summed up by the "Dissent from Darwin" statement, particularly because he maeks no specific claims as to the alleged weaknesses of Darwinian evolution.

I saw "See BS" News run a news segment that showed John Calvert pointedly refusing to shake hands with Pedro Irigonegaray. Ol' Calvert sure looked cranky . . . .

Look, Great White. I have no clue what I might have said to lead you to believe that I am "stuck on [my]self." I have bent over backward to emphasize again not only that I have no standing to discuss the merits of the scientific issues, but that I defer to those who do. I'm happy to converse with anyone who treats me with respect, as I believe I have consistently done with you, but if you're going to be rude, I'm happy to let the discussion stand where it is.

Thanks again for your time,

RC

Dave, it's obviously a joke. Several missed jokes around here lately.

re: Dembski's Sense of Humor

Yeah, his last book.

Dembski tried to create an ID theory and failed so badly that ID sympathizers like del Ratzch and Nelson admit it. Rather than slink away and try again, he's really going out of his way to be public. I wondered why, but I think I know now. He craves attention. "But," you say, "it's such negative attention, people making fun of his absurd claims, surely he wouldn't encourage that." While that makes common sense, psychologists say that to receive negative attention is better than to receive no attention at all. Dembski knows he'll never get attention for any legitimate contributions to science. He doesn't have any, and he's on the other side of the hill. But he's getting a hell of a lot of attention this way, isn't he?

Dave, it's obviously a joke. Several missed jokes around here lately.

Posted by Carnap on May 12, 2005 04:17 PM (e) (s) Honest question from someone with absolutely no axe to grind on any of these issues: I've noticed that virtually everything that guys like Dembski say, no matter how apparently trivial (e.g., a silly humor graphic on a blog post) are unanimously hailed as yet further evidence of their idiocy, malice,etc. I'm fully willing to stipulate for purposes of this discussion that there is absolutely zero merit to any of Dembski's scientific or mathematical claims. But is there any slight possibility, no matter how remote, that everything the man says is not further proof of his stupidity and evil character, but rather that some PTers just sieze on anything he says and spin it in a reflexively negative way? Just asking. The asides about the innocuous little picture on his blog seem a particularly stark example. I know they are tangential to the main point, but that just makes it all the more clearer a case of what I'm asking about. Thanks for your consideration. Rudolf Carnap

As a farewell (I promise!) message to you guys, I can't resist giving a tip of the hat to JRQ for the excellent "unspinning" of the irreducibly complex irony meters. Very nice.

RC

Point of interest: Dembski has edited out the trackback link on the article in question.

I guess he really doesn't want our opinions that badly after all!

I think the guy with his head in the vice is Santa Claus.

"psychologists say that to receive negative attention is better than to receive no attention at all"

this would explain JAD as well.

Dembski banned me. I am so hurt proud. My comment was barely critical, merely mentioning that scientists might take ID seriously if ID proponents took science seriously. Oh, yeah. I also mentioned that legal proceedings were incapable of determining scientific truths.

I didn't realize that he was so thin skinned.

The funny part is that Darwinism has withstood much of the scrutiny in the last century or so and has remained unscathed. Compare this to the Explanatory Filter, CSI or IC, which as ID concepts did not even outlast a decade, although the do remain 'powerful' as a religious tool.
I am not sure why Dembski believes ID would do a better job in courts showing Darwinism to be wrong when they have miserably failed to do so so far.
And I am even more surprised why Dembski references Scott's testimony as an example. Scott did quite well... Not surprisingly.
Imagine Dembski in court. Mr Dembski, do you believe that an explanatory filter which ran the risk of false positives would be useless?... Let me remind you that you are under oath...

freelunch --

so on Dembski's site there is no freelunch. Now is that just an economic theory, or is it a fact?

I'm happy to converse with anyone who treats me with respect, as I believe I have consistently done with you, but if you're going to be rude, I'm happy to let the discussion stand where it is.

Dembski has edited out the trackback link on the article in question.

I may be wrong as it has been a long time since I studied the Scopes' Trial but I seem to remember that the biologists that Darrow had brought to testify on evolution were not allowed to testify. Bryan would have had a chance to cross examine them except that he objected to their opportunity to testify. That may only be an artifact of my memory or a piece from Inherit the Wind that wasn't in the trial. Anyone remember better than I do?

"Generally, the subpoena power is not restricted to testimony from one against whom charges have been made."

indeed, and Dembski and his ID sycophants have now made it very clear that should they get the power to utilize subpoenas, they would abuse that power just as the McCarthyites did.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml

Fifth story down, takes RealPlayer or Windows Media Player, for story on hearings today.

See www.coalitionforscience.org for a PDF of Pedro Irigonegaray's slides.

On above link, then go to CBS Evening News

Also http://coalitionforscience.org/newsblog-archives/Summation_key.pdf will get you Pedro's summary

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/SCO_BIBL.HTM

anybody who wants answers about what happened in the scopes trial could check out the links above.

complete transcripts are available from various places for less than 10.00.

cheers

Too funny.

"Do you expect me to recant?"

"No, Mr. Darwin. I expect you to die!"

The science related to origins of life is negligible and totally irrelevant to the education of students in preparation for careers in modern biology, or for understanding the current status of the field. The theory posits that an ancient soup of organic chemicals (for which there is no geological evidence), self-assembled, by chance alone, into living matter. Proteins are some of the essential ingredients required for cellular activity. The simplest bacteria require 300 to 500 different proteins for minimal function, made from the required 20 different amino acids. It has been reliably demonstrated that self-assembly by chance, of a single small functional protein, of 100 amino acids length, could occur in one chance out of 1,000,000,0 -- (500 zeros); for 300 different proteins, one chance out of a number with a million zeros. It is ludicrous to give this scenario serious consideration -- counting all the atoms in the entire universe, the number has only 80 zeros! Of what value is this theory for the education of our children?

It would not be the first time that Dembski's impatience and sense of superiority has gotten him into trouble. If I recall correctly, he lost the much fought for position as the director of Baylor's Center for Complexity, Information and Design after he claimed 'victory' in an email. I wonder how the Southern Baptist Seminary feels about Dembski's lack of science as well as what I see a lack of Christian attitude here. Reasonable people may disagree of course but as a Christian myself, I find Dembski's comments quite disconcerning.

fh,

Maybe Dembski thought I was mocking his book, rather than mocking Laffer and the loons who think that government can get rich by cutting taxes with my nick. I would have, but I don't actually give Dembski enough thought to actually bother to mock him. For someone who appears to have been to college, he doesn't seem to be particularly capable of informed discussion.

It's not as if nobody's noticed that it is the ID/creationist crowd that have proposed the free lunch of the (deus ex machina) intelligent designer that solves all problems and resolves all inconvenient facts when invoked.

Dembski surely is making life easier for those who want to expose ID for being scientifically vacuous and theologically risky. No wonder Dembski wants to return to teaching theology...

But Dembski himself may get his wish to be interrogated as a witness in court soon, if I understand the proceedings in Dover correctly. It may have been a costly tactical and strategic mistake to get involved. After all he is 'on the record'...

Some Board subcommittee members acted at times like cheerleaders for the witnesses, giving them two thumbs up or solitary high-fives.

We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.

@gww

just one more thing to indicate that this battle has nothing to do with really promoting religion; it's the culture war, pure and simple, spilled over into the political arena because of the right's usage of the evangelicals as a power base. All we need to do is get rid of bush and company, and folks like Frist, and get some moderates with some actual intelligence in the administration and the congress, and i bet this shit will die down again.

i could be wrong, of course.

:p

DOBBS: ...The fact is, that evolution, Darwinism, is not a fully explained or completely rigorous and defined science that has testable results within it. Like a... RUSE: Now, who says that? Is that you? DOBBS: I do. I do.

2. Inherit the Wind was a play written to critique McCarthyism, with the historical Scopes Trial used as the vehicle.

— Nick

Phillip Skell is hardly a new "convert" to the creationist side. In fact, he pestered PZ Myers with some sadly typical creationist fare.

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/creationist_e_mail_phil_skell/

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/skell_again/

The first of those links at Pharyngula reminds me of an email conversation I had recently.

I've had similar exchanges with one small-time ID Creationist who this site has dealt with as well. I explained in very clear terms what would need to be done if he wanted "both sides" to come to take part in a civil debate (namely, ID creationists are going to need to abandon their offensives on political fronts and stop sneaking in absurd ad-hominem attacks against biologists and other evolution supporters). He demanded more details. I offered some examples. He demanded that I explain my examples more fully. In fact, each one of his paragraphs began with "since you bring up X, you'll have to give reasons..." I deleted his email and have no intention of responding. One of his defense mechanisms was obviously going into high gear, and it's worked: he can now feel comfortable that I am just a hit-and-run sort of character, that my statements couldn't stand up to thorough debate. It's the peskiest game an eight-year-old can play with an adult.

"Why?"
"Well, you see, this..."
"Why?"
"Because this..."
"Why?"
"Oh, stop. Go think about it."
"Whhyyyy?"

In reality, I just have no desire to spend more than the 2+ hours I probably logged conversing with him, and he'll probably never know. To some degree, he's correct--I have no desire to understand the nitty-gritty of why each particular ID argument is wrong. But he has (and other IDists have) shown equally little care to understand things biological or positively scrutinize their theory--much easier to just characterize people who study and teach evolution as the sinister heads or the unwitting tentacles of a big conspiracy, and then moan in pain when your own hit-and-run game is rewarded with scathing criticism and zero sympathy.

5/5/1818 was the birth of Karl Marx. I thought THAT was why the Kansas Board chose the date . . .

What I can't get over is the incessant belief that their opponent is Darwin. Really, what would they think if every criticism of religion included a rant about the inadequacies of Thomas Aquinas?

Hmmm. When I saw that picture I thought it was God's head in the vise...

5/5 was also the 54th National Day of Prayer.

What - you mean Cordova is yet again peddling propaganda?

I'm shocked!

All right, Great White, since you accuse me of being rude for ignoring your questions, I'll respond to them before ducking out (I really, REALLY promise this time -- I'm only doing it so I won't leave you thinking I'm being rude!), and leave you with the last word if you want it. As to the tone issue, I'll be happy to leave it to the observers here to decide for themselves which of the two of us has exhibited a more appropriate tone.

I have three points to respond to your series of questions:

(1) If a scientist wants to critique the empirical claims of a Holocaust denier or a racist, he or she must do so completely dispassionately in his or her capacity as a scientist, using the standard methods of science and making sure not to let the offensive nature of the underlying ideas influence the research. If the scientist allows his methods to become anything other than fully dispassionate, he or she is no longer doing science, but rather political activism or something else, and is not entitled to the special epistemic prestige to which science is entitled. Holocaust historians and the like have no need to depart from dispassionate science, because the evidence clearly shows that the Holocaust did happen, that racist stereotypes are unsupportable, etc. Scientists can and should combat the noxious political ramifications of these views in the appropriate public and political channels, but they absolutely must be careful never to let their own political or emotional responses to these issues to contaminate their science.

(2) There are some circumstances where the political situation is so severe that a scientist is justified in jettisoning the science altogether and working exclusively on non-scientific matters for the societal good. I would applaud any scientist who, during the Third Reich, dropped his or her scientific work and joined the resistance, or a scientist in the antebellum American South who chose to devote his or her life to the abolitionist movement, etc. But it is important to recognize that in making that choice, one is no longer cloaked in the special epistemic prestige of the scientist. There can certainly sometimes be higher social goods than furthering science, but there is that tradeoff to make in such circumstances.

(3) I think we need to take a deep breath and step back and look at the big picture. Nothing at issue in any of these creationist squabbles is anything remotely like genocide and slavery. It just isn't. To the extent you're using these examples simply as particularly extreme cases to prove a more general point, that's fine, but to the extent you believe that what is at stake here is descent into a medieval theocracy where heretics will be burned at the stake, I'm just not convinced (to put it mildly) that those are anything like the real implications here. You are (I presume) a professional biologist, and so you naturally care a great deal about these issues, as everyone does about his or her area of research. But it is healthy to try to maintain some perspective as to the big picture.

At least that's what I think.

Again, best regards, and I apologize if I seemed rude to you.

Rudolf Carnap

Wow. Looks like Dembski has further sunk into paranoid dementia. Or maybe Dembmentia?

Anyone else reminded of a cartoon villain angrily cursing the superhero after his evil scheme has been thwarted?

"Curse you, Evolution Man! You may have won this round and foiled my plans, but I'll be back! And when I come back, you will rue the day! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!" *shakes fist defiantly*

Here's to the Clown Prince of ID.

I think that the "Prof. Steve Steve" suggestion could be correct. Dembski wants a hand puppet

Carnap:

Your polite and careful answer unfortunately misses some important subtleties here. You are basically saying:

1) If this is a matter of genuine science, then scientists should not let their emotions pervert their investigations.

2) If this matter has nothing to do with science, then scientists are welcome to become advocates, but not wear the mantle of science while doing so.

3) Exaggerating or misrepresenting the issues is contraindicated in any case.

This is all well and good, except for one little point: The creationists are claiming that their religious doctrine is science, and have gussied it up with bogus scientificial terminology and labels. So your point #1 won't work: no amount of dispassionate scientific research addresses a religious doctrine. Religious doctrines are not based on evidence, observation or logic. Yet your point #2 misses the mark, because unlike political resistance or abolitionism, creationism is being represented as science. To the uninitiated (which is most people), the trappings of science is as far as their understanding can penetrate. So if a creationist dresses up in a white lab coat and starts using obscure terminology, who is best qualified to point out that these are fundamentalist zealots
"playing scientist" for the purely political purpose of beguiling the courts?

And so genuine scientists need to speak as scientists, even though this is a nonscientific political battle, in the hopes of defusing the creationists' carefully crafted disguise. Who is more qualified to recognize exactly why nothing even remotely scientific is to be found beneath the veneer of lies the creationists are crafting?

Rudolf Carnap

Just in case you come back...okay, it's a long post, I admit it...

I wasn't totally satisfied that I got my points across, so I'm going to rephrase things in terms of questions. If you're ever back and have the time, answers would be appreciated.

1) I felt that your response to my concern about the idea of forcing scientists to "testify" with subpoenas was vague. Let's make this more specific. The testimony discussed here, with respect to the Kansas trial, involved voluntary "expert witnesses" - paid, in the case of the ID/creationist witnesses (as is standard practice). Some mainstream scientists were invited to testify, and declined. No-one was coerced, by a subpoena or by any other method. Dembski responded to the situation by suggesting that scientists be required to "testify in court" (illustrating his suggestion with an effigy of Darwin being squeezed in a vice). He made it clear that it was specifically their intellectual belief that the theory of evolution is the mainstream unifying theory of biology, not any action or crime, that they would be required to "testify" for. Neither he, nor those who jumped up to agree with him, specified when or where these coerced testimonies would take place. I wondered what the charge would be, and you correctly pointed out that testimony can be coerced from people who are not charged with a crime in some circumstances. If you don't feel that this is a fair summary, please let me know why. If you do, could you please specify the circumstances under which you feel that scientists should be compelled to testify before a court, congressional hearing, or other legal entity. Remember that the point of this "testimony" will be to require them to "defend" their acceptance of a major scientific theory. Also, assuming that the scientists in question are found "guilty", if I may, of accepting the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, what do you propose should be done to them?
2) Your central thesis in most posts is that Dembski is over-criticized, to the point of unfairness, on this discussion board. Please let me know if this is not an accurate view; I wouldn't want to create a "straw man" of your position. Moving on - if this were true, it would be irrelevant; there are pages devoted to criticizing almost every public figure from Michael Jackson to Steven Hawkings, and many of them are blatantly "unfair" - yet this does not reflect one iota on the guilt or innocence of the parties in question, or the validity of their publically stated ideas. However, I dispute your thesis altogether. I think that criticism of Dembski, here and elsewhere, is nearly always restrained and civilized, tending to mild parody at worst. In contrast, Dembski treats his critics to vitriol and thinly veiled threats. Perhaps you don't know much about Dembski - www.talkorigins.org has excellent reviews of many of his works. Do you still think that Dembski is the victim of excessive criticism? If so, can you show evidence that the criticism directed toward him here is unfair? Do you agree that he himself is prone to harsh characterizations of anyone who disagrees with him?
3) You state, with refreshing honesty, that you don't know much about the theory of evolution or proposed "alternatives". Understandably so, as learning about almost any current scientific theory requires a good deal of intellectual work. Popular books are available, and often excellent, but they typically aren't very rigorous. To really get a handle on the theory of evolution, I would recommend taking courses, or at the very least reading textbooks for courses, in general physics*, general chemistry*, statistics*, biochemistry, organic chemistry, molecular biology, genetics, and at least one "organism level" biological discipline, such as zoology or botany. The first two may seem off-topic, but are actually critical. A less rigorous way to get a grasp on the theory of evolution would be to read as much as possible on talkorins.org. Do you have any interest in learning about the theory of evolution?
4) Dembski presents himself as an opponent of the theory of evolution, but he does not promote the type of study I recommend above, to get people into a position from which they can form a valid, informed opinion. Instead he publishes popular books, directed at a lay audience, which provide no background in any of the above subjects. Not only that, he fills the books with questionable statistical manipulations in some cases - without providing the intended lay reader with adequate background in that field either (a technique reminiscent of Charles Murray of "Bell Curve" fame - this analogy of techniques is NOT intended to imply that Dembski is a racist; to the best of my knowledge, he has never been associated with racsim). Imagine if someone "opposed" the theory of relativity in this way - by publishing confusing "popular" books aimed at people with no background in phyics, creating effigies of Einstein with his head in a vice, arguing that physicists should be compelled to "testify" in some unspecified venue, and arguing that school children should be incorrectly taught that "relativity" is "controversial". If you wouldn't support this type of behavior with respect to physics, why would you support it with respect to biology?

Clearly, I should have broken that up a little.

I hope Baez doesn't give out crackpot points for long, densely written posts.

"We (the UK) don't suffer fools quite as gladly."

We have a pro-creationist Prime Minister and Sir Peter Vardy:

http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Emmanuel_Schools_Foundation

Where'd you come up with your views of what science should be, Carnap? There's nothing dispassionate about science, and many went into science precisely because they were passionate about using proper methods to discern what can be known.

The fact is that the science-minded get pissed when ignorant buffoons come along and tell them what science is, pretend that Dembski has done something new to find out what "design is", and generally credit yammering idiocy and repeated lies from Dembski just because the fool gets media coverage. Why don't you go stick up for someone who really does have something intelligent to say that happens to be neglected (hardly unknown), instead of acting like the equivalent of van Daniken should be taken seriously?

And that, btw, is why people bring up Holocaust denial as an analogy, because there is no basis for "teaching the controversy" simply due to the fact that dishonest people have in fact tried to make a controversy. Try being "dispassionate", Carnap, instead of pretending that one form of anti-scientific idiocy is more deserving than another because of the moral aspect. Why shouldn't we credit Holocaust deniers when they have as much basis in fact as IDers do to overthrow the dispassionate standards actually being used in science?

There is something annoying about endless posts about Dembski's "idiocy" and whatever else is said, which is why I tend not to post here overmuch. Yet I'm glad that others don't tire of thumping fools again and again, since there's altogether too little else to do in response to Dembski. He's been answered, and only because of the political power of IDists, not for any merit in his ideas. He's not, in fact, an idiot, rather he's a fool who has bypassed all of science and the usual empirical work that has been done to learn how to determine design, as opposed to coming up with "criteria" that obviously are designed only to "determine" that organisms have been designed when they show all of the marks of evolution.

But it's pedantic and virtually meaningless to point out, as some have done, that Dembski may not be an "idiot" or a "liar" under certain definitions. I don't really doubt that Dembski isn't precisely lying when he says the outrageous nonsense he does, as I'm sure that he doesn't admit to himself that his tactics are improper. So what? The fact that he's dishonest with himself barely matters, just as I care little that he's more properly called a "fool" rather than an "idiot". He doesn't "dispassionately" discuss issues with others, instead resorting to the sorts of attacks documented in the blog that started this.

In turn he is subjected to the sorts of tactics he uses. Why don't you look into the course of the "debate" before coming in during the middle of the retorts and blaming one side for something that Dembski certainly has had a role in causing? Why don't you for once try for a dispassionate analysis yourself, Carnap, rather than supposing that dispassionate responses are proper to any response to the mere needling and distortions of the situation that Dembski has descended to?

The fact is that science cannot "dispassionately" discuss the attacks on science that Dembski uses, for once science standards are destroyed in order to make room for pseudoscience, all dispassionate analysis becomes impossible. Thus we do not suffer fools gladly, and this includes fools who think that dishonest attacks deserve dispassionate responses.

But it's pedantic and virtually meaningless to point out, as some have done, that Dembski may not be an "idiot" or a "liar" under certain definitions. I don't really doubt that Dembski isn't precisely lying when he says the outrageous nonsense he does, as I'm sure that he doesn't admit to himself that his tactics are improper. So what?

[from that link:] The difference lies in the bullshitter's complete disregard for whether what he's saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."

Good call, Russell.

PS, for those of you who are slightly worried by what Dembski wants (did I hear someone mention theocracy?), then you are more than welcome to cross the pond and live in the UK. We don't suffer fools quite as gladly.

I'm a lay( i.e., non-scientist) follower of the antics the Creationists/IDers and the scientists who oppose them.I've never posted here before, because most of what is discussed is beyond my areas of competency (history and law). But I wish to suggest greater care in analogizing Dembski's proposed congressional inquisition of evolutionary scientists to yesteryear's congressional hearings that sought to discover Communist espionage occurring in the U.S.

The fact is -- and McCarthy's errors and demagoguery notwithstanding -- domestic Communists and fellow travelers acted as spies for Stalin, honeycombing the U.S. govt, The Manhattan Project and various industries crucial to the military. Physicists such as Klaus Fuchs and Ted Hall literally gave Stalin the Bomb years before he otherwise would have acquired it. While at one time it may have been plausible to dismiss must such notions as McCarthyite hysteria, that has ceased to be true in light of an avalanche of documentary evidence released in the '90s by both the CIA, and by the Russians who opened certain archives of the former Soviet Union to historians.

During WWII, the U.S. intercepted almost 3,000 Soviet (ostensible) "diplomatic cables" and was able to decrypt about half of them. This project, codenamed Venona, was not released until 1995. The Venona decrypts make clear that American citizens, including scientists, were spying for the Soviet Union, and many were identified. McCarthy knew nothing whatever about Venona, and was operating largely from ignorance; but the FBI, which had access to Venona, was operating from hard and alarming data.

To read a scholarly article by John Earl Haynes, Library of Congress historian who has studied Venona and been given access to the archives of the former Soviet Union, go here .

In any event, Dembski's proposal to interrogate scientists for acting as scientists, is appalling, but distinguishable from congressional hearings that were designed to ferret out a *real* danger to the republic, as recent historical scholarship overwhelmingly demonstrates.

Dembski's not the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory", he's the John L. Sorenson of it. Nothing reminds me of Dembski and co, like the mormons in Hampton Sides's compelling article This is Not the Place.

It is reprinted in Best American Science and Nature Writing 2000, but you can also find it online (for instance here http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon33.html )

Now come on Mona, however appropriate or inappropriate the McCarthy reference was, it was apparently made with regard to the red-baiting and evil tactics used by the false accuser that McCarthy was. He was smearing people who evidently had nothing to do with espionage, or even communism. Arthur Miller? He wasn't a Fuchs, Hiss, or Julius Rosenberg.

Fuchs and Hiss don't make up for "McCarthyism" per se. And I don't suppose I'd really think Dembski's idle threats are a particularly good analogy with McCarthyism, but perhaps Dembski's flailing without evidence and his stated desire to use power against scientists has some similarities with McCarthy's demagoguery.

Nothing at issue in any of these creationist squabbles is anything remotely like genocide and slavery. It just isn't.

it is healthy to try to maintain some perspective as to the big picture.

Scientists can and should combat the noxious political ramifications of these views in the appropriate public and political channels, but they absolutely must be careful never to let their own political or emotional responses to these issues to contaminate their science.

CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.I have considered this has been a wonderful discussion. I wish we could have had it in my seminar and took all day and had lunch and then dinner. And I must say, though, Dr. Meyer, I was so attracted to the intelligent design theory when I misunderstood it. And I thought you were going to say that the way the DNA particles encoded and so on that there had to be an intelligent, you know, workman up there and that it was God. And then I was going to say, hooray, I like that theory and it reinforces my beliefs. But then when you didn't want to concede that there was a being up there, God, or somebody -- MR. MEYER: I think the being was God and I think other arguments can be made for that. But it's a technical point as to whether you have an implication or a strict entailment, a proof of God's existence. I think the best explanation is that God is the designer, but it could be different. COMMISSIONER GEORGE: A self-organizational pantheism, could it not? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I want God to be.

Dembski is quick to remove any critical comments. When it comes to teaching the controversy, ID is particularly hypocritical when it comes to teaching the controversies about ID.
Dembski's blog makes for an excellent show case of much of what is wrong with ID. I am not sure why he is so willing to air this in such a public manner but then again, when he was appointed to director at Baylor, he quickly got himself removed for publically airing his 'victory'. That may help understand more about Mr Dembski.

Wonder what's going on in the Dover case.

Perhaps Dembski should rename his site:

UncommonWaterloo

Bill:

So Dembski banned you already? At least "Dr." Jason Gastrich gives his critics a year or 500 posts (whichever comes first) to convert to his way of thinking before being banned:

All non-Christians will be allowed a maximum of 500 posts or one
year of membership on the board. If after 500 posts or 1 year they
have not converted to Christianity, they are banned forever.

(Quoted at
http://myweb.cableone.net/silentdave/daves_corner.htm)

CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.I have considered this has been a wonderful discussion. I wish we could have had it in my seminar and took all day and had lunch and then dinner. And then maybe back to my apartment. I make a mean breakfast and own a fabulous espresso machine. I'd like to hear more God talk from you, Mr. Meyer. Much more! MR. MEYER: We should invite Bill Dembski. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Amen, Mr. Meyer! The more the merrier. Tell him to bring his stuffed dolls. MR. MEYER: And his vise? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're such a rascal, Stephen! Amen!

"CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And then I was going to say, hooray, I like that theory and it reinforces my beliefs. "

Duuuuuhhhhhhhhh....tell me 'bout the rabbits, George

All non-Christians will be allowed a maximum of 500 posts or one year of membership on the board. If after 500 posts or 1 year they have not converted to Christianity, they are banned forever.

it is healthy to try to maintain some perspective as to the big picture.

— Carnap

[Dalton] Trumbo and his cohort are a perfect example of those absolved for their support of Stalin -- the same was true of the late Arthur Miller -- although there are more examples among foreign intellectuals who became widely influential in the U.S. Neruda, Brecht, Aragon, and Eluard, various of the Frankfurt School, and numerous other Stalinist intellectuals are lionized in America and worldwide today with no mention ever made of their repellent propaganda in acclamation of Stalin, much less an examination of the consequences thereto.

I would not give a single hair from the head of Andreu Nin [a defecting Communist whom Stalin had killed] for the lives of the Holltywood 10, the Foley Square 12, or the rest of the Stalinist gang. It would not bother me if they had all been sent to Russia to face trial on the terms they had so long defended. Stalinist paranoia about repression was just that; paranoia, based above all on projection rooted in the guilt of the Stalinists themselves about their crimes, political and intellectual.

That last paragraph for sure, Mona.

I've made commens on the UncommonDescent weblog and they keep getting removed. Why do creationists have to resort to censorship of alternative opinions? Are they all sycophants?

I've just been to his weblog and seen the picture at the top; William Dembski is the absolute spitting image of actor Richard E. Grant ...

(That's him on the right of this picture:

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0280707/Ss/0280707/gosford_park_new_7.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Grant,%20Richard%20E.

)

But with that all said, these issues are very far afield of the issues PT is established to explore,

to be a member of the CPUSA was to swear fealty to Stalin and to be willing to subsume one's intellectual and artistic freedom to whatever orders Moscow issued regarding how films, plays novels etc should be executed in order to best buttress Stalin's propaganda needs

"...psychologists say that to receive negative attention is better than to receive no attention at all."

Yes, that's why kids throw temper tantrums. Best to ignore them and reward positive behaviors instead.

Or as a wag once put it: "I'd rathr be wanted for murder than not to be wanted at all."

Dembski. Temper tantrum. Hmm. I wonder...

Mona wrote:

"In any event, Dembski's proposal to interrogate scientists for acting as scientists, is appalling, but distinguishable from congressional hearings that were designed to ferret out a *real* danger to the republic, as recent historical scholarship overwhelmingly demonstrates."

Mona, what you are doing is applying current knowledge as "hindsight" to justify the abuses of the McCarthyites. you yourself admit that McCarthy was likely operating out of ignorance. This is pretty bad historical research, since you claim to be a historian.

besides that, whenever the McCarthy example is used, it is usually brought up in reference to the abuse of the power of subpeonas, as in this case.

Are you trying to tell us that you don't believe that those congressional hearings abused their power of subpeona?

sorry, I'm not buying your spiel. Congress is almost always just a step away from abusing this power, and the "thoughts" of folks like Dembski give a good insight as to who we should always be keeping an eye on wrt access to this kind of power.

That last paragraph for sure, Mona.

"I've just been to his weblog and seen the picture at the top; William Dembski is the absolute spitting image of actor Richard E. Grant . . . "

i'll be damned, i thought he looked familiar.

;)

"Reward positive behaviors" he said.

"Dembski" he said.

Dang it, Bill! My irony meter was finally back on line, after multiple repairs, and now it's totally fried out again! What a mess; it's gonna take me all weekend to fix this thing. Sheesh. [8->

Regarding Dembski; what kind of "positive behaviors" should we be watching for, and what sort of reward would be effective for reinforcing them?

"BANNED!!

Hold the applause, please!"

can i clap now?

congrats, bill. I knew you would pick a winner. that was a perfect piece to put up on Dr. Dembented's blog.

hey, that brings up an idea for a contest:

"Rename Bill Debmbski!"

we have previously established that "dumbski" is NOT clever beyond measure, so no point in suggesting that.

I'll go first:

I nominate: Dr. Dembento

next?

"anybody who wants answers about what happened in the scopes trial could check out the links above.

complete transcripts are available from various places for less than 10.00."

Or come to historic Rhea County, TN for the Scopes trial reenactment on July 15-17 this year. This is held in our original (un-air conditioned) court room and is based on the transcript. e-mail me for info. BW

hey, that must be quite a bit of fun, Bill! do you participate in it?

During WWII, the U.S. intercepted almost 3,000 Soviet (ostensible) "diplomatic cables" and was able to decrypt about half of them. This project, codenamed Venona, was not released until 1995. The Venona decrypts make clear that American citizens, including scientists, were spying for the Soviet Union, and many were identified. McCarthy knew nothing whatever about Venona, and was operating largely from ignorance; but the FBI, which had access to Venona, was operating from hard and alarming data.

In any event, Dembski's proposal to interrogate scientists for acting as scientists, is appalling, but distinguishable from congressional hearings that were designed to ferret out a *real* danger to the republic, as recent historical scholarship overwhelmingly demonstrates.

I just think Waldo is upset cuz he missed his chance to Harry Potter instead.

Thanks, Ed. That was nicely presented.

Folks who like to rewrite history the way a supposed "historian" like Mona does scare the bejeebus outta me.

these writings of historians like Mona end up becoming justification to repeat the excesses of the past.

I hope she reconsiders her position, and the way she examines history, otherwise she does everyone a great disservice.

Salvador,

Skell wrote "Darwinian evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life. Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science that do not address questions of biological history (largely based on stones, the fossil evidence). Modern biology is engaged in the examination of tissues from living organisms with new methods and instruments. None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution----it provided no support. "

Please ask Skell what Genetic Algorithms are and what was the inspiration for their development.

What we have here is a profoundly ignorant chemist.

"All we need to do is get rid of bush and company, and folks like Frist,..."

Sen Frist is leaving after this term. Gearing up for the Republican primary is Van Hilleary (R) who lives right here in Spring City. He was our Congressman until they moved Rhea County into the same district as Chattanooga as a result of the 2000 census. Rep Zach Wamp (R) had that area sown up. Hilleary ran for Gov of Tennessee, but was defeated by Phil Bredesen (D) who, as Mayor of Nashville at the time, had lots more administrative experience.

Hilleary is a fiscal conservative, small government proponent. He and his wife go to the same Methodist Church here that my brother and his wife do when they're in town. He's a social conservative when pressed, but doesn't go out of his way play up to the usual prejudices. More of a "get along with your neighbors and we'll all get ahead" type person.

Since he did well in a statewide race and administrative experience, his weakness then, is not such a factor in the Senate, he's got a good shot at winning. As a freshman he wouldn't have much clout, but he votes with the party when required.

I'm not familiar with any other candidates yet, but I'll see what I can find out if you like. BW

thanks bill. probly best to put any candidate lists you manage to dig up in a new thread over in "after the bar closes".

I would be interested in seeing who's coming up, for many reasons.

cheers

A quick search of good old WoS reveals that Skell hasn't published anything since 1990. Hmmmm. So here we have the situation; instead of using the last 15 years to write a paper falsifying evolution and submitting it to Science, he has instead decided to, er, write a letter. Did God write these idiots a special note to get out of the usual process of scientific advancement?

PS, Salvador 'I think the earth is 6000 year old' Cordova wrote the following:

"The heroic efforts of the defenders good science, those who believe in the power of the wedge of truth, inspired a defection from the National Academy of Sciences"

With this amount of spin, its no wonder Salvador can't think straight. 'Inspired a defection' my arse. As if this guy, prompted by recent creationist activity (as implied above by Dembski's brown noser) has suddenly shed off the shackles of Darwinism and strode triumphantly into the light to write this letter.

The trouble is, this will no doubt be the position put across at the next happy meeting of the IDEA club (how sweet - do you think they have a treehouse too?) and in other circles of ID propoganda. Still, whats a little white lie when you are busy renewing science and culture on behalf of Phil?

PPS, apparently being an heroic defender of true science means you get to lie like Dembski. What a privelidged position to be in.

"the next happy meeting of the IDEA club (how sweet - do you think they have a treehouse too?)"

naw, more like "pee-wee's playhouse" judging by all the public masturbation these folks participate in.

Well, Mona sure took a lot of hits, and deservedly so, for giving the impression of being a McCarthy apologist.

My response to that element of her argument would be that just because there were real Stalinist spies around at the time (and there certainly were) does not make McCarthy's actions correct. We might crudely compare him to someone who accuses prominent people of being child molesters, with no evidence, for his own benefit, to the ruin of their career. Even if he accidentally accuses someone who actually is a child molester, it's still wrong. And the fact that there are a lot of real child molesters out there doesn't justify it. THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO CATCH THEM.

But she did make a good point, too. At least McCarthy CLAIMED that his victims were actual threats to national security. Dembski just wants to coerce scientists to "testify" for disagreeing with his theology. He doesn't even bother to suggest that they represent a physical threat to anyone.

...Skell hasn't published anything since 1990. Hmmmm. So here we have the situation; instead of using the last 15 years to write a paper falsifying evolution and submitting it to Science, he has instead decided to, er, write a letter. Did God write these idiots a special note to get out of the usual process of scientific advancement?

— SteveF

"But she did make a good point, too. At least McCarthy CLAIMED that his victims were actual threats to national security."

actually, i don't think Mona actually was making that point, credit yourself for bringing it up.

Sir_Toejam -

Well, I kind of think Mona was more or less making that point (we'll only really know if she shows up again, of course).

I also meant to mention - without meaning to give the impression that I am an apologist for McCarthyism, which would be the extreme opposite of the truth - that Mona may be a highly competent historian, for all we know. Now, if she distorts or lies about the historical record to support her opinions, then she isn't. That would make her like a creationist. But if she is an accurate historian of the period, her belief that McCarthy was morally justified - a belief that I find distressing, but a more common one than we might expect - is ultimately irrelevant.

I bring this up because creationists often use the old "scientist X has a certain political belief, so his science must be wrong" argument. If Mona thinks that opportunistic, ill-targeted authoritarianism is the way to defend against Soviet spies (or terrorists) I disagree, but it doesn't in itself reflect on her performance as a historian.

Moving on to a more important matter - Rudolf Carnap seems to have taken off without answering any of my questions (I should have put spaces between them, but they were still good questions).

Roadtripper,

ho ho ho he he he. Sorry about that. Once you've got your irony meter fixed, I've got a farm tractor that needs new steering gears. I need to bush hog the pastures to get rid of the weeds so the grass will grow. Say, that gives me yet another idea. Hmm...

I'm afraid what works for kids doesn't work for old goats. Once they're out in public there's little hope for change.

Sir toejam,

Actually, I haven't been yet. If you don't get there early enough to sit under a ceiling fan, you're cooked.

Some blogger should attend and give a blow by blow. I'd introduce them to Ms. June, the Ten Commandments lady and the Rhea County Commissioners who banned gays from the county. Our circus has more than just a center ring, that's for sure.

Oops. Shoulda been "censure McCarthy." My apologies.

nope, this is the point mona made:

In any event, Dembski's proposal to interrogate scientists for acting as scientists, is appalling, but distinguishable from congressional hearings that were designed to ferret out a *real* danger to the republic, as recent historical scholarship overwhelmingly demonstrates.

her point was incorrect. these hearings were NOT attempts to ferret out "real" danger at all.

"I disagree, but it doesn't in itself reflect on her performance as a historian."

actually, it does, and this is an important distinction. Mona uses her current knowledge, gained from years of studying the issue, in order to spin the actual events of the time.

this is post-revisionism and is a big no-no for any serious historian.

I would like to respond to those who have engaged me, but I am concerned that my topic is not proper for the PT site; this is a bit beyond "thread drift."

If the site owner, or author of the post giving rise to these comments, agree that I am within their bounds I would continue, but otherwise, I would respect their authority and not do so.

you can make a new post to respond, if you wish, over in the "after the bar closes" section.

harold writes: "Mona may be a highly competent historian, for all we know. Now, if she distorts or lies about the historical record to support her opinions, then she isn't. That would make her like a creationist."

I read here only from time to time, and am not certain of the PT rules. For sure, I do not want to be accused of diverting from the topics PT is dedicated to.

My advanced degree is in law (JD); I hold a B.A. in history. Thus, I could not be called an "historian" as scholars understand the appellation.

Understand I do not defend McCarthy. What is increasingly clear, however, is that his having given a bad name to anti-Communism was more of a tragedy than any harm he caused. Stalin was putrid and at least as bad as Hitler in terms of human rights and large scale deaths. McCarthy did not kill anyone; Stalin murdered millions. Those Americans who supported Stalin or his defenders deserve great critical analysis. I would again refer any to the links I have given in my first two posts.

Finally, I unalterably oppose teaching Creationism or ID as science, because my familiarity with the jurisprudence of either convinces me that both "theories" are not science. That is why I visit here with some regularity. But I have nothing to add to what the scientists say, because I am not one of them-- I defer to their expertise on matters purely scientific, which is a reasonable thing to do.

"What is increasingly clear, however, is that his having given a bad name to anti-Communism was more of a tragedy than any harm he caused."

no, mona, what has become incresingly clearer is that abuse of power in the name of "anti-communism" is the first step on the road to the same tragedies that were commited by the communist-totalitarian regimes themselves.

can you not see the parallels between McCarthyism and Lysenkoism?

it's got nothing to do with communism, or any other econo-political system of government. It has to do with innapropriate ways of obtaining and maintaining power.

simple as that.

Sir Toe-Jam writes: "no, mona, what has become incresingly clearer is that abuse of power in the name of "anti-communism" is the first step on the road to the same tragedies that were commited by the communist-totalitarian regimes themselves."

Lysenko was a scientist who subordinated his scholarly praxis to Stalinist requirements. Kind of like Creationists do vis-a-vis biblical inerrancy.

American Stalinists who spied for Stalin wished to deliver us all, scientist and non-scientist alike, to a murderous totalitarian. They deserve harsh scrutiny. Trumbo & etc included.

Bill Dembski has exceeded himself this time - actually I did not think it was possible. From being a dishonest peddler of crank theories he has now become a crude defiler of the memory of the dead. It takes a special sort of vileness to crush Darwin in effigy. After this nothing that Dembski does is going to disgust me. That is his nature and I shall take it for what it is. His descent from the high table of science through the depths of intellectual fakery to now the sleaze of character defilement is complete. This is indeed "Uncommon Descent". It takes a special sort of lowlife to accomplish this transformation. Bill D's frustration and rage is understandable. After having made grand pronouncements about a Waterloo (and staying safely away from te battle) having having to eat crow can be hard. So now we have this dissembler swinging between crudtiy and bravado. In my Tamizh we quip, "Keezha vizhindan; aana meesaila mannu ottala" - "I may have bitten the dust; but there's no mud on my moustache". The scientific community has long since taken apart Dembski and his lies. It would be fun to watch Pedro Irigonegaray take this fraud apart. It'am glad that Genie Scott and others on the side of science (PZ Myers is listening right?) are now giving as good as they get. The put down of Steve Meyer on Fox by Genie was fun to read. Tricksters and chartlatans should be exposed right at the beginning. I hope this is the start of a new approach for tackling quacks.

Harold, I didn't respond to your questions for three reasons. First, I had said in advance that I did not intend to continue my end of the discussion; this was because my initial point was merely intended to express my cautionary view about the tone, and I half regret even mentioning the merits of the underlying issues (which was prompted, you may recall, solely by the concern that I was secretly in the pocket of creationists, or something such). Second, to be perfectly honest, I just have no interest in provoking further exchanges with a few people here who have already called me a "fool[]," claimed that I am "full of [my]self" and that my views are "bizarre," etc., etc. Even if all these things are right about me, one might wish for a little bit more tact in carrying on discussions with a visitor. Life is just too short to deal with that kind of stuff. And third, your questions are numerous enough to require a fairly lengthy response to give you anywhere close to satisfactory answers. Nonetheless, you have repeated your request for me to answer your questions, and you certainly have not been abusive toward me (and nor have the majority of people who have responded to me). So I'll be happy to respond as briefly as I can to your questions, but I have no intention of responding to messages that I believe exhibit an inappropriate tone.

I don't know how to make the fancy quotation boxes I've seen here, so I'll have to cut and paste your text to respond where necessary. Your first question was whether I might "specify the circumstances under which feel that scientists should be compelled to testify" in hearings and related proceedings. I can't answer that question because I don't know what are the accepted and routine procedures for obtaining testimony under subpoena, what is considered pushing the bounds of propriety, and what is considered improper. I think it varies considerably in the different fora you list (courts, congressional hearings, etc.). What I believe is clear is that there is nothing per se improper about requiring testimony of scientists by subpoena as a general matter; that's why the answer to whether whatever Dembski is talking about would pass muster would (I assume) be highly contextual, and would depend on the forum of the hearing, the procedures, etc. Obviously, scientific questions are not resolved in political hearings. But that does not mean that subpoenas to scientists are necessarily improper. I am troubled by the thought of holding hearings for the sole and express purpose of eliciting a scientist's views on a scientific issue, because that does not seem to me to be a legitimate governmental interest. But I have no idea whether there could be a proper forum involving such compulsory testimony involving some other valid reason, and I don't feel comfortable saying that a proceeding is improper unless I have at least some vague sense of what is being proposed. I don't have that information here.

Your second question had several parts. First you asked whether my basic point "is that Dembski is over-criticized, to the point of unfairness, on this discussion board." With respect, that is not my point. All the direct criticisms of the merits of what he says are perfectly fair game. My point involves only what I perceive to be the unduly harsh tone of some criticisms that have nothing to do with the merits of his claims. The stuff about the dolls was the hook I used, but it's just an example. Next you point out that the fairness or unfairness of the criticisms "does not reflect one iota on the guilt or innocence of the parties in question, or the validity of their publicly stated ideas." Precisely; I couldn't agree more (although I'm much more interested in the validity of ideas than in personal "guilt or innocence"; this isn't a court of law). I would never dream of inferring that there is merit to a view simply because it is unfairly criticized or ridiculed. Next, you expressed disagreement that the criticism of Dembski here is unduly harsh, opining that it is "nearly always restrained and civilized, tending to mild parody at worst," and contrasted it with Dembski's worse conduct in this regard. I have a different assessment here, but I'm not sure what we can do to establish which of us is right about the relative tone of criticisms. I'm sure you've read more of this stuff than I have on both sides, so perhaps you are in a better position to judge. But I think I've read at least a representative enough sample to have a reasonable basis for my judgment. You conclude your second question with three sub-questions: (a) whether I continue to believe that Dembski "is the victim of excessive criticism." As to this, my clarification above is important. I have no problem at all with the volume of criticism, only to its tone and sometimes ad hominem character. (b) whether I can supply evidence for this view. I can certainly scroll around and point out examples, if that's what you have in mind. The first example I happen to see is the joke about a proposed "renaming of Dembski" contest above (Dumbski, Dembento, etc.). These things are trivial in isolation, and I don't want to come across as humorless. But I do think that the tone of some of these things are sometimes a little bit juvenile, and in the aggregate, I come away with a sense of undue hostility. I don't mean to pick on that one example; it's just a ready-at-hand example of a pattern. (c) whether I "agree that [Dembski] himself is prone to harsh characterizations of anyone who disagrees with him" I haven't noticed as much from my limited review of some of the things he's written, but if he does it, it's just as bad. I don't mean to be one-sided. I've noticed more of that sort of thing here, but if a more thorough review of the relevant writings would change my view, that would be equally unfortunate. In any event, in those rare instances where I interact with cranks, I would never dream of responding to them with abuse or derision, even where it is directed my way from them.

Your third question lists steps one can take to educate oneself about evolutionary biology, and asks whether I "have any interest in learning about the theory of evolution." First, I don't mean to understate my knowledge in this area. I said I wasn't an expert, but I do believe I have a fairly adequate non-biologist's understanding of the issues. I have read all of Dawkins's popular books, for example (except his recent one about the ancestor's tale, which looked a little bit long and boring), as well as several collections of essays by Stephen Jay Gould. I have even read some slightly less popular stuff; a book by a guy named Endler called Natural Selection in the Wild is one title that comes to mind. I've also read some things in the area of the philosophy of biology (a fellow named Woodger wrote some interesting things a long time ago that might usefully be updated), but this tends to interest me less than the actual science. So it's not like I'm willfully blinding myself to the issues; my only point was that I don't have any expertise in the area. Would I like to go back to school and develop an expertise in this area? Sure, it would be interesting, but realistically it's highly unlikely that I will return to school to study this or any of the other numerous things I wish I knew more about; alas, I'm well past that stage of my life. I haven't read much on talkorigins.org, but if you recommend it, I'm sure I'll enjoy it.

Fourth, you ascribe a series of wrongful tactics to Dembski, and ask why I would tolerate them in the context of biology, but presumably not in other areas, such as physics. I thought it would go without saying that I don't condone those tactics used by anyone (except that I would not care at all if somebody produced an image of Einstein with his head in a vice).

I apologize for the length, but I was responding to what you yourself observed was a fairly lengthy set of questions. With respect, these sorts of long lists of questions have a tendency to balloon out of control in terms of length; I think it's usually more productive to focus on one or two discrete issues.

Best regards,

R. Carnap