Teach the uhh... our controversy

Bravo! Even the suppousedly open minded Telic thoughts seems to delete posts which are not "Telic" enough. Just look in there memory hole, I can't imagine how they could possibly think that some of the stuff there was offensive in any way.

Yes, I believe that Telic has been quite swift to enforce their own rules as to what is considered 'offensive'.

"I know I'm right, but I just don't have the time to convince these hardened skeptics. Many of them probably just want to waste my time anyway. I am forced, reluctantly, to ignore them and shun them from discussion whenever convenient. There's simply no relevant conversation with these ignoramuses--they either can't or won't understand, and it doesn't matter which. It's much more interesting to talk with people who do understand what I'm saying."

I suppose they could use slashdot-style moderation, at least -- it IS effective in removing flames, for the most part, and one CAN go see the modded-down comment if they really want to.

Or they could use disemvowelling, Nielsen Hayden style.

PandasThumb is not particularly vitriolic. But it's necessarily more vitriolic than the ID websites' mutual admiration society.

Slashdot-style moderation (with minor changes) would be perfect for PT.

But it's necessarily more vitriolic than the ID websites' mutual admiration society.

That is actually the main problem with ID - they lack even an internal system of serious, critical peer-review.

— Andrea

One of the tenets of effective PR is to maintain complete control over what is and isn't said, so it makes no sense for them to allow comments from real scientists unless they have to. They can easily sell the idea that ANY criticism="vitriol" for as long as their audience is willing to buy it. Though IDC doesn't have a research program (never will, apparently), its PR program HAS been effective.

It is all about maintaining appearances for all intents and purposes. Creationists are the same way and have probably learnt from mistakes in the past. They are probably trying to avoid another AIG like article where AIG essentially got into a battle of who is more ridiculous with Kent Hovind. The damage they did to eachother was fairly considerable, particularly as even AIG noted that Hovind deliberately misrepresented their own arguments. It also demonstrated that AIG has a worthless 'peer review' system because it's evidently just 'their' system and not creationists, as evidenced by Hovind and many other creationists not bothering to ascribe to their 'arguments creationists should not use'. Just look at how often creationists spout crap about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics contrary to what creationist 'peer reviewed' literature would apparently point out.

Creationists really can't afford to have a proper peer review structure or even give any indication of arguing among themselves. Remember they are debating what is *truth* to them and to be indecisive at all just demonstrates how worthless that truth actually is in reality. This is why the same disproved rubbish comes up over and over again.

Perspectives for Science and the Christian Faith (ASA) will print pro-ID papers but they will also publish criticism of ID. (often side by side) There was a recent correspondence with Nature that confused the ASA with being a pro-ID organization probably because they will occasionally publish pro-ID papers. It should be noted that kinds of papers in this journal are not the normal peer-reviewed types but are of a more informal nature. When ID does try to pass off a paper like that the result is when ASA Executive Director Randy Isaac plays peer-reviewer and rips it to shreds (see PT entry ASA: Bias in Science, Part 2).

Post Kansas I wonder how much the pro-ID folk will want to publish there because I looked up the Editorial Board and found Keith Miller's name on it. If you look at the history of creationist and ID organizations they are often split off from the ASA. They are not content with merely having a place to publish but apparently also wanted it in a criticism-free zone. So much for teaching the controversy.

At the risk of being labeled an ignoramus by the Darwinists at Panda's Thumb, I would like to make a simple comment/observation. It is continually frustrating to see both sides of this debate continue to sling mud at the other in the name of "science". I keep reading the one side calling Intelligent Design "creationism repackaged". I am also growing weary of many hard-core creationists calling people who believe in evolution "molecules to man" advocates. This is what I have realized in my 43 years of life on planet earth:
1. The more we know, the more we DON'T know. Life is far more complex than we realize and to say it is not is the height of arrogance.
2. We observe and interpret data based on our preconceptions and world view. A creationist views DNA in all life forms and says that God used the same alphabet to make everything. An evolutionist views the sameinformation as "proof" of common ancestry for all beings. Same information, different interpretation.
3. One side does not like or tolerate the other side. The ID people criticize the Darwinists for poor scholarship and the Darwinists criticize the Idists for "pseudoscience".

Well, as a fence sitter, I look at both sides and see the science in each. But then, maybe my world view isn't as stilted as those at the Panda's Thumb, who flatly refute any artilce that doesn't agree with Darwinian evolution before the ink is dry.

Respectfully,

K.E.

the problem is, Dr. Elling, both sides are not equivalent. one side constantly lies and misreprents itself and the evidence. it's NOT just interpretations that lie at the fundamental impasse between the two groups.

One side has presented a literal mountain of evidence; the other, only obfuscation and deceit.

Could you please describe for us where you see science on the side of ID? I'm very confused as to how you can see any scientific method being applied by IDers. they have no published research supporting ID of any kind. they don't even have a scientific theory of ID (and most will readily admit this, even leaders like Paul Nelson).

If you can't see the damage inherent in teaching religious philosophy as science, I have serious doubts you are a "fence sitter" as you claim.

Can you please tell us where the "poor scholarhip" lies on the side of evolutionary biologists?

I think perhaps you are the exact person the IDers look to influence; those who appear reasonable, but don't bother to see through the facade the IDers have set up.

please take the time to examine the actual arguments presented here on PT; take the time to examine the evidence in support of science and evolutionary theory over at talkorigins.org.

why do you think the argument of "goddidit" was rejected by science hundreds of years ago?

there is no comparison between the two sides; one side has hundreds of years and thousands of case studies supporting it's argument... the other has... nothing.

Boy! Talk about a loaded arguement that is clearly one-sided and biased! So, you are saying that IDists are constantly telling lies and misreprenting themselves and the evidence? I don't think so at all! They look at the information that Darwinists look at and have a different interpretation which is dependent on their world view. Others see the very same information and infer that macroevolution occurred - completely at polar opposites!

You said,"one side has presented a literal mountain of evidence; the other, only obfuscation and deceit." This implies that people like Behe and Denton are somehow seeking to be decietful. Is this not more attacking the person versus the information they are presenting? They are viewed as "flat earthers" by some of your writers when perhaps they are more forward thinking like Darwin was in his day... For example, I have viewed the information on the bacterial flagellum and its 40 moving parts and find it fascinating and interesting evidence for design (versus "climbing Mt. Improbable") Yet, I look at the fossil record (gaps and all)and the dating of rocks and C-14/Potassium-Argon dating and wonder if the earth is perhaps as many say, billions of years old and maybe evolutionists have some good ideas after all. I have not made up my mind on all of these matters...I am looking at the evidence and attempting (although not always successfully) to set aside my bias and worldview to look at evidence. What I do NOT see from this side of the fence (the PT side) is a willingness to consider any evidence presented from an opposing view. Rather, there is an arrogance at calling all things non-Darwinian as "pseudoscience." To me, that comment and those like them are deceitful in and of themselves.

Regarding "Can you please tell us where the 'poor scholarhip' lies on the side of evolutionary biologists?"

Sure, I think it's appalling that Haeckel's Embryos are still in textbooks. Sure, evolutionary biologists know and admit that they were faked yet they still appear, albeit sonetimes in an abridged form and only because creationists cried "foul!" I just read in the NABT journal last month an author's ripping of IDists for daring to mention Haeckel when biologists have known for dozens of years that they were faked. But, if science is self-correcting, why wasn't this taken care of sooner? I think it's poor scholarship to even mention them, except in the hall of shame with Piltdown Man.

Another example of shoddy work is not letting the public clearly know what exactly is found at fossil digs. Typically, National Geographic Magazine shows full color images of hominids or ancestors like "Java Man" or some new find with all of the body parts supplied (hair and all) when all they found at the site was a jaw bone and a few skull fragments. One has to dig a little deeper to discover that a lot was inferred in putting him together. These may seem feeble arguements but they first come to mind. Maybe I can think of a few tonight while I lay awake....

Lastly, regarding "there is no comparison between the two sides; one side has hundreds of years and thousands of case studies supporting it's argument . . . the other has . . . nothing."

I do not agree with you and neither does our President and his cabinet. They feel it is the right thing to do to present both the theory of evolution and the problems with it as was laid out in the NCLB Act. (I have also read that more than a few evolutionists consider Santorum an idiot but I have never met the man).

So, in closing, I feel that to simply teach students the theory of evolution and not discuss some of the historical scientific mishaps and yes, even the problems with it, is at best poor science and at worst, pseudoscience.

Still looking at the evidence,

Dr. E

1. The more we know, the more we DON'T know. Life is far more complex than we realize and to say it is not is the height of arrogance.

— KE

2. We observe and interpret data based on our preconceptions and world view. A creationist views DNA in all life forms and says that God used the same alphabet to make everything. An evolutionist views the sameinformation as "proof" of common ancestry for all beings. Same information, different interpretation.

3. One side does not like or tolerate the other side. The ID people criticize the Darwinists for poor scholarship and the Darwinists criticize the Idists for "pseudoscience".

Well, as a fence sitter, I look at both sides and see the science in each. But then, maybe my world view isn't as stilted as those at the Panda's Thumb, who flatly refute any artilce that doesn't agree with Darwinian evolution before the ink is dry.

So, you are saying that IDists are constantly telling lies and misreprenting themselves and the evidence?

You said,"one side has presented a literal mountain of evidence; the other, only obfuscation and deceit." This implies that people like Behe and Denton are somehow seeking to be decietful. Is this not more attacking the person versus the information they are presenting?

They are viewed as "flat earthers" by some of your writers

For example, I have viewed the information on the bacterial flagellum and its 40 moving parts and find it fascinating and interesting evidence for design (versus "climbing Mt. Improbable")

What I do NOT see from this side of the fence (the PT side) is a willingness to consider any evidence presented from an opposing view.

Yet, I look at the fossil record (gaps and all)...

I do not agree with you and neither does our President and his cabinet.

So, in closing, I feel that to simply teach students the theory of evolution and not discuss some of the historical scientific mishaps and yes, even the problems with it, is at best poor science and at worst, pseudoscience.

"the real story behind the Santorum amendment"

lol. you mean like the fact that there ISN'T one.

Re: Dr. E:

Hmmm, let's see...

World View - check
Haekel's Embryos - check
Piltdown Man - check
Argument from Authority (President & cabinet) - check

He's missed some of the standard fare, perhaps in a follow up.

At the risk of being labeled an ignoramus by the Darwinists at Panda's Thumb, I would like to make a simple comment/observation. It is continually frustrating to see both sides of this debate continue to sling mud at the other in the name of "science".

I have also read that more than a few evolutionists consider Santorum an idiot but I have never met the man

But then, maybe my world view isn't as stilted as those at the Panda's Thumb

You met Sanctorum, Lenny?

Does he come off in person the same way he comes off on camera... like a dissembling ideologue? or is there more to the man?

What were the circumstances?

do tell!

What I do NOT see from this side of the fence (the PT side) is a willingness to consider any evidence presented from an opposing view. Rather, there is an arrogance at calling all things non-Darwinian as "pseudoscience." To me, that comment and those like them are deceitful in and of themselves.

The more we know, the more we DON'T know.

We observe and interpret data based on our preconceptions and world view. A creationist views DNA in all life forms and says that God used the same alphabet to make everything. An evolutionist views the sameinformation as "proof" of common ancestry for all beings. Same information, different interpretation.

One side does not like or tolerate the other side. The ID people criticize the Darwinists for poor scholarship and the Darwinists criticize the Idists for "pseudoscience".

You met Sanctorum, Lenny? Does he come off in person the same way he comes off on camera . . . like a dissembling ideologue? or is there more to the man? What were the circumstances? do tell!

" he and I were on a first-name basis, me having been arrested at his office several times and all"

hey, that sounds like a good story too. I've done my fair share of er, "politiking" but managed to avoid being arrested.

care to elaborate? do so in private if you think it wiser.

"Anyway, Santorum struck me as a person who was utterly incapable of an original thought unless someone else told him about it first. He was also sickeningly obsequious in his fawning over every Republican bigwig in the room, and gave me the impression that he can't take a shit without asking someone higher up the food chain, what color they wanted it to be."

ahh, the quintessential neocon toadie. *sigh*

So, in closing, I feel that to simply teach students the theory of evolution and not discuss some of the historical scientific mishaps and yes, even the problems with it, is at best poor science and at worst, pseudoscience.

" he and I were on a first-name basis, me having been arrested at his office several times and all"

hey, that sounds like a good story too. I've done my fair share of er, "politiking" but managed to avoid being arrested.

I think it's time you wrote a book, Lenny. We could use a few more radicals these days. I kinda had the radical kicked outta me.

How on earth did you ever find time to get your PhD?

I think it's time you wrote a book, Lenny.

We could use a few more radicals these days.

They look at the information that Darwinists look at and have a different interpretation which is dependent on their world view.

I do not agree with you and neither does our President and his cabinet

So, you are saying that IDists are constantly telling lies and misreprenting themselves and the evidence? I don't think so at all!

Sure, I think it's appalling that Haeckel's Embryos are still in textbooks.

What I would like to know is this. Dr. Elling states that IDists look at the same evidence and decide that design is the proper explanation. Yet, at the same time they complain all the time about the lack of evidence, most notably in the fossil record. If there is a lack of evidence to point to common descent, then how is it that there is enough to point to common design?

"My question is this:

What *IS* the controversy that you want to teach. Exactly. Who is on one side, and who is on the other. One side says . . what, and the other side says . . . what."

The "controversy" is simple, if you care to look at a different side than your own. The controversy is that evolution has some problems. It does not answer all of the questions, nor does it present life and its origins from a viewpoint which can be critiqued by people like myself, mainly because of people like yourselves who seem to think that all science knowledge must be viewed through Darwinian evolution.

Were I to open the questioning about the origin of life and the simple law of biogenesis that states one can not get life from non-life, I'd get a flurry of "scientists" from PT assailing me for being an IDist, simply because I have a few questions. I posted a few simple statements two days ago. Your responses show a lack of integrity and humanity by engaging in a series of ad-hominem attacks against my character and intelligence. How is this science? ...to be ridiculed for beliefs or genuine questions about life as we know it? What I have experienced here is not science but a mutual dislike-of-anything-not-evoltuion society.

It has been said that biology only makes sense in the light of evolution. Yet, many science teachers scratch the surface of evolution in their biology courses. Why is that? Is it because they don't understand it? I don't think so. I think it is because the more we look at life and how inter-connected it all is and how amazingly it all works, the more we realize how impossible it all is to have come by mutations and natural selection-only.

This will be my last post here. I have classes to teach and a world to explore. Will I teach evolution? Absolutely. Will I teach creationism or ID...no. Will I teach the problems with evolution? Yes.

Perharps this web site should not be called Panda's Thumb but rather Pandora's Box! I retreat quietly and leave you to assault other people with genuine questions and critical thinking.

Respectfully,

Dr. E

The controversy is that evolution has some problems.

It does not answer all of the questions, nor does it present life and its origins from a viewpoint which can be critiqued by people like myself,

mainly because of people like yourselves who seem to think that all science knowledge must be viewed through Darwinian evolution.

Were I to open the questioning about the origin of life and the simple law of biogenesis that states one can not get life from non-life, I'd get a flurry of "scientists" from PT assailing me for being an IDist, simply because I have a few questions.

I posted a few simple statements two days ago.

Your responses show a lack of integrity and humanity by engaging in a series of ad-hominem attacks against my character and intelligence. How is this science? . . . to be ridiculed for beliefs or genuine questions about life as we know it? What I have experienced here is not science but a mutual dislike-of-anything-not-evoltuion society.

It has been said that biology only makes sense in the light of evolution. Yet, many science teachers scratch the surface of evolution in their biology courses. Why is that? Is it because they don't understand it? I don't think so. I think it is because the more we look at life and how inter-connected it all is and how amazingly it all works, the more we realize how impossible it all is to have come by mutations and natural selection-only.

Will I teach the problems with evolution? Yes.

I retreat quietly and leave you to assault other people with genuine questions and critical thinking.

Dr. E, if you had come here with genuine questions, really in search of knowledge about a topic, and asked them they would have been answered. For instance, if you had come and asked whether evolution only entails mutation and natural selection, you probably would have gotten the answer that there are other mechanisms that are known to us.

You, however, didn't ask any questions. You came with accusations in hand about how we throw around ad hominems at IDists that are unwarranted. You also accused us all of being "stilted" in our thinking. When you were asked questions in return, you retreated to Creationist attacks. Then, when we argued against those well known and discredited attacks that you leveled against all of us, you accused us of closed-mindedness and of assaulting you. And we are the unreasonable ones here?

Argh, Glen, you scooped me, and much more eloquently to boot.

"No, you retreat with the same noisome attacks that you entered with, you obnoxious little pest."

I saw no attacks, but geniuine questions. Yet, to my surprise and dismay, was greeted with attacks such as this against my character. Thanks a lot.

Dr. E

What I would have liked to have seen:

"Hey, you're a new science teacher? Great! How can we answer your questions? Specifically, what questions do you have? We'd be glad to present our views to the best of our ability to a genuine seeker such as yourself...welcome!"

What I got:

"Hey, you have no business being here if you dare question evolution you uneducated, ignorant, pest."

So now I walk away saddened by such blatant disregard for any human decency. You people are amazing! I spent two hours reviewing your web site two nights ago, reading posts and letters/papers, hoping to find a blog that could actually help my students find answers to their questions. Now, I will steer them clear of this place and look for others with a more welcoming attitude to those with questions.

Dr. E

Could you please describe for us where you see science on the side of ID?

I saw no attacks, but geniuine questions.

What I would have liked to have seen: "Hey, you're a new science teacher? Great! How can we answer your questions? Specifically, what questions do you have? We'd be glad to present our views to the best of our ability to a genuine seeker such as yourself . . . welcome!"

— Dr. E

I spent two hours reviewing your web site two nights ago, reading posts and letters/papers, hoping to find a blog that could actually help my students find answers to their questions. Now, I will steer them clear of this place and look for others with a more welcoming attitude to those with questions.

What I would have liked to have seen: "Hey, you're a new science teacher? Great! How can we answer your questions? Specifically, what questions do you have? We'd be glad to present our views to the best of our ability to a genuine seeker such as yourself . . . welcome!"

— Dr. E

I have classes to teach and a world to explore.

Well good for you sir. You keep on exploring the world and asking questions.

Will I teach evolution? Absolutely. Will I teach creationism or ID… no. Will I teach the problems with evolution? Yes.

Yes those are some very good questions. You keep on asking those questions. I think the best science teachers are the ones who aren't afraid to ask the tough questions. Good luck to you sir. My hat is off to you.

Dr E:

I DID answer your questions: I refered you to places to read about the research that has been done on the flagellum. I refered you to a place to view a whole series of transitional fossils. I pointed out mistakes you made about Bush's political position on teaching ID, and your mistakes about Santorum's "ammendment".

It was YOU who came in here in an accusatory and derogatory manner. It is YOU that should take a closer look at your behavior.

You exhibit all the same kinds of reflective behavior we have come to expect here from creationists, so why wouldn't you end up being classified as one?

I too, feel sorry for your students if you really are a science teacher, as it is readily apparent you not only have a very poor grasp of science itself, but you will end up teaching a very narrow minded viewpoint as well.

If you taught in my district, I'd seriously be considering a PTA meeting to discuss your ability to teach science.

he "controversy" is simple, if you care to look at a different side than your own. The controversy is that evolution has some problems. It does not answer all of the questions, nor does it present life and its origins from a viewpoint which can be critiqued by people like myself, mainly because of people like yourselves who seem to think that all science knowledge must be viewed through Darwinian evolution.

So, in closing, I feel that to simply teach students the theory of evolution and not discuss some of the historical scientific mishaps and yes, even the problems with it, is at best poor science and at worst, pseudoscience. Do you also think that to simply teach students the germ theory of disease and not discuss some of the historical scientific mishaps and yes, even the problems with it, is at best poor science and at worst, pseudoscience? How about heliocentric theory? Quantum electrodynamics? Plate tectonics? Why is it only evolution that seems to get your panties all in a bunch, and not the germ theory of disease, heliocentric theory, quantum theory, or plate tectonics? Why is it that IDers only crow about "teach the controversy" about evolution, and not anything else? Why is it that IDers only complain about the "gaps" in evolutionary theory, and not anything else? (Or is it your opinion that all the rest of science is finished and complete with perfect knowledge of everything --- unlike evolution?) Why is that, Dr?

I think it is because the more we look at life and how inter-connected it all is and how amazingly it all works, the more we realize how impossible it all is to have come by mutations and natural selection-only.

I saw no attacks, but geniuine questions. Yet, to my surprise and dismay, was greeted with attacks such as this against my character. Thanks a lot.

What I would have liked to have seen: "Hey, you're a new science teacher? Great! How can we answer your questions? Specifically, what questions do you have? We'd be glad to present our views to the best of our ability to a genuine seeker such as yourself . . . welcome!"

"Both sides"? What is the "other side"? I've heard IDers crow for over a decade now about this "alternatvie scientific theory" of theirs, but have never seen anyone actualy, PRODUCE it . . . . Why is that? Maybe you can help. What *is* the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how can we test it using the scientific method? Show us how this "scientific theory of ID" works. Pick a specific example (say, the wonderful flagellum with all its moving parts) and show us how ID explains it. According to the "scientific theory of ID", what did the designer do to produce the bacterial flagellum? Did the designer super-glue a flagellum onto a poor unsuspecting bacterium? Did the designer use its Acme Super-Duper DNA Re-Sequencer to produce the flagellum? Did the designer use the genetic engineering lab on board its interstellar flying saucer to manufacture a flagellum and graft it onto a bacterium? What is the scientific theory of ID? What, according to this scientific theory, does the designer do? What mechanisms, according to this scientific theory of ID, does the designer use to do whatever the heck you think it does? Where can we see these mechanisms in action today? Why won't IDers answer any of these questions?

well, i'd say in E's case, it was a combination of (1) and (2).

there is no scientific theory of ID, and Dr E is too ignorant to actually realize this, because he doesn't understand what 'scientific' actually means.

Re "If there is a lack of evidence to point to common descent, then how is it that there is enough to point to common design?"

Ah, but that lack of evidence is the evidence for deliberate engineering of life (aka common design), ya see. ;)

Does that help? :)

Henry

Oh, well. I decidend to take one last look at the skewering I got (and continue to get as it seems!)I guess I'm a glutton for punishment! I looked a little harder at the Panda website and found that it is a den of anti-Republican, beer-influenced, honorary "doctors" of various subjects. Guess I should have looked harder before jumping in the fray. Well, anyway, I DO understand the nature of science (although not perfectly) and am striving to be a critical thinker, not just believeing what I'm told on ANY side, and am striving to understand the whole big picture. While I am not a dyed-in-the-wool creationist or IDist like many of you wrongly surmised, I am neither a hard-core evolutionist - I am indeed a fence-sitter, watching and interpreting the evidence, attempting to set aside my own biases (not an easy thing) and make temporary conclusions that I re-calculate as more evidence comes in. I am a member of NABT and my state science teacher's association and am NOT a member of any ID or creationist club (at least not yet). What I am attempting to do (despite the criticism of many of you fellows) is be a non-biased educator of high school kids, presenting ideas and letting them look at the evidence and deciding for themselves (based on evidence) what makes sense to them. I have a colleague who seems to think that it is his mission to "prove" evolution is the only valid theory and actually puts kids of faith down for their unscienctific beliefs. Not that I am trying to balance his one-sided views, but I strive to present information without comment or censure - not an easy thing to do!

Anyway, sorry if I ruffled a few feathers (or scales!)I guess I have not evolved the temperament to survive in the jungle that is Panda's Thumb. But I will take my real Master's degree and doctor degrees and drink my Republican Root Beer!

Best to you all (really, I mean it!)

Dr. E

I don't know what site "Dr. E" has confused us with, but our contributors have 16 earned doctorates among them, mostly in biological fields of study, one M.D., and one J.D. among the bunch.

I'm not sure what sort of earned "doctorate(s)" "Dr. E" has, but it seems to be in a field that doesn't encourage the slightest effort in fact-checking.

And still no actual questions from Dr. E, I see. Perhaps that's why he's a fence-sitter: he never bothers to actually question anything....

I have a colleague who seems to think that it is his mission to "prove" evolution is the only valid theory and actually puts kids of faith down for their unscienctific beliefs.

Actually, Andrea,

The man is the head of the science deptartment, has three years to retirement (is tenured) and several parents have told me the stories in secret, asking what they should do. None of them wants to raise a fuss, so he continues. Did I mention he was "godless"? I think not! Let's not assume OK? The story is true. I have no agenda or reason to lie. It's not like any one is going to change their minds....

Dr. E

And whatever moral framework "Dr. E" has doesn't seem to be big on issuing apologies for stating falsehoods, like the one above about PT people only having "honorary" rather than earned doctorates.

I'm a fence sitter too. I think the world is only partly flat, that both sides are sincere but the round-earthers are abusive, and I'm here with open-minded questions, to wit: Why are you people so stupid? Why do you hate God so much? Why can't you accept fairly tales based on wishful thinking, which are AT LEAST as valid as hundreds of thousands of careers spent doing reviewed research? How dare you ask me any questions, which is abusive all by itself? How dare you jump to conclusions without asking me questions first? Why are you all such jerks?

See, I have asked LOTS of questions. I'm here to learn, after all.

I'll make it easy for Dr. E:
Please give us one (1) example of evidence which is positive for ID and negative for the theory of evolution. Or one (1) problem with evolution which ID solves.

Just one caveat: it cannot have been addressed in either PT or http://www.talkorigins.org

If you have been able to stay sat on the fence, it must be because you have found evidence for both camps. ALl I am asking is for one. Easy enough, isn't it?

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

PD: failure to comply with such a simple and easy request will mark you as a full-fledge creationist. If you don't understand why, it's because creationists like to state that there is evidence for their position and then never produce any. Just FYI.

"PD: failure to comply with such a simple and easy request will mark you as a full-fledge creationist. If you don't understand why, it's because creationists like to state that there is evidence for their position and then never produce any. Just FYI."

So, let's see...all I need to do is read each and every esaay, paper, and critique on this site AND everything at talkorigins,org AND make sure none of my questions have already been answered (even if they are not to my satisfaction. Hmm...I don't think I have 15 hours of my time to spend on that task, sorry. So, I guess you can just paint me with a broad, non-scientific brush that I am somewhow an enemy of yours and write me off as a loony because I dare to think about how perhaps macroevolution doesn't work for me as I look at the evidence?

Oh, and by the way, I didn't say that EVERYONE was a beer-swiller with an honorary doctorate (read the post) I said "is a den of anti-Republican, beer-influenced, honorary "doctors" of various subjects." But then again, if one paints with a broad brush (ie. anyone who has problems with macroevolution it is because of religious bias PERIOD)then I guess we are at an impasse.

As I stated, Behe's contention that the flagellum has 40 moving parts that all need to be there in one evolutionary step in order for it to work is intruiging. But most of what I've read about his evidence at this site and others attacks him for academic and scholarly dishonesty and/or lies versus addressing the issue and evidence. Now, I am not a biochemist, nor am I a bacteriologist, so all I'm saying is that it's interesting information I'd like to see addressed in a professional, non-character-assassinating manner. But It's a bit like a baseball game that an outsider wishes to be a part of. Someone else makes up the rules as to who and who can't play. "No creationists" makes up 5 of the 10 rules and the others are based on those as well. Then, someone who has a question or two and MAYBE is leaning away from macroevolution as the answer to it all asks to play. "No, you're a creationist." "Actually, I'm not sure I am, I say." "Sure you are," they say, you don't follow our rules so you can't play." Or something like that. But wouldn't the game be more fun for everyone of someone actually sat down and said, "OK, I'm willing to set aside my bias and look at your evidence" (versus saying, THAT!? THAT"S not evidence! How ridiculous!) But maybe I'm living in a world that doesn't exist...

Anyway getting back to Behe...I read the Nature magazine article about him and his flagellum theory (that it's irreducibly complex)and remember someone discussing his "mousetrap" analogy and as I remember it, they went after the analogy and ignored the issue. They talked about how the parts of a mousetrap could all have had a use as something else (a tie clip comes to mind). They never discussed how all of the parts could come together at the exact same time in order for it to work. (If it didn't work, natural selection would select it "out") The same thing happened in the latest issue of my state's science teacher magazine, except with J. Welles' problems with Haeckel...they addressed a side issue (that everyone knew about the fraud) versus the central issue (that they are still in textbooks as "evidence"). So, yeah...I'm a questioner. I don't always listen to and fiollow the party line...I look...I question...I reason. I'm trying to be a "real" scientist. But maybe I have to find another ball park to play in because Darwin-forbid, I might resemble an ACCCCCK! creationist! And THEY aren't allowed!

Maybe y'all could take one step back and look at some of the acidic tone of your posts and realize that you CAN discuss science without being so polemic, if you'd only let go of all of that anger. ???

I guess this is a longer retreat than I planned. Maybe I'm hoping someone can be humane and respond with evidence that doesn't contain any poison. Might be easier to swallow....just a thought

Dr. E

Dr. E., on the axiom that you are indeed interested and not just being a pain, let me state the major objection to the IDC crowd's argument. The argument from design assumes that whatever complex structure is under discussion (the eye, the flagellum, the mousetrap) arose in one fell swoop, and that is of course impossible. But that's not the way evolution works. Changes go in a direction mandated by selection, and the changes are cumulative. In fact, the flagellum is a great example of the process: different organisms have co-opted different proteins, some flagella are missing parts that are in other bacteria (e.g., they can't change direction but they still move), etc.

I read Behe's book. He writes well and can be superficially convincing, especially to someone who is neither a biochemist or a microbiologist. He picks and chooses, though, and has been debunked thoroughly by experts in these systems.

His argument boils down to "If we don't know how it happened, then God did it." This is a fallacy. God is (by definition) unknowable, but not all that we don't know is unknowable. Sometimes we just don't know. Sometimes we can't know, but that still doesn't mean the laws of chemistry and physics don't apply to those systems.

Finally, unless you can give evidence of the science teacher who is mocking students' faith, (rather than telling them that their personal beliefs are not accorded equal time in science class) please drop the subject. It smells of an urban legend.

Dr. E:
Think of an argument. Lets say you think that the second law of thermodynamics proves evolution wrong. Now go to the search functions in either website (I recommend you start in talkorigins, it is by far the mroe complete) and put the key words. In my example, "second law thermodynamics". If you find a reference, read through it, because it means that your "argument" is not actually a valid one. Iterate through all your arguments and problems with evolution till you find one that is not contemplated in either place. Should take, tops, 20 minutes, if you really have such good arguments and problems. Recommendation: start with the most promising (i.e. *don't* use the one I used for the example, one of the oldest cannards of creationism).

If the argument is not answered to your satisfaction, come here and explain why. That will either: 1) reveal you don't actually know what you're talking about or 2) open our eyes to your supreme knowledge. I expect 1, but only because in 150 years of evolution there has been as of yet no creationist argument that holds water. Maybe you'll change the pattern, though.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

all I need to do is read each and every esaay, paper, and critique on this site AND everything at talkorigins,org AND make sure none of my questions have already been answered (even if they are not to my satisfaction. Hmm . . . I don't think I have 15 hours of my time to spend on that task,sorry.

So, I guess you can just paint me with a broad, non-scientific brush that I am somewhow an enemy of yours and write me off as a loony because I dare to think about how perhaps macroevolution doesn't work for me as I look at the evidence?

But then again, if one paints with a broad brush (ie. anyone who has problems with macroevolution it is because of religious bias PERIOD

But then, maybe my world view isn't as stilted as those at the Panda's Thumb, who flatly refute any artilce that doesn't agree with Darwinian evolution before the ink is dry.

As I stated, Behe's contention that the flagellum has 40 moving parts that all need to be there in one evolutionary step in order for it to work is intruiging. But most of what I've read about his evidence at this site and others attacks him for academic and scholarly dishonesty and/or lies versus addressing the issue and evidence. Now, I am not a biochemist, nor am I a bacteriologist, so all I'm saying is that it's interesting information I'd like to see addressed in a professional, non-character-assassinating manner.

But It's a bit like a baseball game that an outsider wishes to be a part of. Someone else makes up the rules as to who and who can't play. "No creationists" makes up 5 of the 10 rules and the others are based on those as well.

"OK, I'm willing to set aside my bias and look at your evidence" (versus saying, THAT!? THAT"S not evidence! How ridiculous!) But maybe I'm living in a world that doesn't exist . . . .

Anyway getting back to Behe . . . I read the Nature magazine article about him and his flagellum theory (that it's irreducibly complex)and remember someone discussing his "mousetrap" analogy and as I remember it, they went after the analogy and ignored the issue. They talked about how the parts of a mousetrap could all have had a use as something else (a tie clip comes to mind). They never discussed how all of the parts could come together at the exact same time in order for it to work. (If it didn't work, natural selection would select it "out") The same thing happened in the latest issue of my state's science teacher magazine, except with J. Welles' problems with Haeckel . . . they addressed a side issue (that everyone knew about the fraud) versus the central issue (that they are still in textbooks as "evidence"). So, yeah . . . I'm a questioner. I don't always listen to and fiollow the party line . . . I look . . . I question . . . I reason. I'm trying to be a "real" scientist. But maybe I have to find another ball park to play in because Darwin-forbid, I might resemble an ACCCCCK! creationist! And THEY aren't allowed!

Maybe y'all could take one step back and look at some of the acidic tone of your posts and realize that you CAN discuss science without being so polemic, if you'd only let go of all of that anger. ???

Maybe I'm hoping someone can be humane and respond with evidence that doesn't contain any poison. Might be easier to swallow . . . .just a thought

Oh, well. I decidend to take one last look at the skewering I got (and continue to get as it seems!)I guess I'm a glutton for punishment! I looked a little harder at the Panda website and found that it is a den of anti-Republican, beer-influenced, honorary "doctors" of various subjects.

Why is it only evolution that seems to get your panties all in a bunch, and not the germ theory of disease, heliocentric theory, quantum theory, or plate tectonics? Why is it that IDers only crow about "teach the controversy" about evolution, and not anything else? Why is it that IDers only complain about the "gaps" in evolutionary theory, and not anything else? (Or is it your opinion that all the rest of science is finished and complete with perfect knowledge of everything --- unlike evolution?) Why is that, Dr? Oh, and I have a question for you about this whole "teach the controversy" thingie, and it's a crushingly simple question. My question is this: What *IS* the controversy that you want to teach. Exactly. Who is on one side, and who is on the other. One side says . . what, and the other side says . . . what.

What *is* the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how can we test it using the scientific method? Show us how this "scientific theory of ID" works. Pick a specific example (say, the wonderful flagellum with all its moving parts) and show us how ID explains it. According to the "scientific theory of ID", what did the designer do to produce the bacterial flagellum? Did the designer super-glue a flagellum onto a poor unsuspecting bacterium? Did the designer use its Acme Super-Duper DNA Re-Sequencer to produce the flagellum? Did the designer use the genetic engineering lab on board its interstellar flying saucer to manufacture a flagellum and graft it onto a bacterium? What is the scientific theory of ID? What, according to this scientific theory, does the designer do? What mechanisms, according to this scientific theory of ID, does the designer use to do whatever the heck you think it does? Where can we see these mechanisms in action today?

Oh, and by the way, I didn't say that EVERYONE was a beer-swiller with an honorary doctorate (read the post) I said "is a den of anti-Republican, beer-influenced, honorary "doctors" of various subjects."

anti-Republican

But then again, if one paints with a broad brush (ie. anyone who has problems with macroevolution it is because of religious bias PERIOD

have a colleague who seems to think that it is his mission to "prove" evolution is the only valid theory and actually puts kids of faith down for their unscienctific beliefs.

The man is the head of the science deptartment, has three years to retirement (is tenured) and several parents have told me the stories in secret, asking what they should do. None of them wants to raise a fuss, so he continues. Did I mention he was "godless"? I think not! Let's not assume OK? The story is true. I have no agenda or reason to lie. It's not like any one is going to change their minds . . . .

C'mon Dr. E! You're not going to take that lying down, are you?

Remember the flagellum!

(Actually, that would make a great IDist rallying cry....)

Dr. E is an IDiot, plain and simple. It's frightening that he purports to be some sort of science teacher yet evinces no evidence of understanding even the most basic principles of science and perhaps worse yet, no evidence of the intellectual capacity to understand. What can he be teaching?
I am not a scientist. I'm an engineer who works in manufacturing, and engineers have taken a bit of a beating around here, although for the most part it's been deserved. I wouldn't think of arguing genetics with a qualified geneticist, but I hope I'm smart enough to recognize a lame argument when I see one, and to be able to evaluate the arguments between experts to the degree necessary to be able to tell when something ain't right.

If Dr. E wants to honestly review the arguments and the literature--to the extent he's able to understand it--the answers are abundantly clear. ID is nothing more than attempt to sneak religion past the Constitution. And if he's honest, he'll admit that and move on, rather than continuing to make a fool of himself and trumpeting his intellectual deficit. In the words of the immortal Bob Dylan, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. You have to be an arrogant fool, however, to deny it in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

...a den of anti-Republican, beer-influenced, honorary "doctors" of various subjects.

What I am attempting to do (despite the criticism of many of you fellows) is be a non-biased educator of high school kids, presenting ideas and letting them look at the evidence and deciding for themselves (based on evidence) what makes sense to them.

Great idea. So let the holocaust deniers waste classtime, and the flat earthers, and the dowsing rodders, ESP, Forteans, let David Icke's shape-shifting lizards into Civics class, and lets spend the whole time presenting any half-wit's notions, and then just let the kids pick.