The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Journalists are beginning to get it

Posted 13 January 2006 by Richard B. Hoppe

The Disco Institute's Media Complaints Division (aka "Evolution News and Views", a misnomer if I ever saw one) regularly rants about what they deem to be misrepresentations of Intelligent Design "theory". In spite of Luskin's and Crowther's efforts, though, a growing number (!) of journalists are catching on to the Disco Institute's scam. The most recent example is an editorial in today's Akron Beacon Journal. The editorial writer, Steve Hoffman, clearly gets it. He writes
What might a judge eventually say about the state school board in Ohio, which this week refused by a narrow margin to revise its guidelines for teaching biology? Those guidelines create false controversy over Darwinian evolution, singling it out from all other scientific theories for critical analysis, indirectly but quite deliberately guiding students toward the conclusion that an intelligent designer (God) must have shaped each amazing, complex organism. Would the judge conclude that in the wake of the Dover decision, the state board in Ohio acted with breathtaking stupidity?
My answer, of course, would be no: the Board, or at least the thought leaders on it, Michael Cochran and Deborah Owens Fink, did not act in ignorance or breathtaking stupidity. In my opinion, they acted knowing full well what they were doing: perverting science education in Ohio schools in service of a religiously grounded socio-cultural movement. Robert Lattimer, a leader of ID troops in Ohio, told an ID conference in late 2003 that science would have very little to do with the development of science standards and education would have very little to do with it. Just so. Hoffman went on
The Ohio board's fundamental mistake was that a majority of its members were unable (or unwilling) to differentiate between scientific and political controversy. That mistake has now been compounded.
Again, I vote for "unwilling". I do not believe this is the honest mistake of unwitting people, but is the intentional perversion of both science and education to further a sectarian agenda. Catherine Candinsky of the Columbus Dispatch also "gets it", as do others in Ohio. It remains to be seen whether the middle-of-the-road members of the Ohio Board of Education will get it. Will they realize that they're allowing Cochran and Owens Fink to lead Ohio public education down an indefensible educational, scientific, and legal path? They still have a chance. The one parallel between Dover and Ohio that hasn't occurred is that no member of the Ohio Board has lied to a federal judge under oath. Yet. RBH

156 Comments

Ocellated · 13 January 2006

You're completely right. Board members most certainly knew what they were doing. Statements like "If they think we are wrong --- take us to court" and the guy reading a newspaper instead of listening to others speak on the day of the 9-8 vote in favor of ID prove the point.

No amount of "evidence" will get in the way of their ideology...

Caledonian · 13 January 2006

They want to be taken to court? Let's take them up on that offer.

How many court cases do you think it will take to convince school districts (and state education boards) that they cannot use the law to mandate their religious beliefs? Clearly, it's at least two...

jim · 13 January 2006

The problem is, the people leading this charge into battle are not the ones that will suffer the consequences.

For the IDiots, this is a no lose proposition. If they win, they win. If they lose, it's the taxpayers of Ohio that will have to shoulder the burden.

It would be nice if someone can find grounds to go after these nitwits personally (perhaps the State of Ohio can go after them for abuse of office or some such?).

It would also be *very sweet* if Dover can do the same.

Reed A. Cartwright · 13 January 2006

It may be tricky to get standing to challenge the standards. Ohio may have to wait for someone to sue a district that implements the standards in an unconstitutional way.

Caledonian · 13 January 2006

For the IDiots, this is a no lose proposition. If they win, they win. If they lose, it's the taxpayers of Ohio that will have to shoulder the burden.

They elected the Governor of Ohio, who appointed the people who voted in these new standards. Yes, the people who voted for intelligent, honest candidates (if there were any) will be screwed over. But that's the way the system works. If the only way to keep people from putting morons into positions of power is to let them reap the rewards of their poor choices... well, we may just have to take the extreme measures of letting people face the consequences of their actions. Maybe the Ohioans will choose more rationally next time. As for those poor people who are being represented by people they really don't want to represent them, well, that's life. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.

ben · 13 January 2006

democracy simply doesn't work
And your suggested alternative is....?

Caledonian · 13 January 2006

Technocracy would be an interesting experiment. It would certainly resolve the Culture Wars pretty quickly, don't you think?

rich · 13 January 2006

Globally, the world IS a technocracy. Manpower counts for little these days.

Sir_Toejam · 13 January 2006

RBH said:

They still have a chance

What did you mean by this, Richard? Do you mean there is still a chance to avoid a district court case? I thought that was essentially a foregone conclusion after the last meeting. Could you please clarify? thanks

Flint · 13 January 2006

Somewhat along these lines, the most recent issue of Science has an article discussing (and quoting extensively from) the Dover decision. And the most recent Scientific American does a profile on Eugenie Scott.

harold · 13 January 2006

Jim -

I've been saying the same thing for a long time.

Right now, these people pay no personal price for their conspiracies to violate civil rights.

ID loses, and taxpayers lose, but the individuals can win - they get to look like "defenders of the faith" to their own chosen companions.

Bringing some personal responsibility to bear might change all that.

harold · 13 January 2006

"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work"

Democracy is the worst system - except for all the other systems.

Can you name a single undemocratic society that is doing especially well?

Any issues I may have with US society are most certainly NOT related to too much democracy.

What the Sam Hill is "technocracy"? Rule by "help desk" staff?

Caledonian · 13 January 2006

Any issues I may have with US society are most certainly NOT related to too much democracy.

Really? So you wouldn't object if we took a vote to determine whether the idea that God specially-created man should be taught in school? http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm Hey, we could make it a worldwide vote! That'd make it even more democratic - all humans deciding together what the truth is.

Sir_Toejam · 13 January 2006

Can you name a single undemocratic society that is doing especially well?

China. You do recall that China owns a very large portion of our national debt, yes? I wonder what will happen when they call that ticket in...

Russell · 13 January 2006

Right now, these people pay no personal price for their conspiracies to violate civil rights.

Indeed, that's what dependents of the Discovery Institute are paid for. If, tomorrow, I am shown some absolutely irrefutable body of evidence that my basic understanding of biology has been completely flawed, I will probably slap my forehead, say something like "Well, I'll be damned!" and get back to work. If the Casey Luskins and Jonathan Wells's were to recognize the scientific vacuousness of their project, they'd have to: (a)get real jobs, or (b)lie a lot (to themselves and to everyone else).

bill · 13 January 2006

Harold,

I'm with you on that thought. How would the DI be distinguished from a strip mall Psychic? You pays your money, you takes your chance.

As an advocacy group it's the market that will determine whether or not the DI is successful. Behe's book, for example, lay dormant for a decade. I have no idea if the recent publicity has given it stronger legs.

RBH · 13 January 2006

Sir T_J asked
What did you mean by this, Richard?
The motion to delete the lesson plan was ruled by the President of the Board to be a main motion. Thus a member who voted on the prevailing side (one of the 9 who voted "no") could move to reconsider. If the motion to reconsider gets a majority, then the main motion can be voted on again. So procedurally it is not yet too late for the Board to clean up its act. RBH

Spore · 13 January 2006

The Naked Emperor has some good insights on Luskin's latest spinning.

What I find hilarious about the Discovery Institute's letter to Mr. Wight is that Casey Luskin makes the assertion that "Under the current formulation, the course title "Philosophy of design" misrepresents intelligent design by promoting young earth creationism under the guise of intelligent design." That is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Intelligent design proponents are trying to misrepresent science by promoting intelligent design under the guise of science. Intelligent design is creationism. Refusing to name the creator doesn't change that. It only demonstrates how disingenuous its advocates are.

Sir_Toejam · 13 January 2006

The motion to delete the lesson plan was ruled by the President of the Board to be a main motion. Thus a member who voted on the prevailing side (one of the 9 who voted "no") could move to reconsider. If the motion to reconsider gets a majority, then the main motion can be voted on again. So procedurally it is not yet too late for the Board to clean up its act.

rockin! thanks, Richard, for clearing that up. I guess that means: "Keep those cards and letters comin' folks" OTOH, part of me keeps thinking that it's obvious that the IDiots want this to all the way to the Supremes (AGAIN), and I wonder if it wouldn't be more expedient to get this over with now, rather than later when the majority (including the likely to be approved "Scalito") are more likely to rule in favor of a more, dare i say it, "liberal" interpretation of the seperatiton clause in the constitution than the current court does. What do you think Richard? best to get this over with now, or best to avoid any more court cases?

dre · 13 January 2006

will pacino play "scalito" in the film adaptation?

Heisenberg · 13 January 2006

Let's apply math to the Bible, not just biology.

2 Chronicles 4:2 states "He also made the molten sea. It was perfectly round, ten cubits in diameter, five in depth, and thirty in circumference."

Pi times diameter gives us the circumference of a circle. 2 Chronicles gives us a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30. So:

10pi = 30

Dividing each side by 10 we get...

pi = 3.

Three on the button ! Ain't Biblical science grand ?

Sir_Toejam · 13 January 2006

pi = 3. Three on the button ! Ain't Biblical science grand ?

well, it sure is simplistic, which is why i guess it appeals to so many.

Sir_Toejam · 13 January 2006

will pacino play "scalito" in the film adaptation?

doubtful. He doesn't match up well physically: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1136541915440

Spore · 13 January 2006

I vote for Eugene Levy to play Scalito...

LackOfDiscipline · 13 January 2006

Pi...a number that legislators of the past have argued should be "set" at the value of 3.14 so that there would be no confusion among architects and tradesmen.

It's wonderful, the science education that some of our polticians had. Let's support them in their crusade to include all points of view.

Sir_Toejam · 13 January 2006

I vote for Eugene Levy to play Scalito...

hmm, yeah, if he puts on a few pounds, that might work. who would play the weepy wife who sits behind him?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 January 2006

democracy simply doesn't work.

Au contraire --- it works very well. Indeed, it gives people EXACTLY the sort of government they deserve. If they vote for simple-minded idiots, then that's what they GET. (shrug)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 January 2006

It may be tricky to get standing to challenge the standards. Ohio may have to wait for someone to sue a district that implements the standards in an unconstitutional way.

How so? It seems to me that the Ohio board is a governmental body, no governmental body has the constitutional right to advance or endorse religion, the board is acting unconstituionally by doing so anyway, and any citizen of Ohio ought to have standing to enforce that provision. No?

RBH · 13 January 2006

Sir TY_J wrote
I guess that means: "Keep those cards and letters comin' folks" OTOH, part of me keeps thinking that it's obvious that the IDiots want this to all the way to the Supremes (AGAIN), and I wonder if it wouldn't be more expedient to get this over with now, rather than later when the majority (including the likely to be approved "Scalito") are more likely to rule in favor of a more, dare i say it, "liberal" interpretation of the seperatiton clause in the constitution than the current court does. What do you think Richard? best to get this over with now, or best to avoid any more court cases?
Yes, for sure it means keep those cards and letters coming. I will have a longer post sometime next week describing the last Board meeting more fully -- I'm waiting for the tapes of the meeting to be transcribed. My preference would be for the Board to delete the offending lesson plan and delete or rewrite the benchmark that allowed it into the model curriculum. It's my tax money that the Board would be pissing away defending a federal suit. But the documents we have already obtained from Public Records Requests made by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State paint a dirty picture of both the ID-pushing Board members and some of the senior staff in the Ohio Department of Education who reported to them. (Incidentally, the Ohio Department of Education was less than forthcoming in its response to the PRR. We know of relevant documents that ODE has that were not released. We know that because some of our people were involved in creating those documents.) The documented trail is already broad and clear. While both internal and external ODE science consultants were telling ODE senior management that the "Critical Analysis" lesson plan contains "a lie", is "oversimplified", its author "doesn't know what critical analysis means", and that it is laced with ID, senior ODE management was assuring the Board and the public that they did their best to provide good science in the model curriculum. Those managers (Hi there, Dr. Bobby Bowers!) will be the ones under oath in a federal court, facing cross examination with the documents from the PRR and additional documents that will surely be turned up in discovery pushed in their faces. I don't envy them. RBH

Sir_Toejam · 13 January 2006

hmm, your argument appears to be a bit philosophically divided. after asking my initial question, I immediately thought, of course; why would anybody WANT to pay for yet another trial. however, looking at the paper trail that seems to have gathered behind these folks like slime from a slug, combined with what you said here:

Those managers (Hi there, Dr. Bobby Bowers!) will be the ones under oath in a federal court, facing cross examination with the documents from the PRR and additional documents that will surely be turned up in discovery pushed in their faces. I don't envy them.

one wonders whether another court case that brings this trail to light might actually be worth the expense? Especially if the media attention could be focused on these slime devils, where it belongs, rather than on Ohio in general. hmm. i guess do both would be the appropriate response? keep the public pressure on, AND continue to gather evidence for use in the likely court case. another thought: If there is a considerable and obvious paper trail, why isn't that enough evidence to convince the board members to change their minds on the curriculum? strange indeed.

Scott · 13 January 2006

"How so? It seems to me that the Ohio board is a governmental body, no governmental body has the constitutional right to advance or endorse religion, the board is acting unconstituionally by doing so anyway, and any citizen of Ohio ought to have standing to enforce that provision. No?"

AFAIK, I think it has to do with "standing". If you personally have not been harmed by a law, you have no "standing" to challenge it. That's why people like the ACLU represent clients who live in the district. The ACLU by itself has no "standing". So, not just "any" citizen of Ohio, but a citizen with a child in a school that has implemented the offending directives in an unconstitutional way has "standing". Otherwise, the law does not effect you (in a legal sense).

Mike Elzinga · 13 January 2006

But couldn't government officials be sued for things like mismanagement, misleading the public, causing tax dollars to be spent on advancing a sectarian religion, entangling the public interest with religious zealotry? Shouldn't a responsible public official be steering the organization for which they are responsible out of these dangerous waters rather than into them?

Bill Gascoyne · 13 January 2006

Lenny,

That's been said better before:

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
H.L. MENCKEN (1880-1956)

Mike Elzinga · 13 January 2006

"In a democracy, the elected officials are always smarter than the electorate, because no matter how stupid the officials are, the electorate was even more stupid to have elected them." I can't remember who said this; it may have been Churchill, but I am not sure.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 January 2006

"How so? It seems to me that the Ohio board is a governmental body, no governmental body has the constitutional right to advance or endorse religion, the board is acting unconstituionally by doing so anyway, and any citizen of Ohio ought to have standing to enforce that provision. No?" AFAIK, I think it has to do with "standing". If you personally have not been harmed by a law, you have no "standing" to challenge it. That's why people like the ACLU represent clients who live in the district. The ACLU by itself has no "standing". So, not just "any" citizen of Ohio, but a citizen with a child in a school that has implemented the offending directives in an unconstitutional way has "standing". Otherwise, the law does not effect you (in a legal sense).

I understand that. However, the Board, by itself, without any school district entering anywhere into the picture, is a governmental body, and governmental bodies, of whatever form, are constitutionally prohibited from endorsing religion. And the fact that they did anyway, would seem to "harm", well, every citizen of the state. Which would, one would think, give them "standing" to sue the Board, directly, over that "harm", quite apart from whether the Board's religious endorsement is or is not itself carried through by this or that school district. The standards THEMSELVES are unconstitutional and "harm" everyone in the state. Yes?

RBH · 13 January 2006

Sir T_J wondered
i guess do both would be the appropriate response? keep the public pressure on, AND continue to gather evidence for use in the likely court case. another thought: If there is a considerable and obvious paper trail, why isn't that enough evidence to convince the board members to change their minds on the curriculum? strange indeed.
Yup, and we're doing both. As to why board members aren't convinced, there is a powerful group dynamic on that board in which a number of uncommitted members defer to a couple of articulate and sometimes virulent thought leaders, Cochran and Owens Fink. In addition, Owens Fink is very well connected politically to the religious right, and that connection has been a source of political pressure on the appointed members of the board via Governor Taft's former chief of staff (info thanks to email released in another scandal and to Robert Lattimer, Ohio ID proponent, for shooting off his mouth in Minneapolis in 2003 on tape). That former chief of staff is now on the Ohio State University Board of Trustees, and in a recent interview said basically he had moved on and worrying about how the State Board of Education did its business was no longer in his job description.
When he served as Gov. Bob Taft's chief of staff, OSU Trustee Brian Hicks lobbied the Ohio Board of Education for the current science curriculum, which encourages the teaching of alternatives to evolution and opens the door to teaching intelligent design in Ohio's classrooms. Hicks' e-mails regarding the board vote were released last month to The Columbus Dispatch. ... "This is a 3-year-old argument that I'm not going to get into now ... I was in a different job carrying out a different policy," he said.
That's part of the political situation we live with. RBH

Sir_Toejam · 13 January 2006

"This is a 3-year-old argument that I'm not going to get into now ... I was in a different job carrying out a different policy," he said.

i can envision a picture of him pointing his finger to the left, with a look that basically says "not me!" on his face. right. so by lattimer's thinking, if he robbed a walmart while he worked there, but was caught for it while he was working a later job at kmart, he wouldn't be responsible for the earlier theft. brilliant logic. goes right along with, "hey, i just did what they told me to do..."

Flint · 13 January 2006

so by lattimer's thinking, if he robbed a walmart while he worked there, but was caught for it while he was working a later job at kmart, he wouldn't be responsible for the earlier theft.

Probably not. There is the philosophy that when a constituency elects a representative, they do so to *be represented*, rather than to place themselves at the whim of whomever they elected. According to this philosophy, anyone who made promises to be elected, is (at least somewhat) obligated to try to fulfill those promises, as the cost of being elected. But later on, elected (or appointed) by a different constituency with a different set of preference, the representative is obligated to serve NEW masters, as they see fit. From his viewpoint, his boss has changed. He follows directions. He didn't take a philosophical position 3 years ago, he *did his duty*. Now, under different circumstances and with different requirements, his duty has changed. He still does his duty. Sir_Toejam, do you NOT do what your boss wants and expects of you? Have you never had a different boss who wanted something different? Did you defy him? Personally, I'd prefer someone who peforms the duties of his job as they are construed while he's doing them.

Sir_Toejam · 13 January 2006

Personally, I'd prefer someone who peforms the duties of his job as they are construed while he's doing them.

that's not what i meant. don't try to bait me into talking about job duties and nazism, eh?

Flint · 13 January 2006

Sir_Toejam:

Huh? I was talking about something the Federalist Papers discuss at length. It remains today a valid dispute. What are you talking about?

Caledonian · 13 January 2006

If indeed he campaigned on a platform that included the inclusion of ID, then honor demands that he fulfill his promise.

Of course, it *also* demands that he not have made such a promise in the first place, as doing so necessarily harms the system under his care, and no responsible person would pledge to carry out obviously harmful actions.

Solution: evolved ninja monkeys. With katanas. There's no ethical corruption that can't be dealt with once you have sufficient evolved ninja monkey.

Flint · 13 January 2006

If indeed he campaigned on a platform that included the inclusion of ID, then honor demands that he fulfill his promise.

At a fully explicit level, I agree. But the situation can certainly be more subtle and indirect. Hicks, acting as Taft's Chief of Staff, was not elected but is still beholden to Taft, as Taft's lieutenant, and obligated to follow Taft's policies. The "promise" made was implicitly to be a loyal dedicated employee and fulfill the requirements of the job. When the job (and its requirements) change, they loyalty demands different obligations. Ultimately, if the people want creationism, they vote for creationists and *somebody* will carry the ball. It's in the nature of a system where the will of the people matters. EVEN IF the people are all idiots.

Caledonian · 13 January 2006

At a fully explicit level, I agree. But the situation can certainly be more subtle and indirect. Hicks, acting as Taft's Chief of Staff, was not elected but is still beholden to Taft, as Taft's lieutenant, and obligated to follow Taft's policies.

I fully agree - but no honest person would wish to remain in such a job, and I find it hard to believe that he was so needing employment that he had to compromise his ideals so. I think it's far more likely that he has no ideals, and will mouth whatever powerful employers want him to say, just as long as he gets some crumbs of that power. Rather like a very amoral remora...

Flint · 14 January 2006

but no honest person would wish to remain in such a job, and I find it hard to believe that he was so needing employment that he had to compromise his ideals so.

Yes, almost surely he fully supported this policy. I think we can take it as a given that Taft would never have chosen a Chief of Staff who differed with him in such a basic and important respect. But now that his new position doesn't require that he actively defend his beliefs, he can use Sir_Toejam's implicity "only following orders" excuse. Nobody is fooled. Can we say "Alito" boys and girls?

I think it's far more likely that he has no ideals, and will mouth whatever powerful employers want him to say, just as long as he gets some crumbs of that power.

You may be right, but I'd bet against you. People without principles are too unpredictable for capable politicians to recruit. Not to say that Hicks doesn't desire power, only that Taft and Hicks both know that a majority of Ohoians are at the very least sympathetic to creationism. Indeed, indications are that both are creationists. The voting population isn't totally ignorant...

Caledonian · 14 January 2006

People without principles are too unpredictable for capable politicians to recruit.

Depends - sometimes lack of principles can make a person *more* predictable. Even when the precise content of behavior can't be anticipated, there's usually an overall pattern - generally, the person does whatever they perceive their self-interest to be. Principled individuals don't always choose their personal, immediate self-interest, so unless you understand their principles quite well, it can be hard figuring out what you're going to do. Upon reflection, though, I think you're right. They're not without principles - it's just that they have evil principles.

JMX · 14 January 2006

Check this out at Uncommon Descent: Dembski is starting up the ID version of $cientology.

MaxOblivion · 14 January 2006

Hahah the funny thing is all his fanboys will buy into it. Taken down the river hook line and sinker.

Bob O'H · 14 January 2006

Check this out at Uncommon Descent: Dembski is starting up the ID version of $cientology.

I suspect he was joking. Well, I hope so. Bob

Larry Fafarman · 14 January 2006

Journalists are beginning to get it Richard B. Hoppe posted Entry 1912 on January 13, 2006 (Opening comment in thread) " Would the judge conclude that in the wake of the Dover decision, the state board in Ohio acted with breathtaking stupidity? " from -- http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/editorial/13607544.htm
Those who think that schools, school boards, and legislatures are going to be intimidated by the Dover decision and the threat of lawsuits are living in a dream world. Consider the following --- (1) States have much deeper pockets for fighting lawsuits than the Dover Area school district had. (2) Others will try to avoid the big mistakes that the Dover Area school board made. (3) A legislature or school board could introduce ID/creationism into the schools and then retreat if a lawsuit is filed. (4) There is a strong constituency in support of teaching ID/creationism in public schools, even in science classes. Court decisions and lawsuits did not stop government efforts to defeat or weaken bans on anti-abortion laws, school prayer, etc.. So there is no reason to believe that court decisions and lawsuits will stop efforts to teach ID/creationism as science in the public schools. Scary Larry

Stephen Elliott · 14 January 2006

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 14, 2006 06:08 AM (e) (s) ... Those who think that schools, school boards, and legislatures are going to be intimidated by the Dover decision and the threat of lawsuits are living in a dream world. Consider the following ---- (1) States have much deeper pockets for fighting lawsuits than the Dover Area school district had. (2) Others will try to avoid the big mistakes that the Dover Area school board made. (3) A legislature or school board could introduce ID/creationism into the schools and then retreat if a lawsuit is filed. (4) There is a strong constituency in support of teaching ID/creationism in public schools, even in science classes. Court decisions and lawsuits did not stop government efforts to defeat or weaken bans on anti-abortion laws, school prayer, etc.. So there is no reason to believe that court decisions and lawsuits will stop efforts to teach ID/creationism as science in the public schools. Scary Larry

You may be right. After all you live in a democracy that has a very large christian majority. So what could go wrong? Have you considered this scenario? Phase 1: Get ID into science classrooms. Phase 2: Get religion (only Christianity of course) taught to all children. Phase 3: Make laws based on biblical teaching. You are now in a theocracy. Breaking the law would not only be criminal but heretic. Just imagine the laws that could come from basing them on the bible. They could include enforcing when you work, what you eat, what you are allowed to wear etc. America could hardly call itself "the land of the free" then. Don't you get it yet Larry? ID is the start of a wedge. If they win, I doubt you would like your home.

Heisenberg · 14 January 2006

What we eat ?!?

I thought that the "Bible is literally true and inerrant" crowd conveniently ignored rules about the abominable nature of the flesh of shrimp, pigs, etc. Oh, and then there's that inconvenient business about redistributing property now and then.

So much for the notion that Jesus came to fulfill the old law, not overturn it, I guess.

Or am I being too reasonable in supposing that the American Taliban would be entirely logical and consistent ? Or are they being consistent in following a most inconsistent document ? Surely they aren't motivated by power...

Larry Fafarman · 14 January 2006

Comment #71647 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 14, 2006 06:39 AM Just imagine the laws that could come from basing them on the bible. They could include enforcing when you work, what you eat, what you are allowed to wear etc. America could hardly call itself "the land of the free" then. Don't you get it yet Larry? ID is the start of a wedge. If they win, I doubt you would like your home.
I am not intimidated by conspiracy theories. I believe that the concept of irreducible complexity has merit, and I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face by opposing it just to help stop the fundies. Scary Larry

Alan Fox · 14 January 2006

I believe that the concept of irreducible complexity has merit, and I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face by opposing it just to help stop the fundies.

That is a bit scary. So, you will promote the vacuous concept of irreducible complexity, even though you know it is a ruse to help the religious right to gain political power via indoctrination of young impressionable minds.

harold · 14 January 2006

Farfman -

"I believe that the concept of irreducible complexity has merit"

I doubt it.

I haven't yet encountered a truly sincere supporter of ID.

I've encountered a few reasonable people who thought they supported "intelligent design", but they weren't aware of what the term meant. They had it mixed up with Vatican-style theistic evolution.

I strongly suspect that what you actually support is an authoritarian political agenda, which includes enforcement of the practice of some religion, and suppression of sincere religious expression that you don't agree with.

You probably link "support of ID" with support of a variety of other political and economic ideas as well. Rationally, there is no connection, if ID is a sincere intellectual position. Yet it seems that virutally all supporters of ID are followers of not only one particular political party, but of an ideological group within one political party.

Please feel free to disprove my conjecture with a non-weasely, straightforward, honest statement that disputes it.

blipey · 14 January 2006

Larry: Irreducible Complexity has merit? Please cite some evidence for its validity; and don't say Darwin's Black Box. I believe the idea has been fully discredited over the years by dozens (if not hundreds) of papers, articles, and books. So, my question is, "What do you base your statement on?" If it is a scientific principle on which you do so, I believe the DI would love to hear about it--contact them with all speed. If it is faith on which you base your opinion, most of your statement is garble-de-gook.
That is a bit scary. So, you will promote the vacuous concept of irreducible complexity, even though you know it is a ruse to help the religious right to gain political power via indoctrination of young impressionable minds.

blipey · 14 January 2006

my apology, Larry, I meant to cite this statement of yours, not Alan's which I mistakenly used:
am not intimidated by conspiracy theories. I believe that the concept of irreducible complexity has merit, and I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face by opposing it just to help stop the fundies.
And Alan, I'm VERY sorry for conflating you with Larry...I owe you a beer.

Russell · 14 January 2006

"This is a 3-year-old argument that I'm not going to get into now ... I was in a different job carrying out a different policy," he said.

i can envision a picture of him pointing his finger to the left, with a look that basically says "not me!" on his face. right. so by lattimer's thinking, if he robbed a walmart while he worked there, but was caught for it while he was working a later job at kmart, he wouldn't be responsible for the earlier theft.Just to keep the cast of characters straight: Bob Lattimer is a christian right crusader from way back, with no official government job (that I know of). He is a PhD chemist who, although he is on record as supporting the abolition of public schools, regularly involves himself in steering state education policies in a christian right direction. Brian Hicks was Taft's chief of staff, and in effect Taft's Karl Rove. Both Taft and Hicks have pleaded guilty to various ethics indictments, but continue to do God's work in guiding the ship of state.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 14 January 2006

I strongly suspect that what you actually support is an authoritarian political agenda

Well, he does spend a lot of time making excuses for the Nazis and the Confederates . . . . . . . . . .

MaxOblivion · 14 January 2006

Aye Larry is a holocaust denier/revisionist.

Stephen Elliott · 14 January 2006

What's with this Larry and confederate flag stuff?

I googled it but only saw a comment on some conservative site.
On there Larry just mentioned the confederate flag being flown over a building did not drive out foreign investment.

What am I missing?

Moses · 14 January 2006

Comment #71688 Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 14, 2006 08:43 AM (e) (s) I believe that the concept of irreducible complexity has merit, and I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face by opposing it just to help stop the fundies. Scary Larry

Then you're delusional or stunningly ignorant. Every argument based on a real world example, and not some fantasy construct, has been reduced to tatters.

Larry Fafarman · 14 January 2006

Comment #71716 posted by blipey on January 14, 2006 10:08 AM Larry: Irreducible Complexity has merit? Please cite some evidence for its validity; and don't say Darwin's Black Box. I believe the idea has been fully discredited over the years by dozens (if not hundreds) of papers, articles, and books.
If irreducible complexity did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it. Regardless of whether irreducible complexity is valid, it is clear that it has sparked a lot of important scientific research. ========================================= Dear National Science Foundation, I would like a grant of one billion dollars to conduct a scientific study to show that the concept of irreducible complexity is so absurd that even a 5-year-old can easily see through it. Sincerely, Professor Charles Darwin

Alan Fox · 14 January 2006

Regardless of whether irreducible complexity is valid, it is clear that it has sparked a lot of important scientific research.

Then cite some Mr. Fafarman, cite some.

Bing · 14 January 2006

If irreducible complexity did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it.

— Larry Fafarman
It's not merit that IC has Larry, it's traction with the wingnut classes. And the important scientific research? You mean the articles, textbooks and other stuff that got dumped in front of Behe at the Dover trial? The stuff that he said was irrelevant anyway and that he hadn't bothered reading? If the wingnuts can so easily dismiss legitimate research with a handwave and a shrug who's it important to? Certainly non the IDiots.

Bob O'H · 14 January 2006

Regardless of whether irreducible complexity is valid, it is clear that it has sparked a lot of important scientific research.

— Larry
I searched for "irreducible complexity" on Web of Science, and got a massive total of 16 hits. Of these, 12 are articles, 2 are reviews, 1 is a book review, and one is "editorial material". Of the articles, which would be the ones reporting "important scientific research", only three are in the sciences: in the Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences, the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, and Behavioral Science. The former two are discussion articles, so the only one that may have some scientific research is in psychology. This is from 1984. I can't find an abstract for this, but this is the paper: Zeigler, BP (1984) Multifaceted modeling methodology - grappling with the irreducible complexity of systems. Behavioral Science, 29: 169-178. The other articles are in philosophy, mathematics or other bits of the humanities. My favourite is Hanly, MAF (1993). Sado-masochism in Brontë, Charlotte Jane-Eyre - a ridge of lighted heath. International Journal of Psycho-analysis, 74: 1049-1061. If anyone's desparate for a real life, I can post all of the citations. Bob

blipey · 14 January 2006

Larry: You are stunningly inept; I hope you aren't responsible for anyone else's education. Is this your cite for IC fostering research?
Dear National Science Foundation, I would like a grant of one billion dollars to conduct a scientific study to show that the concept of irreducible complexity is so absurd that even a 5-year-old can easily see through it. Sincerely, Professor Charles Darwin
That's just ridiculous on the face of it.
If irreducible complexity did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it.
Okay, Larry; pay attention. Scientific research papers are not published in order to refute ISC or IC. They are published to advance knowledge in their particular fields by examining a proposal. The conclusions of these papers, while not explicitly set up to refute IDC, do in fact refute the conclusions of IC. See the exhibits entered into the case record of Kitzmiller for specific references. Now, if I buy your twisted logic of what scientific papers are (just for laughs), evolution must have an awful lot of merit for the sole reason that IDiots have published a lot of rhetoric about it. Does that seem a bad basis for a scientific theory? It sure does to me. Keeping with your worldview:
Regardless of whether irreducible complexity is valid, it is clear that it has sparked a lot of important scientific research.
Wasn't it your argument that you believed IC was true...add you've supported it with no cites and now have come to the conclusion that it might not be true, but.... you truly have dizzying mental capacity.

Russell · 14 January 2006

Hmmm. If you ignore a vacuous concept like "irreducible complexity", it's "unrefuted" (and, therefore of course, "irrefutable"). If you take the trouble to show why it's vacuous, then obviously, it must have a lot of merit. Heads, Larry wins; tails, education loses.

blipey · 14 January 2006

Hey check out the new claim on UD. They're now citing some work that apparently says that animals can evolve perfectly well, but human beings can't. They may have been right, it might not be god...just some aliens...

I am not familiar with book or papers they're citing, but I'm sure it should be interesting reading....

Wesley R. Elsberry · 14 January 2006

A Nobel laureate goes for a walk. Arriving home, he discovers that somewhere along the way, someone had not picked up after their dog. So he spends a quarter-hour scraping the stuff off his shoe.

By ID advocate logic, it becomes critical that 9th graders across the country become familiar with the stuff the Nobel laureate took such pains to deal with.

Caledonian · 14 January 2006

Some journalists seem to have gotten the opposite idea. In the local section of my newspaper, I found a Creationist-friendly article that insinuated Judge Jones had acted too hastily, and that presented several paragraphs detailing the views of Michael Ruse.

Sir_Toejam · 14 January 2006

What's with this Larry and confederate flag stuff? I googled it but only saw a comment on some conservative site. On there Larry just mentioned the confederate flag being flown over a building did not drive out foreign investment. What am I missing?

Larry verified this several times, most notably in the very thread we are trying to push to the record. do a search for the word "holocaust" and you will find his posts on the subject in that thread. I'm not sure whether or not he talks about his confederate "revisionism" in that thread, but he has confirmed that several times as well. but, do you REALLY care what Larry thinks, on these issues or any other? He's nuts. fun to poke a stick at, but that's about it.

JMX · 14 January 2006

Care to name one(!) piece of research?
With sources please.

JMX · 14 January 2006

This was directed at larry of course. Didn't refresh for new entris before posting.

Moses · 14 January 2006

Comment #71761 Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 14, 2006 12:13 PM (e) (s) If irreducible complexity did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it.

Wow. I'm stunned. I mean, I've read some incredibly stupid things in my life. But never before had I ever felt my brain actually become disorganized in it's thinking due to it's recoil in horror from something as stunning illogical as this assertion.

Regardless of whether irreducible complexity is valid, it is clear that it has sparked a lot of important scientific research.

No. A few people have written non-research rebuttals showing why it was stupid and that's pretty much it. I would be surprised if the number was over a dozen, maybe twenty at the max. And that's since 1996 when Behe floated the IC boat. Otherwise, people are writing 1,000s of papers a year to expand the realm of human knowledge and ID Flake Science has no bearing or relation to them in any which way whatsoever.

Henry J · 14 January 2006

blipey,
Re "They're now citing some work that apparently says that animals can evolve perfectly well, but human beings can't."

Somebody's saying that humans are inferior to non-human animals? And here I somehow thought they regarded humans as superior to the other animals species. Huh.

Henry

Stephen Elliott · 14 January 2006

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 14, 2006 03:54 PM (e) (s) ... Larry verified this several times, most notably in the very thread we are trying to push to the record. do a search for the word "holocaust" and you will find his posts on the subject in that thread. I'm not sure whether or not he talks about his confederate "revisionism" in that thread, but he has confirmed that several times as well. but, do you REALLY care what Larry thinks, on these issues or any other? He's nuts. fun to poke a stick at, but that's about it.

LOL. The last sentence cracked me up. I am aware that Larry is a holocaust revisionist. Bloody strange thing to get into. In my early twenties I was based next door to Belsen. Every single time a new building was put up, work had to stop as digging the foundations unearthed more bodies. Larry seems to defend the Nazis by claiming the number of Jews exterminated was less than 6 million. Does he think that makes it OK? It is the confederate flag thing that puzzles me. But by now I should know better. With Larry, it seems things don't need to make sense.

Larry Fafarman · 14 January 2006

Comment #71763 posted by Alan Fox on January 14, 2006 12:22 PM ****Regardless of whether irreducible complexity is valid, it is clear that it has sparked a lot of important scientific research.**** Then cite some Mr. Fafarman, cite some.
Maybe blipey can tell you -- he seems to know that there are dozens (if not hundreds) of publications on the subject -- "Please cite some evidence for its validity; and don't say Darwin's Black Box. I believe the idea has been fully discredited over the years by dozens (if not hundreds) of papers, articles, and books."( Comment #71716 ) Just search the Internet and you will see many webpages and websites discussing scientific challenges of irreducible complexity. I don't think that you will find a lot of scientific papers on the subject, though. It is difficult to search for these articles because a lot of them -- probably most of them -- do not mention irreducible complexity by name. A mere suggestion that a paper takes irreducible complexity seriously -- even just stating that the paper opposes irreducible complexity -- is probably enough to have a paper rejected by many scientific journals. I did see one scientific paper on a computer simulation of the evolution of an irreducibly complex system -- but I don't know if the term "irreducible complexity" was ever mentioned in the article. The mere fact that it took several days of scientific testimony in the Dover trial to "discredit" irreducible complexity shows that the concept must have some scientific merit. Things that are utterly without scientific merit -- like the biblical account of creation -- can be disposed of much more quickly than that. Judge Jones really made a fool of himself by setting himself up to be the sole judge of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity.

Ed Darrell · 14 January 2006

Larry Fafarman said:

Just search the Internet and you will see many webpages and websites discussing scientific challenges of irreducible complexity. I don't think that you will find a lot of scientific papers on the subject, though.

No, none supporting the idea, a handful refuting it completely. Check the public indices, such as PubMed. If there is a serious science idea in biology, it will be represented at PubMed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi Go ahead, check it. I dare you. Mr. Fafarman said:

It is difficult to search for these articles because a lot of them --- probably most of them --- do not mention irreducible complexity by name. A mere suggestion that a paper takes irreducible complexity seriously --- even just stating that the paper opposes irreducible complexity --- is probably enough to have a paper rejected by many scientific journals. I did see one scientific paper on a computer simulation of the evolution of an irreducibly complex system --- but I don't know if the term "irreducible complexity" was ever mentioned in the article.

It's easy to search. Try that phrase or any derivation of it you wish, especially at the PubMed link I just listed. The difficulty advocates of ID will find is that there simply is no research supporting the ID view that irreducible complexity exists. Darwin actually described a form of IC in 1859. He wrote that were we to find any species that had a feature that was solely for the benefit of a second species, and which never could have benefited the first species or its ancestors, it would tend to refute the entire theory. So search for that, too. Either way, Larry, you'll come up dry. Which means, ironically, that your claim is all wet! The bizarre and false claim that talking about irreducible complexity or any other anti-evolution idea marks journal articles for rejection has been litigated in federal court before -- you know, where the evidence rules guarantee the truth a fair fight. Your side lost. Irreducible complexity is not in the journals because it's a bad idea for research, and even ID advocates won't do research on it. Were it a good possibility, the chance that it might refute Darwin, and the guarantee of the Nobel Prize that would accompany such a paper, would guarantee it fast-track publication. You're making stuff up, Larry. What you say has no relationship to the reality of research, theory, or publication of science research. Mr. Fafarman said:

The mere fact that it took several days of scientific testimony in the Dover trial to "discredit" irreducible complexity shows that the concept must have some scientific merit. Things that are utterly without scientific merit --- like the biblical account of creation --- can be disposed of much more quickly than that. Judge Jones really made a fool of himself by setting himself up to be the sole judge of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity.

By such reasoning, the mere fact that it took a bloody, deadly war of four years to hold the Union together means that the idea the United States should be fractured into slave-holding and free nations would have merit. The mere fact that it took over a decade to defeat Hitler would mean that the idea freedom should be throttled to death has merit. Judge Jones relied on experts -- something that you would be well advised to do. Rather that set yourself up as a comic foil demonstrating that those who do not know biology also do not know law, go read the case. Your crude insults towards Judge Jones do not hold water. Nothing else you claimed for ID has merit, either.

Ron Zeno · 14 January 2006

Please don't feed the troll.

KL · 14 January 2006

Laaaaaaarrrrrry.....still need to know where you were educated....institution names,degrees in sciences, law, whatever....

Thanks in advance for this information

I had to give up on the other thread-downloading 500,600,700 posts was taking too long.

Larry Fafarman · 14 January 2006

Comment #71782 posted by blipey on January 14, 2006 01:15 PM >>>>>: Dear National Science Foundation, I would like a grant of one billion dollars to conduct a scientific study to show that the concept of irreducible complexity is so absurd that even a 5-year-old can easily see through it. Sincerely, Professor Charles Darwin >>>>>> That's just ridiculous on the face of it.
I think there is more truth to that than you care to admit.
Now, if I buy your twisted logic of what scientific papers are (just for laughs), evolution must have an awful lot of merit for the sole reason that IDiots have published a lot of rhetoric about it.
That is not the sole reason why evolution theory has merit, but it is a contributing reason. The main reason why evolution theory has merit is that there is a lot of evidence supporting it, but all the supporting evidence concerning macro-evolution is just circumstantial. Evolution theory is not really "testable" in regard to macro-evolution, because macro-evolution in progress cannot be directly observed. The only predictions that evolution theory can make regarding macro-evolution are predictions of likely future discoveries of more circumstantial evidence of macro-evolution. For example, the fossil record can be used to make predictions of likely future finds of "missing link" fossils. A big problem with evolution theory is that it is counter-intuitive and contrary to reason. It seems extremely unlikely that the tremendous complexity and variety in living things could have arisen through the mechanisms of evolution theory.

Stephen Elliott · 14 January 2006

Posted by Larry Foolishman on January 14, 2006 05:44 PM (e) (s) ... Evolution theory is not really "testable" in regard to macro-evolution, because macro-evolution in progress cannot be directly observed...

Larry your own definition of macro evolution was. "Unobserved evolution". Therefore as soon as someone points to observed evolution that indicates macro evolution, it is already refuted in your crazy logic.

steve s · 14 January 2006

Wow. I'm stunned. I mean, I've read some incredibly stupid things in my life. But never before had I ever felt my brain actually become disorganized in it's thinking due to it's recoil in horror from something as stunning illogical as this assertion.

I occasionally hear something so stupid and illogical that my mind goes completely blank, like a clear blue sky, not a thought in it. I refer to this as the "test pattern"

MaxOblivion · 14 January 2006

Creationist Troll Program ver 0.1beta

10 POST RANDOM CREATIONIST CLAIM
20 UNTIL CLAIM!=TRUE
30 GOTO 10

Do not feed the troll.

David · 14 January 2006

In case nobody noticed, the Toledo Blade has jumped in with an editorial entitled "No Intelligence Here" where they call the current SBE a carbuncle. Check it out at http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060114/OPINION02/60114030/-1/OPINION
Larry might want to skip it to avoid being offended.

Larry Fafarman · 14 January 2006

Comment #71879 posted by Stephen Idiott on January 14, 2006 05:53 PM Posted by Larry Foolishman on January 14, 2006 05:44 PM ****Evolution theory is not really "testable" in regard to macro-evolution, because macro-evolution in progress cannot be directly observed...**** Stephen Idiott replied -- Larry your own definition of macro evolution was. "Unobserved evolution". Therefore as soon as someone points to observed evolution that indicates macro evolution, it is already refuted in your crazy logic.
Evolutionists are trying to explain something that cannot be observed, using a theory that is contrary to intuition and reason. So what do you expect?

Larry Fafarman · 14 January 2006

Comment #71811 posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on January 14, 2006 02:41 PM A Nobel laureate goes for a walk. Arriving home, he discovers that somewhere along the way, someone had not picked up after their dog. So he spends a quarter-hour scraping the stuff off his shoe. By ID advocate logic, it becomes critical that 9th graders across the country become familiar with the stuff the Nobel laureate took such pains to deal with.
How about this version --- the Nobel laureate encounters a skunk and is forced to bury his clothes.

Sir_Toejam · 14 January 2006

do you laugh at your own jokes, there, Larry?

Gary · 14 January 2006

"If irreducible complexity did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it."

So if Ted Bundy really was a serial killer it would not have been necessary to spend all that time, money and effort to find and arrest him?

Help me someone. Is Larry really this stupid or is he just jerking our chains. I can't help but think it is the latter. His pronouncements simply cannot be serious. C'mon!

~Gary

Ed Darrell · 14 January 2006

In case nobody noticed, the Toledo Blade has jumped in with an editorial entitled "No Intelligence Here" where they call the current SBE a carbuncle. Check it out at http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article... Larry might want to skip it to avoid being offended.

That's great news! It appears that some editorial boards are getting it, too. I can't help but think Ohio Citizens for Science had something to do with that editorial. Good work. But, wow! "Carbuncle?" They've been reading a lot of Doestoyevsky there? (Or was it Tolstoy?)

ben · 15 January 2006

For anyone who buys into the "microevolution yes, macroevolution no" canard, I have to ask the following: If one accepts that "microevolution" can occur, and one accepts that geographic isolation of different populations of the same species occurs (which is obvious), then what prevents "microevolution" of the respective reproductive systems of the geographically isolated populations such that interbreeding cannot any longer occur (e.g., the penis and vagina do not physically fit together)? Because if two populations can "microevolve," then they can undergo morphological changes that would preclude mating. Once this happens, the two populations cannot cross and will "microevolve" indefinitely without ever swapping genes. What then prevents the two populations from ever "microevolving" to the point that they constitute separate species and cannot even theoretically interbreed, given the potential for limitless separate "microevolution"? If it is not impossible, arguably it's inevitable. And once it happens once, voila, "macroevolution" and a new species. Where is the evidence of this built-in prohibition?

ben · 15 January 2006

If irreducible complexity did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it.
If phlogiston theory did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it. If Lamarckist theory did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it. If geocentric theory did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it. If steady-state theory did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it. If hollow earth theory did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it. Clearly, the strength of a given scientific theory lies in the amount of accumulated evidence which proves it to be incorrect. Otherwise, why would people have to try so hard to disprove it? When you're being intellectually raped by a cdesign propenentist, the best strategy is to lie back and enjoy it. But the important thing to remember is:
I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.--Larry Fafarman

Henry J · 15 January 2006

Ah, but Ben, you're using logic in that analysis... ;)

Henry

ben · 15 January 2006

Note: There is one measure by which I must acknowledge I did a disservice to proponents of the theories mentioned above. There were undoubtedly honest, committed, hard-working scientists who for years worked on and passionately supported the phlogiston, Lamarckist, geocentric, steady-state, and hollow earth (OK, maybe not hollow earth) theories. It is therefore unfair to contrast these people with the IC-peddling pseudoscientists, the highest-profile of whom know damn well it's bunk and are using it as a cynical "Wedge" in their religious war.

Larry Fafarman · 15 January 2006

Comment #71869 posted by Ed Darrell on January 14, 2006 05:28 PM Darwin actually described a form of IC in 1859. He wrote that were we to find any species that had a feature that was solely for the benefit of a second species, and which never could have benefited the first species or its ancestors, it would tend to refute the entire theory. So search for that, too.
I don't see how this is a form of irreducible complexity, but I will respond to the question. You need to be more specific. For example, the nectar of flowers is of no direct benefit to the plants but is of direct benefit to the pollinators -- insects and birds -- that visit the plants. But because the nectar is a reason for the visits by these pollinators, the nectar is of indirect benefit to the plant, too, by causing pollination. Offhand, it is hard to think of a feature that benefits only the second species and is not of direct or indirect benefit to the first species. I guess it could be said that the human appendix is of benefit only to the bacteria that can infect it. There are two forms of symbiosis where only one of the partners benefits -- parasitism and commensalism. However, the parasitism or commensalism presumably usually involves features of the non-benefiting organism that are essential or beneficial to that organism -- an example is a tapeworm in the intestinal tract. The various forms of symbiosis include ( from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis ) -- parasitism, in which the association is disadvantageous or destructive to one of the organisms and beneficial to the other (+ −) mutualism, in which the association is advantageous to both (+ +) commensalism, in which one member of the association benefits while the other is not affected (+ 0) amensalism, in which the association is disadvantageous to one member while the other is not affected (− 0)
Judge Jones relied on experts --- something that you would be well advised to do
I would not rely on just a few experts, no matter how renowned.
Rather that set yourself up as a comic foil demonstrating that those who do not know biology also do not know law, go read the case.
Judge Jones has his opinion on the scientific merits of irreducible complexity, and I have mine. The problem is that he is trying to impose his opinion about this on others. I think he exceeded his authority by ruling on the question of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity. There is only a separation of church and state. There is no separation of scientific error and state, and no separation of pseudoscience and state.

steve s · 15 January 2006

Help me someone. Is Larry really this stupid or is he just jerking our chains. I can't help but think it is the latter. His pronouncements simply cannot be serious. C'mon! ~Gary

He's not serious. He just knows how to get attention, and people here are providing it.

gwanngung · 15 January 2006

How about this version ---- the Nobel laureate encounters a skunk and is forced to bury his clothes.

So, who was the laureate you met?

Larry Fafarman · 15 January 2006

Comment #71953 posted by ben on January 15, 2006 12:14 AM ****If irreducible complexity did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it.**** If phlogiston theory did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it. If Lamarckist theory did not have a lot of merit, it would not have been necessary to publish all that stuff over the years in an effort to refute it.
Obviously, the ideas with the least scientific merit are the easiest to refute -- e.g., the flat-earth concept and the idea that objects of unequal weight fall at different rates. The bottom line is that Dover was a case where the court ruled on the scientific merits of an idea, and that may very well be unprecedented in American history. Why not have the courts rule on the scientific merits of punctuated equilibrium, or the big bang theory, or a host of other scientific ideas? Even in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), the courts did not rule on the scientific merits of creation science but sidestepped the issue -- "The Louisiana Legislature did hear and rely on scientific experts in passing the bill, but none of the persons making the affidavits produced by the appellants participated in or contributed to the enactment of the law or its implementation. The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday-morning 'battle of the experts' over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law."
But the important thing to remember is: I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.---Larry Fafarman
And you people accuse me of "quote mining" ? What if I kept throwing up to people the fact that they deliberately lied to me about what they knew about that attorney-client message in the Dover case? The only objection that has been raised to my above statement was that the velociraptors in the movie did not have feathers -- but that was a feature that was not known when the movie was made. Scary Larry

raj · 15 January 2006

The bottom line is that Dover was a case where the court ruled on the scientific merits of an idea...

The court made no such ruling. You really should read the holding in the opinion. The court in Dover made a determination that the Dover school board's change in policy regarding ID was for the purpose of advancing religion, and that was the basis for the decision. And the court was manifestly correct, as is evident from the facts of the case derived from a trial as was described in the opinion.

darwinfinch · 15 January 2006



I regret feeding him, even indirectly like this, but Larry should note that no one is accusing him of anything at all. We simply note that he is a useless, ignorant blowhard, and very likely a no-nothing bigot as well.
And what, he may ask, makes us believe this?

As Cary Grant replied when James Mason asked the same question, we don't believe, we "merely observe."

I frankly don't see the point in spurring such an obvious jerk and fool on, even out of spite (and will completely leave off from now on), unless someone is interested in seeing how close "Dirty Larry, Crazy Larry" can approach the Platonic ideal of the Perfect Idiot. Let him rot his course alone, or send him to After The Bar...

Stephen Elliott · 15 January 2006

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 15, 2006 12:54 AM (e) (s) ... You need to be more specific. For example, the nectar of flowers is of no direct benefit to the plants but is of direct benefit to the pollinators --- insects and birds --- that visit the plants. But because the nectar is a reason for the visits by these pollinators, the nectar is of indirect benefit to the plant, too, by causing pollination. Offhand, it is hard to think of a feature that benefits only the second species and is not of direct or indirect benefit to the first species. I guess it could be said that the human appendix is of benefit only to the bacteria that can infect it. There are two forms of symbiosis where only one of the partners benefits --- parasitism and commensalism. However, the parasitism or commensalism presumably usually involves features of the non-benefiting organism that are essential or beneficial to that organism --- an example is a tapeworm in the intestinal tract. The various forms of symbiosis include ( from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis ) --- parasitism, in which the association is disadvantageous or destructive to one of the organisms and beneficial to the other (+ −) mutualism, in which the association is advantageous to both (+ +) commensalism, in which one member of the association benefits while the other is not affected (+ 0) amensalism, in which the association is disadvantageous to one member while the other is not affected (− 0) Judge Jones relied on experts --- something that you would be well advised to do

I would not rely on just a few experts, no matter how renowned. But you will rely on wikipedia.

Judge Jones has his opinion on the scientific merits of irreducible complexity, and I have mine. The problem is that he is trying to impose his opinion about this on others. I think he exceeded his authority by ruling on the question of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity. There is only a separation of church and state. There is no separation of scientific error and state, and no separation of pseudoscience and state.

Judge Jones' ruling could not stop anybody at all from doing ID research, it just stops it being taught in a classroom. What is wrong with you Larry? Why on Earth should anything at all be taught as science until it has some respectable scientific evidence? You have been here long enough now to have learned something. If that was your intention. You are either joking or, a joke.

Bruce Beckman · 15 January 2006

Larry Fafarman on January 15, 2006 03:06 AM Obviously, the ideas with the least scientific merit are the easiest to refute --- e.g., the flat-earth concept and the idea that objects of unequal weight fall at different rates.

Why does the poster think that the idea "objects of unequal weight fall at different rates" to be *obviously* incorrect and hold the least scientific merit? Hint: He believes it because scientists told him so. In reality, the proposition that graviational and inertial mass are the same has a long theoretical and experimental background. And the equivalence is far from being obvious, rather that is what appears to be correct.

Larry Fafarman · 15 January 2006

Comment #72009 posted by Bruce Beckman on January 15, 2006 05:55 AM Larry Fafarman on January 15, 2006 03:06 AM ****Obviously, the ideas with the least scientific merit are the easiest to refute --- e.g., the flat-earth concept and the idea that objects of unequal weight fall at different rates.***** Why does the poster think that the idea "objects of unequal weight fall at different rates" to be *obviously* incorrect and hold the least scientific merit?
--- because it is very easy to test this idea: just drop two unequal weights and see if the heavier weight falls faster. This was Galileo's famous test from the Leaning Tower of Pisa -- http://www.jimloy.com/physics/galileo.htm

Stephen Elliott · 15 January 2006

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 15, 2006 06:14 AM (e) (s) Comment #72009 posted by Bruce Beckman on January 15, 2006 05:55 AM Larry Fafarman on January 15, 2006 03:06 AM ****Obviously, the ideas with the least scientific merit are the easiest to refute --- e.g., the flat-earth concept and the idea that objects of unequal weight fall at different rates.***** Why does the poster think that the idea "objects of unequal weight fall at different rates" to be *obviously* incorrect and hold the least scientific merit?

---- because it is very easy to test this idea: just drop two unequal weights and see if the heavier weight falls faster. This was Galileo's famous test from the Leaning Tower of Pisa --- http://www.jimloy.com/physics/galileo.htm LOL. It was only obvious after it had been explained and proven. I believe the first proper demonstration was rolling balls down an incline. That way it was much easier to observe. I also think you are referring to mass not weight (minor quibble). The dropping experiment was most dramatically demonstrated on the moon. A feather (and a lead weight?) were dropped, they fell at the same rate. Dropping two equal weights on Earth would not necessarily have them fall at the same rate. Air resistance matters. Now, why can't ID do experiments such as this? If they did (and were successful ID would be accepted as science.

Bruce Beckman · 15 January 2006

Comment #72013 posted by Larry Fafarman on January 15, 2006 06:14 AM ---- because it is very easy to test this idea: just drop two unequal weights and see if the heavier weight falls faster. This was Galileo's famous test from the Leaning Tower of Pisa ---

So it wasn't obvious, it was determined experimentally. Did Galileo check a feather vs. a cannon ball? Did Galileo (or anyone else) check an object the size of the sears tower vs. a cannon ball? How close did Galileo (or anyone else) determine the rate to be 10%, 1%, 0.1%, etc.? Does this work the same on the Moon?, on Mars?, on Pluto?

Stephen Elliott · 15 January 2006

Hehe.

Larry, if objects always fall at the same speed. Not many people would go parachuting. Well, at least very few would try it for a second time.

MaxOblivion · 15 January 2006

Guys just stop it your falling for his tactics again and again. I really dont understand this you lot are supposed to be some of the most intelligent ppl around but you constantly fall for his obvious and crude trolling. Just look at what happens to every thread that Larry posts in it gets derailed. You know he's never going to listen or conceed on ANY POINT AT ALL and that hes going to continue to make claims without backing them up then move onto the next claim. You know hes doing this to derail the initial topic , to confuse, to distemper and frustrate logical and rational exposition of the facts. He doesnt give a shit about biology evolution or anything he just wants to stop you lot furthering the scientific cause and position.

Im beginning to think hes the clever one and you lot are the idiots.

What to do?

Well warn him and then next thread he derails, ban him.

Caledonian · 15 January 2006

It would be more productive to ban the people who respond to him. Once deprived of sustenance, trolls inevitably wither away. It's the people who keep feeding the trolls that are the real problem.

Larry Fafarman · 15 January 2006

Comment #72016 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 15, 2006 06:30 AM I believe the first proper demonstration was rolling balls down an incline. That way it was much easier to observe.
If you run the test by letting objects descend down an incline, you introduce many extraneous factors. First you must consider whether the objects slide, roll, or both slide and roll. If the objects roll or both slide and roll, then the rotational inertia would slow the rate of descent. Whether the objects slide, roll, or both slide and roll would depend on: whether the object can roll(obviously a ball can roll ); the shape and mass distribution of the object if it can roll; the angle of incline; and the coefficient of friction. A sliding object will descend faster than an object that is rolling or both sliding and rolling. According to the equations I have in an engineering text, the rate of descent of a rolling ball of uniform density depends only on the angle of incline and is independent of the ball's mass, density, or diameter. So yes, two balls differing in mass, density, or diameter will descend at the same rate when in pure rolling motion. In the example given in the engineering text, if a ball of uniform density starts from rest and the angle is 30 degrees, the velocity 10 feet down the incline would be 15.17 ft./sec. for a ball in pure rolling motion and 17.95 ft/sec. for a ball in pure sliding motion descending a frictionless incline. The minimum static coefficient of friction required for pure rolling motion is 0.165. Anyway, why complicate things ? Anyway, I think that you raised an interesting point. Maybe the myth of unequal rates of descent in free fall was maintained by performing the experiment you described of letting objects descend down an incline, which may have introduced some error due to the many factors involved. I originally thought that the myth was the result of using feathers in the experiment, but the error of using a feather would have been too obvious because a feather would not even descend in a straight vertical line. Considering the remarkable simplicity of Galileo's experiment, it is a mystery how the myth was maintained for so long.
The dropping experiment was most dramatically demonstrated on the moon. A feather (and a lead weight?) were dropped, they fell at the same rate. Dropping two equal weights on Earth would not necessarily have them fall at the same rate. Air resistance matters.
Yes, all this stuff is discussed on the webpage that I referenced.

Larry Fafarman · 15 January 2006

Comment #71977 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 15, 2006 04:23 AM
Judge Jones relied on experts --- something that you would be well advised to do
I would not rely on just a few experts, no matter how renowned.
But you will rely on wikipedia.
I don't always rely on Wikipedia. But I have found Wikipedia to have good introductions to many subjects. I find good summaries in Wikipedia that I cannot find elsewhere. I have found Wikipedia to generally be unbiased, comprehensive, up-do-date, and usually accurate. So far I have found just one major error in Wikipedia -- the labeling of William Buckingham as a "hostile witness" in the Dover trial, but news reports made the same mistake. Here I was relying on Wikipedia for something where an error would not have had great consequences -- the names for different kinds of symbiosis. The definitions of the names would have been easy to verify. I just verified them.
Judge Jones' ruling could not stop anybody at all from doing ID research, it just stops it being taught in a classroom. What is wrong with you Larry? Why on Earth should anything at all be taught as science until it has some respectable scientific evidence?
Who has the right to decide when a scientific idea is sufficiently accepted that it is OK to teach it in a public-school science class? Judge Jones? Why not let the courts also decide when it is OK to teach punctuated equilibrium, the big bang theory, or whatever? And irreducible complexity has a lot of evidence. An alleged irreducibly complex system is not disproven just by showing that just one of its many components has or had some independent function outside the system, or by showing that the system can be reduced to a simpler system that itself might be irreducibly complex. Anyway, I think that the study of systems that appear to be irreducibly complex should be considered to be an official branch of biology.

Caledonian · 15 January 2006

Who has the right to decide when a scientific idea is sufficiently accepted that it is OK to teach it in a public-school science class?

Scientists do. They've rejected the hypothesis because a) there's no evidence for the traditional form, and b) the modern form attempts to cope with the lack of evidence by violating the most basic rules of science. Before something can be taught as a valid alternative hypothesis, it needs to be a valid alternative hypothesis.

Alan Fox · 15 January 2006

Caledonian wrote in comment #72060

It would be more productive to ban the people who respond to him. Once deprived of sustenance, trolls inevitably wither away. It's the people who keep feeding the trolls that are the real problem.

And yet in #72081... Should you not now ban yourself, Caledonian?

ben · 15 January 2006

Who has the right to decide when a scientific idea is sufficiently accepted that it is OK to teach it in a public-school science class?
The school board has this right. When they abuse this right by acting on religious motivations to insert non-scientific teachings into the curricula for religious reasons, then they get sued and lose. That's where the judge comes in. Look it up on Wikipedia.

ben · 15 January 2006

Notice that during all of Fafafooey's trillions of words of blather here, nobody has ever piped up to say "hey, Larry has a point here" or "I agree with Larry?" Ever? Even Carol Clouser and David Heddle at least have each other. Either the evolution conspiracy is strong indeed, or Larry actually offers--and intends to offer--nothing.

jhallum · 15 January 2006

Who has the right to decide when a scientific idea is sufficiently accepted that it is OK to teach it in a public-school science class? Judge Jones? Why not let the courts also decide when it is OK to teach punctuated equilibrium, the big bang theory, or whatever?

Great! So why shouldn't we teach every discredited theory that has come down the pike these last few centuries? Seems to me that Flat Earthism has a place in science class then, alongside all of the others. Come on, Larry, that's the most intellectually weak pile of crap I've ever read. Who has the right to decide what is science, and what isn't? How about the scientists! They are the ones doing all of the hard work, after all.

Larry Fafarman · 15 January 2006

Comment #72059 posted by MaxOblivion on January 15, 2006 08:21 AM Well warn him and then next thread he derails, ban him.
Excuse me, I am not the one who is trying to derail these threads. Who are the ones who keep bringing up the subjects of holocaust revisionism and Confederate flags? I have refrained from defending my positions on these subjects because they are off-topic. And when I mentioned Galileo's experiment of dropping weights from the Leaning Tower, I gave a link to an article that discussed the factor of air resistance. I gave the link because I did not want to go into a big discussion of something that is off-topic. Yet some commenters insisted on bringing up air resistance and other considerations.

k.e. · 15 January 2006

Larry nice of you to give us your opinion again is there anything you don't have an opinion on ?

On the subject of Galileo and since you know everything
here are some questions

Why did the cardinals refuse to look through his telescope ?

What was 'the truth' that Galileo wanted the church to accept?

What organization investigated Galileo's transgression?

What is the difference between the Creationists world view and the Churches world view in Galileo's time with regard to scientific revelation.?

What books authority was being called into question by Galileo?

Whose 'word' was being called into question by Galileo?

What effect did Galileo's 'heresy' and the subsequent actions by the church have on science of the day?

What is the original word with a meaning of "a choosing" hint look up heresy?

What was the purpose of the "Bonfire of the Vanities" during the
Renaissance?

Take your time to consider your replies.

By the way how are you going with "Don Quixote" by Cervantes.

Maybe we should rename this blog "Larry's Enchanted Windmill".

Oh Larry some more questions

What did Don Quixote say on his death bed and why?
And does it have any relation to Kurtz's death in "The Heart of Darkness" by Conrad ?

What did the skulls surrounding Kurtz's hut signify?

And what in your understanding is "Deus ex Machina" and how does it relate to Creationist thinking?

What is Dispensationalist Dementia ?

jhallum · 15 January 2006

For a sign that there are still journalists who do not get it, I give you Thomas Bray from the Detroit News, who really needs a couple of very firm whacks with the clue bat.

Teach the controversy crap, yet again.

Larry Fafarman · 15 January 2006

Comment #72085 posted by Alan Fox on January 15, 2006 09:32 AM Caledonian wrote in comment #72060 ****It would be more productive to ban the people who respond to him. Once deprived of sustenance, trolls inevitably wither away. It's the people who keep feeding the trolls that are the real problem.***** And yet in #72081... Should you not now ban yourself, Caledonian?
LOL I think it is in extremely bad taste to ask other commenters to not respond to someone.

Larry Fafarman · 15 January 2006

Comment #72081 posted by Caledonian on January 15, 2006 09:25 AM ****Who has the right to decide when a scientific idea is sufficiently accepted that it is OK to teach it in a public-school science class?**** Scientists do.
It was not the scientists who banned ID and irreducible complexity from the Dover Area school district science classes -- it was Judge Jones ! Without Judge Jones, the scientists could have done nothing ! Anyway, what about the 85 scientists who submitted an amicus brief to Judge Jones urging him not to rule on the scientific merits of irreducible complexity? Aren't they scientists too?

k.e. · 15 January 2006

some more questions Larry
What justification did the North use for waging ware against the Confederacy ?
"quotes" not opinion please

What passages from the Old testament did the Nazis use in their propaganda as justification for the Holocaust ?
"quotes" not opinion please

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 January 2006

Larry is just an attention-seeking crank. (shrug)

On the other hand, he does perform the useful service of giving us all a target to focus on, thus avoiding our tendency to pointlessly shoot at *each other* when there is no other target around.

He's worth keeping around just for that.

Steve T · 15 January 2006

Some nutjob wrote:

"An alleged irreducibly complex system is not disproven just by showing that just one of its many components has or had some independent function outside the system, or by showing that the system can be reduced to a simpler system that itself might be irreducibly complex."

Man, now I am *really* confused. If the irreducible complexity of a system cannot be disproven by showing that it is reducible, then what the heck does IC actually mean? If IC is actually scientific (not that I am claiming it is; it's just that IDist claim that it is), then it must be falsifiable. I was almost starting to see some logic to it as a valid scientific hypothesis (although an incorrect one), but if a claim of irreducibility is not falsified by showing reducibility, then I'm thinking it's all just a pile of hooey.

Stephen Elliott · 15 January 2006

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 15, 2006 10:09 AM (e) (s) ... Anyway, what about the 85 scientists who submitted an amicus brief to Judge Jones urging him not to rule on the scientific merits of irreducible complexity? Aren't they scientists too?

I do not know Larry. The Disco Institute has it's own definition of scientist. It would appear that anyone with any PhD, that supports ID is a scientist. Possibly a Masters will do. Most people would consider somebody a scientist only if they were doing scientific research of some kind. Who where the 85? What are their credentials? What work are they involved in and/or which positions do they hold?

Russell · 15 January 2006

That's great news! It appears that some editorial boards are getting it, too. I can't help but think Ohio Citizens for Science had something to do with that editorial. Good work.

There was another really good editorial in Sunday's Columbus Dispatch. I think you need a (free) registration to view that link, so I'll provide a quote or two:

Setback for science Some state school board members show too little interest in doing their job Columbus Dispatch,Sunday, January 15, 2006 Ohio's 10 th-grade biology students deserve better than they got on Tuesday from the State Board of Education. ... Ohio's standards do not require a mention of intelligent design, but they do require students to be taught that, "Scientists today continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The sentence is a sly but false suggestion that evolution lacks the full support of established biological science. The standard also notes that teachers are not required to teach intelligent design, an equally sly way of letting them know that they can teach it if they want to. ... Tuesday's especially rude behavior by board member Richard E. Baker, who read a newspaper throughout Wise's presentation, symbolizes the attitude of those who want to pollute science education in Ohio with nonscientific notions: He's not interested in debating the matter, and neither are many others who share his view that intelligent design is a valid alternative to the theory of evolution. ... Baker's deliberate snub of Wise was, unfortunately, only the quietest example of incivility at Tuesday's meeting. Board members Michael Cochran and Deborah Owens Fink, both longtime advocates of intelligent design in science standards, lashed out at other board members who disagreed with them. One man who intended to speak to the board in support of changing the standards withdrew his request because of the hostility shown to those who went before him. ... Regardless of how board members cast their votes, they owe the people who come before them their attention and respect. Ohioans should demand no less and should remember Tuesday's meeting when board seats come up for election.

(Oh, and by the way, please don't feed the troll - unless and until there's any danger he's going to actually sway anyone's opinion his way. I don't see that happening any time soon.)

Ben · 15 January 2006

Tuesday's especially rude behavior by board member Richard E. Baker, who read a newspaper throughout Wise's presentation, symbolizes the attitude of those who want to pollute science education in Ohio with nonscientific notions: He's not interested in debating the matter, and neither are many others who share his view that intelligent design is a valid alternative to the theory of evolution...

The people who try and get ID into schoools really ought to be held responsible in some way if they show that they're not even interested in hearing the other side's arguments. Viz this Baker guy and the ID supporters on the Kansas school board who didn't read the drafts that included evolution.

Flint · 15 January 2006

The people who try and get ID into schoools really ought to be held responsible in some way if they show that they're not even interested in hearing the other side's arguments.

And how interested are you in the argument that we should preach creationism in science class? Are you open to listening? Do you consider this a valid proposal worth your serious consideration? Like you, the creationists already know the right answer. Like you, they are already quite familiar with the other side's argument and consider it not worth even thinking about. And they aren't about to abandon their faith, however idiotic it may be, because some atheist makes some Godless presentation. In this regard, they are just like you. Regulations forcing them to fake interest are a waste of time. Hey, the Kansas creationists held an entire kangaroo court faking interest. Do you seriously think even God could change their minds?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 January 2006

The people who try and get ID into schoools really ought to be held responsible in some way if they show that they're not even interested in hearing the other side's arguments.

No, the people who try and get ID into schools really ought to be held responsible in some way if they decide to use their governmental position as a pulpit to push their religious opinions onto others.

Moses · 15 January 2006

Comment #71865 Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 14, 2006 05:12 PM (e) (s) Just search the Internet and you will see many webpages and websites discussing scientific challenges of irreducible complexity. I don't think that you will find a lot of scientific papers on the subject, though. It is difficult to search for these articles because a lot of them --- probably most of them --- do not mention irreducible complexity by name. A mere suggestion that a paper takes irreducible complexity seriously --- even just stating that the paper opposes irreducible complexity --- is probably enough to have a paper rejected by many scientific journals. I did see one scientific paper on a computer simulation of the evolution of an irreducibly complex system --- but I don't know if the term "irreducible complexity" was ever mentioned in the article.

!!!!! Wow, in a stunning display of inanity we get the type of answer we'd expect from someone who suffers from delusions: The vast body of IC papers can't be found because the authors don't use the term "irreducible complexity" to talk about "irreducible complexity." Larry, let us make it simple for you: YOU MADE THE CLAIM, YOU BEAR THE BURDEN OF POSITIVE PROOF. WE DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE THE NEGATIVE, YOU MUST PROVE THE POSITIVE. In other words, we don't have to prove there are no men from Mars when you make the extraordinary claim that there are.

The mere fact that it took several days of scientific testimony in the Dover trial to "discredit" irreducible complexity shows that the concept must have some scientific merit. Things that are utterly without scientific merit --- like the biblical account of creation --- can be disposed of much more quickly than that. Judge Jones really made a fool of himself by setting himself up to be the sole judge of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity.

OMG! The breathless inanity of Larry's post knows no bounds! Larry, it's a trial. It takes a long time, even for relatively simple trials, to conduct a trial. Even a relatively-simple contested divorce can last two or three days. And, just to further point out your ignorance, the witness for the defense was incapable of sustaining his faulty theory of irreducible complexity. Behe made the claim and came up short. As was expected. Also, while you make claims to the contrary, every "creation science" trial has gone on for quite some length as well when discussing the obviously religious "science" contained therein. Your ignorance of all things law and trial is stupefying. I'm glad I don't take you seriously Larry. I hope others don't either as the tightly-wrapped and serious people could be driven to strokes and hypertension.

Ubernatural · 15 January 2006

Comment #72065 Posted by Larry Fafarman Maybe the myth of unequal rates of descent in free fall was maintained by performing the experiment you described of letting objects descend down an incline, which may have introduced some error due to the many factors involved. I originally thought that the myth was the result of using feathers in the experiment, but the error of using a feather would have been too obvious because a feather would not even descend in a straight vertical line. Considering the remarkable simplicity of Galileo's experiment, it is a mystery how the myth was maintained for so long.

You're overlooking the obvious. The myth was not "maintained" by scientists. Obviously anyone who attended a school of science in the last few hundred years would have no excuse for not knowing the right answer. The myth (if it even exists at all) is maintained by crackpots thinking that they know the answer*, guessing, making things up, and passing it off as true. Sound familiar, Mr. Albatros Bicep? * It's "intuitive" that feathers fall slower than bricks.

Joe the Ordinary Guy · 15 January 2006

Just a word to defend the feeding of trolls: Some of us who just lurk here find it instructive to watch the dismantling of erroneous reasoning. Larry F may be clearly insane to most of you, but his arguments LOOK rational, at least on the surface. It's helpful to see how they are refuted. It's also helpful to be reminded by HIS behavior that people do not respond to reasoned argument in the same ways.

Perhaps those of you who engage with such trolls could consider it the intellectual equivalent of practicing your musical scales; it keeps you limber and helps with your chops.

Stephen Elliott · 15 January 2006

Comment #72065 Posted by Larry Fafarman Maybe the myth of unequal rates of descent in free fall was maintained by performing the experiment you described of letting objects descend down an incline, which may have introduced some error due to the many factors involved. I originally thought that the myth was the result of using feathers in the experiment, but the error of using a feather would have been too obvious because a feather would not even descend in a straight vertical line. Considering the remarkable simplicity of Galileo's experiment, it is a mystery how the myth was maintained for so long.

The myth as you call it, was maintained because people were using common sense and intuitive reasoning. Not performing the experiment. Sound familiar? By the way. After this FACT was discovered, people still did not know why. It took a hypothesis from Newton. Which was then tested until it was elevated to a theory. Newton's theory held until the likes of Einstein and others disproved it. Yet it was so close, that Newton's theory is still used by rocket scientists. So how intuitive and common sense was Newton's theory? -Not much. How intuitive and common sense is Einstein's theory? -Not at all. But they work Larry. Now over to ID. Anything sinking in yet?

Paul Flocken · 15 January 2006

Larry, I have mostly ignored your ignorance because, to me, it's not even humorous, but:

LaLaLarry wrote in Comment #72065: Anyway, I think that you raised an interesting point. Maybe the myth of unequal rates of descent in free fall was maintained by performing the experiment you described of letting objects descend down an incline,

Larry, the myth was broken by Galileo with just this experiment. I won't go into his reasoning why it would work, only say that Galileo chose to do the experiment this way because he did not have any kind of clock which could measure time accurately enough to time a falling body. Using an incline slowed the descent enough to be measurable. He was quite clever, too, about timing the rolling body by weighing the water that flowed out of a reservoir while it was in motion. The myth existed precisely because nobody had ever bothered to do the experiment, something Mr. Jim Loy mentioned. Did you bother to read that.

which may have introduced some error due to the many factors involved.

Galileo's cleverness lay in figuring out that all those other factors either canceled or were irrelevant and that free fall represented the limit of an inclined plane inclined completely to the vertical. Since every single weight he rolled down his planes accelerated identically he surmised that they did the same when falling. He did this empirically. Newton formalized it all with the jibber-jabber* you pulled from your engineering text.

I originally thought that the myth was the result of using feathers in the experiment,

No, the myth was the result of the experiment never having been done.

Considering the remarkable simplicity of Galileo's experiment, it is a mystery how the myth was maintained for so long.

And even Galileo didn't perform that particular experiment. As also noted by Mr. Jim Loy, Galileo dropping weights from the Tower is a contested myth. Most historians of science don't think it actually did it. I wonder if Mr. Jim Loy would appreciate his work being misrepresented in your efforts to demonstrate how ignorant you really are. Paul *Not that anything in an engineering text is jibber-jabber, but I needed something to describe LaLaLarry's scribblings.

Ubernatural · 15 January 2006

I agree with Lenny. As maddening as Larry is, he is THE PERFECT example of the kind of mentality that pushes this garbage. Unfortunately, those same qualities that make him the perfect ID advocate also make him appear very much like an internet troll.

Paul Flocken · 15 January 2006

All that I left out the one thing that actually made me respond to the troll.

Anyway, why complicate things ?

It didn't complicate things. It made them simpler for Galileo.

Frank J · 15 January 2006

My answer, of course, would be no: the Board, or at least the thought leaders on it, Michael Cochran and Deborah Owens Fink, did not act in ignorance or breathtaking stupidity. In my opinion, they acted knowing full well what they were doing: perverting science education in Ohio schools in service of a religiously grounded socio-cultural movement.

— Richard B. Hoppe
Thank You!!! IMHO, it's not just journalists who haven't been getting it, but even many educated ID critics, who insist on asserting that anti-evolution activists are "stupid", "ignorant" or motivated by honest, if misinformed, religious belief. The public is very forgiving of activists who are motivated by honest misconceptions, and does not expect such activists to be up on their biological sciences anyway. But those activists have had more than ample time to digest the criticims of ID and their misleading defenses of it.

Larry Fafarman · 15 January 2006

Comment #72104 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 15, 2006 10:26 AM Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 15, 2006 10:09 AM ****Anyway, what about the 85 scientists who submitted an amicus brief to Judge Jones urging him not to rule on the scientific merits of irreducible complexity? Aren't they scientists too?**** Who where the 85? What are their credentials? What work are they involved in and/or which positions do they hold?
Sorry, I couldn't bring up the pdf copy of the scientists' amicus brief (I often have trouble with pdf files). However, over 400 scientists and technologists -- mostly professors at universities and Ph.D.'s -- signed the following statement expressing skepticism of evolution theory --- http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660 "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Also, see http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732 I think that what the brief said was more important than the scientific credentials of the 85 scientists who submitted it.

Russell · 15 January 2006

Aaach! I know I just adjured you all to not feed the troll, but the irony here is just too delicious:

... over 400 scientists and technologists --- mostly professors at universities and Ph.D.'s --- signed the following statement expressing skepticism of evolution theory ---- [link that doesn't work] "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

followed immediately by this:

I think that what the brief said was more important than the scientific credentials of the 85 scientists who submitted it.

Note that it has been repeatedly pointed out that what the "statement" said is completely meaningless in terms of "intelligent design", and could be signed in good faith any modern day "Darwinist" were it not for the fact that the sole purpose of the list of signatories is to create the illusion of legitimate scientific controversy.

steve s · 15 January 2006

Didn't I tell you to go to Talkorigins.org/indexcc/ to get your ideas preobliterated? Or was that some other creationist ninny I was talking to?

Claim CA111.1: More than 300 scientists (over 400 as of 7/18/2005) from all disciplines have signed a statement expressing skepticism of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Source: Discovery Institute, 2004. Doubts over evolution mount with over 300 scientists expressing skepticism with central tenet of Darwin's theory. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2114 Discovery Institute, 2005. Eighty years after Scopes trial new scientific evidence convinces over 400 scientists that Darwinian evolution is deficient. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732 Response: 1. The criticisms of the general claim that many scientists reject evolution apply also to this list of scientists. * Claims of skepticism are worthless without reliable evidence as a basis for the skepticism. Such evidence is lacking. Claims for such evidence by the Discovery Institute (DI) have been repeatedly examined and dismissed by those who understand evolutionary biology. * Compared with all the scientists who accept evolution, 400 scientists is a minuscule amount. The National Center for Science Education has compiled, as a parody of lists such as that from the Discovery Institute, a list of more than 500 scientists all named Steve, or with variants of that name, who support evolution (NCSE 2003). There are only five Steves on the DI's list of 400. * The DI's list is exaggerated as an anti-evolution document (see below). 2. The statement which the signatories agreed to is not anti-evolution. It says, We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. (Discovery Institute 2004) Since scientists are trained to examine evidence and to be skeptical of everything, even ardent evolutionists could sign such a statement. Indeed, it is well known that random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms contributing to the complexity of life; other mechanisms such as genetic drift and symbiosis are important, too. The statement signed by the scientists of "Project Steve" is more more specific: Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. (NCSE 2003) Although many of the people on the Discovery Institute's list are anti-evolutionists, it is likely that most of them would disagree with fixity of "kinds" and a young earth (Evans 2001). In another list, the Discovery Institute put out a bibliography of publications that "represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism . . ., discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins." When the authors of the publications were contacted, none said that their works support "intelligent design" or challenge evolution (Branch 2002). Bob Davidson, one of the signators of the DI's list of 400, says, "the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming" and now thinks the Discovery Institute is an affront to both science and religion (Westneat 2005). 3. Most of the signators to the DI's list (about 80%) are not biologists; some are not even scientists. Generally speaking, mathematicians, electrical engineers, philosophers, and so forth are only marginally more qualified to comment on the validity of evolution than the average person on the street. Links: Evans, Skip. 2001. Doubting Darwinism through creative license. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7306_pr87_11292001__doubting_dar_11_29_2001.asp NCSE. 2003. Project Steve, http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18 Schafersman, Steven. 2003. Texas Citizens for Science responds to latest Discovery Institute challenge. http://www.texscience.org/files/discovery-signers.htm References: 1. Branch, Glenn. 2002. Analysis of the Discovery Institute's "Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science Instruction." Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22(4): 12-18,23-24. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol22/4583_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_12_30_1899.asp 2. Evans, Skip. 2001. Doubting Darwinism through creative license. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7306_pr87_11292001__doubting_dar_11_29_2001.asp 3. NCSE. 2003. Project Steve, http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18 4. Westneat, Danny. 2005. Evolving opinion of one man. Seattle Times, Aug. 24, 2005. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002450329_danny24.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111_1.html

Paul Flocken · 15 January 2006

And Larry,
If I'm not mistaken there is a museum in Italy that actually has Galileo's materials on display. It's been so long that I can't remember if they are genuine or reproductions, but if you really wanted to you could go see how he really layed to rest Aristotelian mechanics.

Larry Fafarman · 15 January 2006

Comment #72109 posted by Russell on January 15, 2006 11:02 AM "Tuesday's especially rude behavior by board member Richard E. Baker, who read a newspaper throughout Wise's presentation, symbolizes the attitude of those who want to pollute science education in Ohio with nonscientific notions:" (from Columbus Dispatch)
How was that ? Even if Mr. Baker was not concerned about the public image of the board, some of his fellow board members should have been. They should have asked him to stop reading the newspaper during the presentation.
One man who intended to speak to the board in support of changing the standards withdrew his request because of the hostility shown to those who went before him....
Now that was stupid. He missed a good opportunity to give the board a piece of his mind about the way the others were treated. Once when I was starting to give a 3-minute speech before a Los Angeles county commission, I was interrupted and a commission vote was held on the very topic that I was going to speak about ! That was not only unethical but was highly illegal ! These public board and commission members ought to be taught some manners.

Paul Flocken · 15 January 2006

Larry!

You finally found the DI's list of shame. People here have only been pointing you at there for weeks now. What took you so long.

Russell · 15 January 2006

Thanks, Steve S. That dovetailed nicely. Though, back in "do not feed the troll" mode, I feel like part of a collective sledgehammer swatting a fly.

Stephen Elliott · 15 January 2006

steve s.

I am waiting for Larry to say.

"They have their opinions. I have mine".

Russell · 15 January 2006

But then, stepping back into irresistably-tempted-by-delicious-irony mode:

One man who intended to speak to the board in support of changing the standards withdrew his request because of the hostility shown to those who went before him....

Now that was stupid. He missed a good opportunity to give the board a piece of his mind about the way the others were treated. This "Larry" guy has to be pulling our leg. Do you really think he could possibly have made exactly that point any better than he did???

mynym · 15 January 2006

The statment: "Careful examination of Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The claim: "Note that it has been repeatedly pointed out that what the "statement" said is completely meaningless in terms of "intelligent design", and could be signed in good faith any modern day "Darwinist"...."

That's bull and you know it. People have to put their careers on the line to go against the proto-Nazi tendencies of Darwinists and modern day Darwinists have worked fervently against any careful examination of Darwinian theory being promoted.

"...were it not for the fact that the sole purpose of the list of signatories is to create the illusion of legitimate scientific controversy."

Anyone more concerned with scientific consensus than with science is a charlatan, which is probably why Darwinists often concern themselves more with scientific consensus than facts, logic and evidence.

steve s · 15 January 2006

Somebody above said it well:

Comment #72123 Posted by Joe the Ordinary Guy on January 15, 2006 12:11 PM (e) (s) Just a word to defend the feeding of trolls: Some of us who just lurk here find it instructive to watch the dismantling of erroneous reasoning. Larry F may be clearly insane to most of you, but his arguments LOOK rational, at least on the surface. It's helpful to see how they are refuted. It's also helpful to be reminded by HIS behavior that people do not respond to reasoned argument in the same ways.

I generally avoid troll feeding, but occasionally it has its merits. (Or merrits, PvM would say ;-) )I think one of the surreptitious purposes of Panda's Thumb is so the Joes of the world get to watch what happens when creationists walk into the science saloon and start acting tough. It's an ugly and gory object lesson. I do think people should use the preexisting refutations as much as possible. For one thing, it's more efficient. For another, it conveys the message that not only aren't you clever, Mr. Creationist, you aren't particularly informed about the discussion. We've seen this before, years ago, and it's busted ten ways to Sunday.

Stephen Elliott · 15 January 2006

mynym.

My my have you jumped in.

So you also think that nearly every single biologist on this planet is dishonest. Not only that but they are all in, on one planetary wide conspiracy.

The reason biologists are talking about consensus is in reaction to ludicrous claims such as "Darwinism is a theory in crisis, a growing number of scientists are rejecting it".

Now that quote is bull. Perhaps if you bothered to investigate before throwing accusations, you would be more knowledgeable.

steve s · 15 January 2006

Comment #72157 Posted by Russell on January 15, 2006 01:28 PM (e) (s) This "Larry" guy has to be pulling our leg. Do you really think he could possibly have made exactly that point any better than he did???

No, it was clear over a week ago that he's deliberately saying provocatively crazy things to get attention.

steve s · 15 January 2006

modern day Darwinists have worked fervently against any careful examination of Darwinian theory being promoted.

Scientists exert peer pressure to avoid challenges...Survey Says:

Claim CA320: Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma. Source: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182. Response: 1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution -- quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame. 2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists. References: 1. AIG. n.d. Statement of faith. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp 2. Wells, Jonathan. n.d. Darwinism: Why I went for a second Ph.D. http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/darwin.htm See also: Anonymous. n.d. Dr. Jonathan Wells Returns to UTS. http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/publications/cornerst/cs970506/cst%5Fdr%2Djonathan.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Ah...is there anything talkorigins can't do?

Stephen Elliott · 15 January 2006

mynyn, Look at the date the claim was made and responded to.

Claim CA320: Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma. Source: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life---How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182. Response:

Now, next time you think you have a new ant-evolution idea, it would be a good idea to check on talk origins first. Otherwise you will look stupid. As for scientific consensus: How many scientists can you name? What are they famous for? Is it for just fitting in with their current consensus? Now, are you going to learn, run or spout of some more ignorant lines?

Larry Fafarman · 15 January 2006

Comment #72129 posted by Paul Flocken on January 15, 2006 12:33 PM Larry, I have mostly ignored your ignorance because, to me, it's not even humorous, but: LaLaLarry wrote in Comment #72065: Anyway, I think that you raised an interesting point. Maybe the myth of unequal rates of descent in free fall was maintained by performing the experiment you described of letting objects descend down an incline,
I was sort of kidding when I said that -- I didn't think that anyone would take me seriously. From now on, when I am kidding I will say that I am kidding so everyone will always know when I am kidding.
Larry, the myth was broken by Galileo with just this experiment. I won't go into his reasoning why it would work, only say that Galileo chose to do the experiment this way because he did not have any kind of clock which could measure time accurately enough to time a falling body.
You don't need a clock -- you can just drop the two objects simultaneously and see or hear if they both hit the ground at the same time.
Galileo's cleverness lay in figuring out that all those other factors either canceled or were irrelevant and that free fall represented the limit of an inclined plane inclined completely to the vertical.
No, those other factors do not necessarily cancel out and are not necessarily irrelevant. On an inclined plane, there can be a significant difference in descent rate between a sliding object and one that is rolling or both rolling and sliding. See my discussion in comment #72065.
And even Galileo didn't perform that particular experiment. I wonder if Mr. Jim Loy would appreciate his work being misrepresented in your efforts to demonstrate how ignorant you really are.
OK, I didn't read the whole article. I never before saw anything questioning that he did the experiment. I did not mean to misrepresent the article.

Ed Darrell · 15 January 2006

mynym said:

People have to put their careers on the line to go against the proto-Nazi tendencies of Darwinists and modern day Darwinists have worked fervently against any careful examination of Darwinian theory being promoted.

You slept through the Nobels this year? The Medicine or Physiology Nobel went to two guys who went against the common consensus of science, did not put their careers on the line, and by the grace of hard research with solid results, changed the way we treat ulcers. The claim you repeated, mynym, is ignorant of the science involved and of the history of science.

Arden Chatfield · 15 January 2006

mynym burbled:

That's bull and you know it. People have to put their careers on the line to go against the proto-Nazi tendencies of Darwinists and modern day Darwinists have worked fervently against any careful examination of Darwinian theory being promoted.

If mynym calls 'Darwinists' 'Nazis' one more time, I'd vote for his disemvowelment. This is no better than the crap that gets DaveScot disemvowelled.

Carol Clouser · 15 January 2006

Paul,

The real reason the myth of unequal falling rates for heavier vs. lighter objects endured for so many centuries is no mystery at all. The idea was part of Aristotelian philosophy which was, as a whole, very strongly supported by the Catholic church. To question that idea, or even perform experiments that might repudiate it, risked bringing down the wrath of the church upon your head and the consequences were not pleasant. As the case of Galileo himslf amply demonstrated.

The reason the Catholic church so strongly supported Aristotelian philosophy is another interesting question, I will delve into right now. It does show, however, how science, philosophy and theology have been so intertwined for so long.

RBH · 15 January 2006

Godwin's Law rules. This thread is closed. If people want to continue this line of argument (irreducible complexity in particular), I invite them to the Internet Infidels Evolution/Creationism Forum.

RBH