Writeup on Eric Rothschild in the Pennsylvania Gazette

As a Penn grad, I'm proud of Mr. Rothschild - and embarrassed by Dr. Behe.

Q. We'll get back to that. Now, these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system? A. No, they certainly do not. My answer, or my argument is that the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that. Q. So these are not good enough? A. They're wonderful articles. They're very interesting. They simply just don't address the question that I pose. Q. And these are not the only articles on the evolution of vertebrate immune system? A. There are many articles. Q. May I approach? THE COURT: You may. Q. Professor Behe, what I have given you has been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 743. It actually has a title, "Behe immune system articles," but I think we can agree you didn't write these? A. I'll have to look through. No, I did not. Q. And there are fifty-eight articles in here on the evolution of the immune system? A. Yes. That's what it seems to say. ... Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed? A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions. Q. And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out those? A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful. Q. It would be a waste of time? A. It would not be fruitful. ... Q. I'm going to read some titles here. We have Evolution of Immune Reactions by Sima and Vetvicka, are you familiar with that? A. No, I'm not. Q. Origin and Evolution of the Vertebrate Immune System, by Pasquier. Evolution and Vertebrate Immunity, by Kelso. The Primordial Vrm System and the Evolution of Vertebrate Immunity, by Stewart. The Phylogenesis of Immune Functions, by Warr. The Evolutionary Mechanisms of Defense Reactions, by Vetvicka. Immunity and Evolution, Marchalonias. Immunology of Animals, by Vetvicka. You need some room here. Can you confirm these are books about the evolution of the immune system? A. Most of them have evolution or related words in the title, so I can confirm that, but what I strongly doubt is that any of these address the question in a rigorous detailed fashion of how the immune system or irreducibly complex components of it could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection. ... Q. I'm just going to read these titles, it sounds like you don't even need to look at them? A. Please do go ahead and read them. Q. You've got Immune System Accessory Cells, Fornusek and Vetvicka, and that's got a chapter called "Evolution of Immune Sensory Functions." You've got a book called The Natural History of the Major Histocompatability Complex, that's part of the immune system, correct? A. Yes. Q. And here we've got chapter called "Evolution." Then we've got Fundamental Immunology, a chapter on the evolution of the immune system. A lot of writing, huh? A. Well, these books do seem to have the titles that you said, and I'm sure they have the chapters in them that you mentioned as well, but again I am quite skeptical, although I haven't read them, that in fact they present detailed rigorous models for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection. Q. You haven't read those chapters? A. No, I haven't. Q. You haven't read the books that I gave you? A. No, I haven't. I have read those papers that I presented though yesterday on the immune system. Q. And the fifty-eight articles, some yes, some no? A. Well, the nice thing about science is that often times when you read the latest articles, or a sampling of the latest articles, they certainly include earlier results. So you get up to speed pretty quickly. You don't have to go back and read every article on a particular topic for the last fifty years or so. Q. And all of these materials I gave you and, you know, those, including those you've read, none of them in your view meet the standard you set for literature on the evolution of the immune system? No scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system? A. Again in the context of that chapter, I meant no answers, no detailed rigorous answers to the question of how the immune system could arise by random mutation and natural selection, and yes, in my, in the reading I have done I have not found any such studies.

Q. And then you stated in the Darwin's Black Box that, "If the natural mechanism is to be accepted, its proponents must publish or perish." A. I'm sorry, can I see that phrase? Q. Yes, could you go to page 185 and 186 in the chapter "Publish or Perish"? A. Yes. Okay, and what are you referring to here, sir? ... Q. You conclude the chapter called "Publish or Perish" by saying, "In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish," right? A. That's correct, yes. Q. And then all these hard working scientists publish article after article over years and years, chapters and books, full books, addressing the question of how the vertebrate immune system evolved, but none of them are satisfactory to you for an answer to that question? A. Well, see, that again is an example of confusing the different meanings of evolution. As we have seen before, evolution means a number of things, such as change over time, common descent, gradualism and so on. And when I say Darwinian evolution, that is focusing exactly on the mechanism of natural selection. And none of these articles address that. Q. Again at the same time you don't publish any peer reviewed articles advocating for the alternative, intelligent design? A. I have published a book, or -- I have published a book discussing my ideas. Q. That's Darwin's Black Box, correct? A. That's the one, yes. Q. And you also propose tests such as the one we saw in "Reply to My Critics" about how those Darwinians can test your proposition? A. Yes. Q. But you don't do those tests? A. Well, I think someone who thought an idea was incorrect such as intelligent design would be motivated to try to falsify that, and certainly there have been several people who have tried to do exactly that, and I myself would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors. Q. Professor Behe, isn't it the case that scientists often propose hypotheses, and then set out to test them themselves rather than trusting the people who don't agree with their hypothesis? A. That's true, but hypothesis of design is tested in a way that is different from a Darwinian hypotheses. The test has to be specific to the hypothesis itself, and as I have argued, an inductive hypothesis is argued or is supported by induction, by example after example of things we see that fit this induction.

On the stand, Buckingham countered that neither he nor anyone on the board had ever used that word. "We'd say intelligent design and they'd print creationism," he complained of the newspapers. In court, Pepper attorney Stephen Harvey ran a video of a Fox 43 television news report that showed Buckingham wearing a cross-and-American-flag lapel pin. In it, he told the interviewer, "My opinion [is that] it's OK to teach Darwin, but you have to balance it with something else, such as creationism."

Q. Professor Behe, isn't it the case that scientists often propose hypotheses, and then set out to test them themselves rather than trusting the people who don't agree with their hypothesis? A. That's true, but hypothesis of design is tested in a way that is different from a Darwinian hypotheses. The test has to be specific to the hypothesis itself, and as I have argued, an inductive hypothesis is argued or is supported by induction, by example after example of things we see that fit this induction. Q. We'll return to the induction in a few minutes. A. Yes, sir. Mr. Rothschild, would you like your books back? They're heavy. Q. Help me get to sleep tonight. A. Thank you. (Brief pause.)

I just got to that part of the Gazette story. Great stuff. We're lucky we had such a good lawyer in Rothschild. Really good work there. (and of course everyone else involved)

The cover article is entitled "Intelligent Demise" and focuses on Rothschild's dissection of ID arguments during the trial. Rothschild seems to come off slightly better than fellow UPenn alum Michael Behe...

Anyway, if only the Berkeley librarians knew how many miles those books had logged...

So the high point of the trial was when Behe was buried under more scientific literature than he could easily lift, all of which directly refuted his claims. And Behe's response was (1) to admit he hadn't read it; (2) to claim it couldn't possibly address his requirements anyway; and (2) to write, after the trial, that "all the other side has is rhetoric and bluster", (4) to admit that he has done no research of his own. Yet he insists this is science.

I got the impression that Rothschild could have clarified things a bit more in some places, but by and large did a very good job. And to be sure, Judge Jones understood completely and needed no further clarification. I hope Rothschild gets his wish, to prosecute a few more cases.

The "explanation of ... life that differs from Darwin's view," it seems, is not irreducibly complex: No matter what parts of the idea get discredited and removed by scientific review, ID, or some variant, continues to function.

When testifying at the trial two weeks ago, Buckingham --- a leading proponent of the intelligent-design policy and its implementation --- said he was "ambushed" by a television reporter when he was interviewed on June 14, 2004. "I was like the deer in the headlight," he testified. Jennifer Sherlock, the Fox 43 reporter who interviewed Buckingham, was not called to the stand. In an interview, Sherlock said Buckingham not only agreed hours in advance to be interviewed, but used the word "creationism" several times in the interview. Sherlock said the interview lasted nearly 10 minutes, though only a few seconds of it were used in her report. In the portion that aired, Buckingham --- appearing calm, wearing sunglasses, and sporting a red-white-and-blue lapel pin in the shape of a cross --- said, "It's OK to teach Darwin, but you have to balance it with something else, such as creationism." Sherlock said she called Buckingham hours before the meeting. "I told him we were doing a story on the issue and wanted his side," she said. Sherlock said she met with Buckingham in a Dover school parking lot prior to the board meeting. "It wasn't like he was trying to hide his stance," she said. "It was a friendly conversation. He was calm. He was just fine. I got the impression he wanted his position out there."

Perhaps he took so many pills he forgot he wasn't ambushed.

I am very disappointed in Behe. Not only did he blow it in his testimony on ID in the Dover trial, but the Pennsylvania Gazette article noted that "he did not respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment for this article," despite the fact that he has written a long condemnation of the Dover decision. He has been a very poor spokesperson for ID. The right word for Behe is "resign," not "design."

Aside from the effort to interview Behe, I thought that the Pennsylvania Gazette article was very one-sided. It contained very little of the views of any people or organizations connected with the Dover defense or ID.

It was interesting to learn that Rothschild apparently had a religious motivation of his own. As a practicing Jew, he apparently feels threatened by the Christian "fundies" who are supposedly the main supporters of ID.

The Dover decision probably marks only the second time in American history (the Selman v. Cobb County textbook-sticker case was the first) that something that on its face appears to have nothing to do with religion -- in the Dover case, irreducible complexity -- was ruled by a court to be a government endorsement of religion. Jones ruled that ID -- which includes irreducible complexity -- "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Maybe laws against murder and stealing should be declared unconstitutional because they cannot uncouple themselves from the Ten Commandments.

Ironically, the article called Rothschild a "Philadelphia lawyer" -- something of a synonym for "shyster."

BTW, I wonder what hourly rate Rothschild, as a partner in Pepper Hamilton, a huge law firm of about 400 attorneys, asked for in the calculation of the plaintiffs' award of imaginary legal costs. The initial bill was a humongous $2.5 million, but the parties agreed to settle for $1 million. See http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3533888 It was predicted that the calculated bill would be over $1 million -- I had not idea that it would be $2.5 million.

Maybe laws against murder and stealing should be declared unconstitutional because they cannot uncouple themselves from the Ten Commandments

I had not idea

The final judgement awarded the plaintiffs lawyers $2,067,226.00 in attorney fees and expenses, which the DASD's solicitor verified to be a fair estimate. That is the number that should be quoted when warning of the costs of potential litigation. The plaintiffs then agreed on a settlement of $1 million. Approximately one quarter of that is for costs associated with the litigation (such as filing and copying fees), the remainder was split between the ACLU and Americans United - Pepper-Hamilton did not receive any attorney fees.

So again, remember $2,067,226.00 (or over $2 million).

I am very disappointed in Behe... He has been a very poor spokesperson for ID.

Lawrence "I'm not a Holocaust denier just a revisionist" Fafarman posting under the FALSE name of Andy. H. something he has never denied after hundreds of posts
says:

Ironically, the article called Rothschild a "Philadelphia lawyer" --- something of a synonym for "shyster."

Larry that has eerie echos from the 1930's care to explain?

Or is the irony ....a lying shyster making a racial slur on a model of citizenship?

Perhaps he took so many pills he forgot he wasn't ambushed.

I wonder what hourly rate Rothschild, as a partner in Pepper Hamilton, a huge law firm of about 400 attorneys, asked for in the calculation of the plaintiffs' award of imaginary legal costs.

Approximately one quarter of [the settlement] is for costs associated with the litigation (such as filing and copying fees), the remainder was split between the ACLU and Americans United - Pepper-Hamilton did not receive any attorney fees.

The initial bill was a humongous $2.5 million, but the parties agreed to settle for $1 million.

The final judgement awarded the plaintiffs lawyers $2,067,226.00 in attorney fees and expenses, which the DASD's solicitor verified to be a fair estimate. That is the number that should be quoted when warning of the costs of potential litigation. The plaintiffs then agreed on a settlement of $1 million.

Larry/Andy/Billy-Bob/Sue/whatever you want to call yourself: given your demonstrated --- and often admitted --- lack of knowledge of the subjects of which you speak; given your constant refusal to answer questions regarding your motives and dishonest use of multiple names; given your blatant repetition of arguments that have been refuted several times before; given your explicitly-stated disregard for all facts and logic that contradict your assertions; given the mockery you now consistently attract; and given your now-obvious reputation as a lonely pathetic dishonest cranky loser; I have to ask the following questions:

Why do you continue posting here, when you are clearly unwilling to deal honestly with us?

What makes you think you can convince anyone of anything here?

What makes you think your assertions have any credibility?

Of course, the easiet thing to do with Larry is just to tell him to shut up (or, depending on the current state of our ever-shifting consensus In Re: To Feed or Not To Feed, to virtuously restrain ourselves from telling him to shut up).

But I must confess to gettin' my jollies when, ever' one in a while, Kevin Vicklund hauls out his big whoopin' stick and just whomps the ever-livin' tarnation out of our poor wittle Larry-Muffin...!

Thanks, stevie. It's nice to know my efforts are appreciated, though I do truly understand why some people just wish I'd let him alone. But for me, it is training for the fights I know I have in front of me, and Larry is so easy to refute, it allows me to hone my skills. Heck, most of the sources he pulls in contradict him (remember Blum v. Stenson?) when examined - it's almost too easy. But I do try to space them out a bit.

I've got lots of counters lined up and ready to go, just waiting for one of the Larry-bots to post.

A survey carried out by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press just before the trial began last fall showed that 42 percent of Americans embrace the Genesis account of creation as gospel and regard evolution with a skeptical eye.

If they truly believe one of the "literal" interpretations of Genesis, why are they increasingly covering up the flaws and contradictions?

Comment #84643 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on March 7, 2006 02:22 PM The final judgement awarded the plaintiffs lawyers $2,067,226.00 in attorney fees and expenses, which the DASD's solicitor verified to be a fair estimate.

That is the number that should be quoted when warning of the costs of potential litigation.

The plaintiffs then agreed on a settlement of $1 million. Approximately one quarter of that is for costs associated with the litigation (such as filing and copying fees),

Larry is so easy to refute, it allows me to hone my skills. Heck, most of the sources he pulls in contradict him (remember Blum v. Stenson?) when examined

Comment #84698 posted by Raging Bee on March 7, 2006 03:54 PM Why do you continue posting here, when you are clearly unwilling to deal honestly with us?

I've got lots of counters lined up and ready to go, just waiting for one of the Larry-bots to post.

Who are "us" ?

— Larry le pissoir

The York Daily Record said that the calculated bill reported by the DASD's solicitor was $2.5 million. So what is your source?

That is the number that should be quoted when warning of the costs of potential litigation.

The plaintiffs then agreed on a settlement of $1 million. Approximately one quarter of that is for costs associated with the litigation (such as filing and copying fees),

Anyway, maybe you could tell us the attorneys' hourly rates that were used in the calculations. An argument that the hourly rates were excessive would probably have been a good negotiating point for the school board.

Comment #84698 posted by Raging Bee on March 7, 2006 03:54 PM Why do you continue posting here, when you are clearly unwilling to deal honestly with us?

Damn. I meant to click Check Spelling.

Anyway, the quick response is that the $2 million figure comes from the actual order signed by Judge Jones, Document 352, of which I have an electronic copy.

I'll redact the rest of the post tomorrow.

Frank wrote:

"If they truly believe one of the "literal" interpretations of Genesis, why are they increasingly covering up the flaws and contradictions?"

What "flaws"? What "contradictions"? What cover ups? Who is they? Whoever they are, why don't they seriously consider the literal interpretation of the original Bible that has been demonstrated to be entirely in agreement with science? Why does not the scientific community find a way to highlight this important development? What are "they" afraid of? Are "they" covering up their fear that this will demolish the party line to the effect that science discredits the Bible?

I figured Carol would jump in, hell and nobody even had to ask.

It's like ringing a dinner bell when you mention the words "literal" and "Genesis" in the same paragraph.

It's an amazing Pavlovian response!

Who is they? Whoever they are, why don't they seriously consider the literal interpretation of the original Bible that has been demonstrated to be entirely in agreement with science?

— Carol Clouser

Comment #84839 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on March 7, 2006 11:56 PM Anyway, the quick response is that the $2 million figure comes from the actual order signed by Judge Jones, Document 352, of which I have an electronic copy. I'll redact the rest of the post tomorrow.

Even though they have agreed on the settlement [of $1 million], Eric Rothschild, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, said lawyers will request an order in court entitling the plaintiffs to more than $2 million in costs. Steve Russell, the district's solicitor, said the initial bill had been $2.5 million before negotiations began. Plaintiffs' attorneys wanted to make sure that other school districts pondering whether to pursue a religious agenda will think twice, Rothschild said. "We think it's important that the public record will reflect how much it costs to stop an unconstitutional action," he said. "Still, we also recognize that this is a small school district. " From http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3533888

Why are you so slow and secretive about revealing information ? You still have not provided that "secret" information on how that private attorney-client message got into the Dover opinion.

Hey guys, come on, Larry's like PT's own little soap-opera. He's unrealistic and annoying, but somehow, in some bizzare way, fascinating. We could call it "As The Wingnut Turns".

Carol Clouser said,"What "flaws"? What "contradictions"? What cover ups? Who is they?
Try consulting the comprehensive works as: The Bible Handbook by G.W. Fooote, Is It God's Word? by Joeseph Wheless, The Bible by John Remsberg, The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.or J.T. Sunderland.
The Bible is perfect and inerrant,There are no inaccuracies,here is a list of some simple, straight-forward problems that even some well-known spokesmen for the fundamentalist position grudgingly concede:
(a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
(b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;
(c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:8), 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:8), 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);
(d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;
(e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;
(f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;
(g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);
(h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);
(i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);
(j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;
(k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;
(l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;
(m) If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);
(n) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24);
(o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;
(p) Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:8), tenth (Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.

I figured Carol would jump in, hell and nobody even had to ask. It's like ringing a dinner bell when you mention the words "literal" and "Genesis" in the same paragraph. It's an amazing Pavlovian response!

— STJ

As usual Lawrence "I'm not a Holocaust denier just a revisionist" Fafarman, general crank and crackpot provides ironic amusement
I can't understand why the media treats this sleazebag(Judge Jones) like some kind of hero.
Gee Larry if only you knew.

Carol here is a question(s):
Why is there no mention in Genesis about the creation of water ?
The Mothers of Mono-theism keep that one for themselves did they?
Seems to be a rather obvious and revealing Freudian slip don't you think ?
Cattle herders needed water too so.....ah......why?
What good is a world with the most important ingredient missing?
What was going through the priest's mind ?
Do you have any idea of the semiotics of water in Myth ?

Now it could be that there WAS no water when Sargon's(Zarquon) Daddy churned the cosmic milk to produce the egg (or was it the chicken) and it arrived by accident from comets OR it was here already which makes Genesis seem a tautology (which it IS).
OR that water has a DEEPER significance in the psycho-dynamics of the early warrior herders patriarchy.

What's your ....er....opinion on that little friggen huge detail.

Frank J,

Obviously I don't refer to any of the versions you mention. Instead I refer to recent scholarship that has demonstrated quite convincingly that the original version of the Bible, that is the Hebrew version, can quite reasonably be interpreted literally, based on the rules of ancient Hebrew literacy, and yet no conflict with science emerges. For source materials you might want to consult

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963971611/qid=1141829615/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5529828-2001560?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Jonboy,

All your listed difficulties have been addressed eons ago by the likes of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Malbim, and many others. There is not a shred of substance to any of them.

Obviously I don't refer to any of the versions you mention. Instead I refer to recent scholarship that has demonstrated quite convincingly that the original version of the Bible, that is the Hebrew version, can quite reasonably be interpreted literally, based on the rules of ancient Hebrew literacy, and yet no conflict with science emerges. For source materials you might want to consult http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963971611/qid=... Jonboy, All your listed difficulties have been addressed eons ago by the likes of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Malbim, and many others. There is not a shred of substance to any of them.

— Carol

Obviously I don't refer to any of the versions you mention. Instead I refer to recent scholarship that has demonstrated quite convincingly that the original version of the Bible, that is the Hebrew version, can quite reasonably be interpreted literally, based on the rules of ancient Hebrew literacy, and yet no conflict with science emerges. For source materials you might want to consult

Always about you and yours, isn't it?

Carol Clouser said, "All your listed difficulties have been addressed eons ago by the likes of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Malbim, and many others. There is not a shred of substance to any of them."
Not so Carol,for many years apologists have been using a wide assortment of rationalizations and justifications to explain away obvious contradictions or inaccuracies in Scripture. Many have become masters of distortion, prevarication, and obfuscation, often going as far to make that which is patently false on its face seem rational, if not extraordinarily wise. They Carol, just like yourself, have developed an ability to make that which is irrational and absurd seem sensible and profound.The noted Biblical scholar J.T. Sunderland said it well:
Men (theologians-ed) allow themselves conveniently to drop into the background some of the more incredible or objectionable things which the books contain; they develop a marvelous facility in explaining away contradictions and inaccuracies and things which the increase of knowledge has shown not to be true, and in reading into the books in a thousand places all sorts of new meanings and so-called "deeper interpretations" to make the teachings of the books harmonize with the increase of knowledge. That which really belongs to the mind of the reader is attributed to that of the writer. The natural and simple meaning of the words is set aside. Forced interpretations are put upon passages for the purpose of compelling them to harmonize with that which it is supposed they ought to mean. Statements, doctrines, and allusions are discovered in the books which not only have no existence in their pages, but which are absolutely foreign to the epoch at which they were written." Show us, the scriptures Carol that prove your assertions.

Ok, I've tried, but I have to open my big yap.

In the context of science and reality, discussing the bible in any language is about as relevent as discussing the "Iliad" or "Interview with a Vampire". Get over it.

Ironically, the article called Rothschild a "Philadelphia lawyer" --- something of a synonym for "shyster."

— Some moron

Hamilton worked pro bono, by the way.

"Philadelphia lawyer" has come to mean an extremely sharp and competent lawyer. The only negative sense is in the sense of "lawyering"--that is, excessive motions and other manipulative tricks. In contrast, a shyster is something of an outright criminal, who engages in ambulance chasing type client screwing of the most untrustworthy sort.

Of course, in Philadelphia, only the positive meaning of "Philadelphia lawyer" is acknowledged. Your typical moron might have difficulty with that concept. As a hint, the University of Pennsylvania is located in Philadelphia. Duh!

Wow, an atheist and a Biblical literalist, both arguing from literal interpretations of the Bible! What's next -- a flat-Earther and a LaRouchie arguing about the Queen's connection to the Trilateral Commission?

Can a thread get any more hijacked away from its original subject, and even from the observable Universe itself?

And speaking of flat-Earthers, Larry I Know Everything But My Name Farflungdung is here too! Hey, Larry-Andy-Billy-Bob-Sue-Ted-Tom, since you still haven't answered any of our questions about your honesty or credibility, and since the only honest thing we've heard from you is "I don't understand," there's still no reason for us to take any of your assertions seriously. You're so low you'd need a twelve-foot ladder to nip Judge Jones' ankle.

Jonboy,

You have essentially two choices regarding the Bible. You can treat it as any other book, written for the purpose of persuading others to separate themselves from their money ostensibly for the purpose of obtaining a few hours of reading pleasure. In which case, the authors and/or redactors must have been incredibly incompetant to blatantly contradict themselves within the span of a mere few sentences.

Or, you can treat the Bible as a unique document authored by very special people with very unusual and lofty purposes, such that the ordinary rules and methods applicable to ordinary works just do not apply. If we apply the favorite doctrine around here, that of "survival of the fittest," to works of literature, I think the choice becomes easy to make. What, after all, is the status today of all those other ancient civilizations, cultures and religions and their teachings, all of whom were endowed at one time or another with a land mass and population one thousand times that of the ancient Hebrews? Where are they and their works? Who reads them? Who discusses them on blogs, thousands of years later? Not to mention what the Israelites had to endure.

Just so that I don't totally ignore your pathetic list, let me pick one item (g) that should take only a few lines to dispose of. Lot is Abraham's nephew who wanders together with his uncle for years across great distance, no simple feat those days, then he works together with his uncle and eventually his uncle risks his life and that of many others to save him from his captors. Do you find it difficult to see that the Bible might refer to the relationship as "brotherly", meaning tightly intertwined and bound together?

Obviously I don't refer to any of the versions you mention.

— Carol Clouser

Carol why did the old Priests leave out water as one of "God's" creations?

Here is another paradox

Why is it that people who think "God" is intelligent (and presumably educated) are notably lacking in creativity ?

Carol: who are you to tell us how to read books, let alone offer only two choices? You may not have noticed this, but there are a lot of people who read the Bible as "a unique document authored by very special people with very unusual and lofty purposes," but who were nonetheless Human and thus imperfect, and who thus might have got some relatively minor details wrong, or might have had a little trouble using mere words to describe -- or understand -- something so lofty and transcendent as Man's relationship to God.

What, after all, is the status today of all those other ancient civilizations, cultures and religions and their teachings, all of whom were endowed at one time or another with a land mass and population one thousand times that of the ancient Hebrews? Where are they and their works? Who reads them? Who discusses them on blogs, thousands of years later?

Well, all of those civilizations left behind bits of divine wisdom, in oral tradition and on paper, and lots of people read and discuss them today. Ever heard of Lao Tsu? His country's still going strong -- in fact, they're a pain in the ass, economically and militarily. How about a place called India?

Not to mention what the Israelites had to endure.

Ah yes, the victim-card -- as if no other people have ever been conquered, dispersed, oppressed, enslaved, exploited, or decimated ever in human history. (That's also a total non-sequitur, by the way.)

...Do you find it difficult to see that the Bible might refer to the relationship as "brotherly", meaning tightly intertwined and bound together?

So now you admit that the Bible uses words outside of their strict literal meanings, to convey some more profound message. Are you SURE we're supposed to read that book as a literal science-textbook? Are you SURE that's what those "very special people with very unusual and lofty purposes" had in mind?

Carol...You realize we think you're a neurotic, middle-aged, intellectually-challenged spinster with a boss fixation...

Speak for yourself, Rilke's -- I think she's a neurotic, middle-aged, intelectually-misdirected spinster with more fixations than we can count, who wears lacy, bright colored undies beneath her buttoned-down suits, without thinking why, and whose nattering about Biblical science hides a smoldering, unacknowledged sexuality that yearns to be awakened by the likes of Yours Truly.

(All together now..."Yeah, right...")

Carol Clauser keeps ranting about the "original Bible." Such a concept is absurd. There *is* no "original Bible." There were hundreds of folk tales and legends, many of them in more than one form, which were passed on via oral transmission for many generations before anyone decided to write some of them down. A lot of the contradictions in *all* versions of the Bible are the result of two or more tellings of the same myth--such as the two clearly separate accounts of creation in Genesis.

Biblical *scholars* understand this. Biblioidolators like CC do not.

The Bible--*particularly* the so-called Old Testament, CC's favorite part--contains no science and precious little reliable or reasonably accurate history.

Again, scholars know this, idol worshipers don't.

And the so-called "New Testament" isn't a lot better--still precious little real history, a lot of legendry, and a whole pile of quoting out of context from the OT. It's easy to see where the Creationists/IDiots get this bad habit from--it's intrinsic to their Holy Book.

But "original Bible"? Har-de-har-har.

Lynn

Damn ...Lynn..... perfect !
er ....CC knows this already, but she can't believe it. Amazingly she has proof...er that she can't believe it. It's printed all over this blog.

Water..... Carol why did "g0d" not create water?

You have essentially two choices regarding the Bible. You can treat it as any other book, written for the purpose of persuading others to separate themselves from their money ostensibly for the purpose of obtaining a few hours of reading pleasure. In which case, the authors and/or redactors must have been incredibly incompetant to blatantly contradict themselves within the span of a mere few sentences.

— crazy clouseau

Then there's this from CC: "What, after all, is the status today of all those other ancient civilizations, cultures and religions and their teachings, all of whom were endowed at one time or another with a land mass and population one thousand times that of the ancient Hebrews? Where are they and their works? Who reads them? Who discusses them on blogs, thousands of years later?"

Where? Well, there's a lot of it still floating around. And there's a lot of it buried in the legends and myths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. You didn't think the Hebrews invented all those tales themselves, did you? There's very little original in Biblical legendry--most of it was lifted from other cultures and religions with which the Hebrews shared their world.

Re "why did "g0d" not create water?"

Maybe she wasn't thirsty?

Henry J
Well said .....the operative word is "she" and is the semiotic representation of the feminine in Mythology ....only a man would leave that out in a creation story...no wonder it is so dry and dusty.
In Joyce's "Mono-Myth" "Finnegan's Wake" the river Liffey which runs through Dublin and first starts as a spring in the mountains then a stream and finally a "mature" river parallels the life of the woman Anna Livia Plurabelle as a giver of life the REAL creator. Note how the story starts ..half way through the sentence that finishes the book ..a river runs. The continuing creation of life in THE SAME story repeating over and over again.

What, after all, is the status today of all those other ancient civilizations, cultures and religions and their teachings, all of whom were endowed at one time or another with a land mass and population one thousand times that of the ancient Hebrews? Where are they and their works?

— CC

The primordial existence of water, and its unchanging/ceaselessly changing nature doubtless have some connection to its "holy water" status.

These uppity new creation stories are always careful not to throw out the bathwater with the baby.

Stevepinhead I take it by uppity new creation stories you mean Genesis :> odd there were no babies in it just ....er baby making.

For source materials you might want to consult http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963971611/qid=...

I think the 1.3 billion Chinese on this planet (not counting those who live outside of China) might be somewhat insulted if someone denied their existence. Fortunately, most of them don't go around shoving their beliefs down other people's throats.

CC wrote: What, after all, is the status today of all those other ancient civilizations, cultures and religions and their teachings, all of whom were endowed at one time or another with a land mass and population one thousand times that of the ancient Hebrews? Where are they and their works?

Comment #84917 posted by William E Emba on March 8, 2006 12:10 PM

Some moron wrote: Ironically, the article called Rothschild a "Philadelphia lawyer" --- something of a synonym for "shyster."

Of course, in Philadelphia, only the positive meaning of "Philadelphia lawyer" is acknowledged. Your typical moron might have difficulty with that concept. As a hint, the University of Pennsylvania is located in Philadelphia. Duh!

Carol Clouser,
As I expected, you answered my questions in your usual way,with personal opinions and not a shred of hard evidence (and incorrectly I may add) but at least on one point you are to be commended. You didn't send me an apologetic response teeming with rationalizations, prevarications, and obfuscations seeking to prove black is white. You cut through the usual rhetoric and went straight to the heart of the matter. Tossing reason aside, you candidly admit that you believe the Bible because you "like the idea of it".Unfortunately Carol,it seems that truthfulness is of far less importance to you than happiness and contentment.
Why do you apologize for a book that attributes acts to God that can only be described as appalling, including killing, deceiving, causing adultery, ordering killings, playing favorites, practicing injustice, punishing many for the acts of one, and ordering cannibalism. What would be your feelings toward a book describing YOU in such a manner? Has God done anything for you so far, could it be he is just letting you hang yourself, with your endless rhetoric, and on the Judgment Day in which you believe, you're going to discover just how angry he has been with you from the beginning?
You have even chosen to ignore the teachings of your own book which says your fate is comparable to that of a dog. "For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of the beasts is the same; as one dies so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage (pre-eminence--KJV) over the beasts; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to the dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast does down to the earth?" (Eccle. 3:19-20 RSV). You can't begin to cover all the bases Carol.

Raging Bee said, "Wow, an atheist and a Biblical literalist, both arguing from literal interpretations of the Bible. Bee,atheists know the bible better than most Xtians,and Jews,you have to know the enemies propaganda and fight them on their own ground.

Obviously I don't refer to any of the versions you mention. Instead I refer to recent scholarship that has demonstrated quite convincingly that the original version of the Bible, that is the Hebrew version, can quite reasonably be interpreted literally, based on the rules of ancient Hebrew literacy, and yet no conflict with science emerges.

Jonboy,

It's a pleasure having a civilized discussion, for a change, with someone like you who seems to have a respectable measure of knowledge of this very emotional topic, the Bible.

But I must tell you, with all due respect, that the more you quote and cite the Bible, the less I recognize it. Your Bible is just not my Bible, even when we are discussing the old testament (a term I do not recognize).

I don't know to what extent you can read the Hebrew of the Bible and its great and ancient commentators in the original, the only version I care to discuss. It seems to me that you might be working from those sloppy, demonstrably incorrect and grotesquely distorted translations out there.

You keep saying that I provide only opinions, not "hard" evidence. Not quite true. So far, every time we delved into some specific issue, where we disagreed, I thought I presented very persuasive analyses. That's as "hard" as the evidence gets in this business.

I recall our discussion of (1) the death penalty for the non-virgin. I claimed it was for adultery, you argued (was it you?) it was for lying. I cited the Hebrew word LIZNOT in that verse, which clearly refers to adultery in this context. And it was always so understood by the true experts on the Bible, the Talmudists. (2) Lot being Abraham's "brother". Does not what I stated above make sense? Or would you rather twist in the wind so that you make yourself feel good by claiming that the Bible writers are totally inept? (3) The meaning of ARETZ. It does mean "the land" far more frequently than "the earth". What harder evidence is there? (4) God telling Adam he will die the day he eats the forbidden fruit but then lives centuries after that. You claim God lied. A huge negative. I say He threatened, then was merciful and forgave. A huge positive. I think the evidence clearly is in my favor. Why would God lie? Are you suggesting He could not execute his will here?

Just do me a favor. Do not invent quotes in my name, quotes that I never uttered. I never said anything about believing in the Bible because I "like the idea of it". I am attracted to the Bible (that is the HB), among other reasons, because of the intersection of philosophy, history, theology and many branches of science that is offered by the in-depth, brilliant rabbinic, midrashic and talmudic analysis of its words. My brain has experienced the truly great highs provided by being massaged by biblical intellectual studies. I am addicted. It's easily as good as relativity and quantum mechanics.

Lenny,

Yes! Scholars beat up scholars, scientists beat up scientists, ideas beat up ideas, all figuratively speaking.

That's what makes the world go around.

I always thought the conservation of momentum and energy make the world go round.

OK, OK, the use of the term always is a little bit inaccurate.

jonboy wrote:

Bee,atheists know the bible better than most Xtians,and Jews,you have to know the enemies propaganda and fight them on their own ground.

And many Pagans know the Bible better than fundie atheists and fundie Christians put together.

Why do I have to fight them on their ground, when their ground is so far from that of the ordinary Americans whose votes will ultimately win or lose the struggle? I prefer to fight them on OUR ground, where our understanding of the reality of America is strong, and their twisted head-games can be shown to be utterly at odds with the situations and choices ordinary people face every day.

Quoting Scripture in a vacuum only goes so far. Sooner or later we have to take it outside the church and say: "Look, this is where your simpleminded rhetoric fails in the real world! And look, this is how our understanding does better in improving the lives of real people!"

Also, this is a majority-Christian nation, so we won't get very far if we don't at least acknowledge the goodness that most Christians are able to see in their faith, and speak to that goodness. It won't convince the fundie fanatics, of course, but it will help to isolate them from the mainstream.

Ideologues can twist even the holiest words to suit their ends. The only way to defeat them is (to take a line from Sun Tsu) to smash the brittle eggshells of their world-view with the boulders of reality.

Carol cited:

The meaning of ARETZ. It does mean "the land" far more frequently than "the earth". What harder evidence is there?

Well, I have to say "the land" is a pretty vague phrase, in any language. If ARETZ had a more specific meaning in Hebrew, like "the land God's people currently live on" or something, then that specific meaning got lost in even Carol's translation. Which pretty well blows any pretense that the original Hebrew Bible(s) contain exact, literal meanings that can explain the material world as exactly as Carol claims they can.

There's also the widely-agreed-upon notion that the Bible isn't really ABOUT science or the material world, but about Man's relationship to God, but that's another issue...

Re "The primordial existence of water, and its unchanging/ceaselessly changing nature doubtless have some connection to its "holy water" status."

Holy water is just water that's had the h3ll boiled out of it.

Henry

I note from Amazon that it's selling about as badly as a book can do and still remain extant; apparently the rest of the world agrees with our assessment of its worth.

What, after all, is the status today of all those other ancient civilizations, cultures and religions and their teachings, all of whom were endowed at one time or another with a land mass and population one thousand times that of the ancient Hebrews? Where are they and their works?

It's a pleasure having a civilized discussion, for a change, with someone like you who seems to have a respectable measure of knowledge of this very emotional topic, the Bible.

— Carol

But I must tell you, with all due respect, that the more you quote and cite the Bible, the less I recognize it.

Your Bible is just not my Bible, even when we are discussing the old testament (a term I do not recognize).

I don't know to what extent you can read the Hebrew of the Bible and its great and ancient commentators in the original, the only version I care to discuss.

It seems to me that you might be working from those sloppy, demonstrably incorrect and grotesquely distorted translations out there.

You keep saying that I provide only opinions, not "hard" evidence. Not quite true. So far, every time we delved into some specific issue, where we disagreed, I thought I presented very persuasive analyses.

That's as "hard" as the evidence gets in this business.

I recall our discussion of (1) the death penalty for the non-virgin. I claimed it was for adultery, you argued (was it you?) it was for lying.

I cited the Hebrew word LIZNOT in that verse, which clearly refers to adultery in this context. And it was always so understood by the true experts on the Bible, the Talmudists.

(2) Lot being Abraham's "brother". Does not what I stated above make sense? Or would you rather twist in the wind so that you make yourself feel good by claiming that the Bible writers are totally inept?

(3) The meaning of ARETZ. It does mean "the land" far more frequently than "the earth". What harder evidence is there?

(4) God telling Adam he will die the day he eats the forbidden fruit but then lives centuries after that. You claim God lied. A huge negative. I say He threatened, then was merciful and forgave. A huge positive. I think the evidence clearly is in my favor.

Why would God lie?

Are you suggesting He could not execute his will here?

Just do me a favor. Do not invent quotes in my name, quotes that I never uttered. I never said anything about believing in the Bible because I "like the idea of it". I am attracted to the Bible (that is the HB), among other reasons, because of the intersection of philosophy, history, theology and many branches of science that is offered by the in-depth, brilliant rabbinic, midrashic and talmudic analysis of its words. My brain has experienced the truly great highs provided by being massaged by biblical intellectual studies. I am addicted. It's easily as good as relativity and quantum mechanics.

Hey, judging from 'Amazon.com Sales Rank', her book is selling better than mine. :-( (So don't assume sales = quality!) But hey, my book is actually getting nice reviews and I don't harass people here to buy it once a week. :-)

LOL. Considering the bad reputation that lawyers have, any term for a "crafty lawyer" was bound to become pejorative.

Way to show your ignorance, Larry.

Arden Charfield wrote:

"Carol, the ancient Hebrews were not the most important people in the world, and billions of people give them very little thought."

If only that were even remotely true, now and for the last two thousand or so years.

Check out your newspaper, almost any day these days. Which gets more coverage, tiny spec Israel or Russia? And for what reasons?

Do you know ANY history at all?

Have you heard of the Coptics? If you have, count yourself among those rare individuals who have heard of them outside of the Middle East. Well, based on any reasonable standard, such as population or land area, Jews should be getting about as much attention from the world as the coptics, if not less.

Can we get back to something relevant to the topic? Or at least relevant to reality?

— Lou FCD

Okay, Carol seems to be living in her own private universe, where China, India and the Islamic world don't matter as much as Israel, the Bible is about Science, not God, and every word of its original ancient Hebrew is to be taken literally except when it's convenient not to do so.

Given how fast and far apart her non-sequiturs tand to fly, I suspect that her universe has a much lower Constant of Gravitation than ours. Which must mean, according to cosmological ID, that our Universe is Intelligently Designed, and hers isn't.

Raging Bee, My comments were meant to be(tongue in cheek),for most part I would agree with your response.

Rilke's Granddaughter,Your critique of Carols post was outstanding,

Ironically, the article called Rothschild a "Philadelphia lawyer" --- something of a synonym for "shyster."

— Some moron

Of course, in Philadelphia, only the positive meaning of "Philadelphia lawyer" is acknowledged.

Q. How would you define the Philadelphia lawyer?

Q. When you hear people talk about it, do they speak of the Philadelphia lawyer in a flattering way or as an insult?

A. It depends. If you hear other lawyers talk about it, it's flattering: a lawyer who is very astute, very knowledgeable. When you hear the public talk about the Philadelphia lawyer, it's sort of an insult: a clever lawyer who knows all the angles.

Of course, some people just don't like clever. Especially when "clever" is the other guy's lawyer. Then they complain. It's sort of like the pastor in Dover, who used "intelligent, educated part of the culture" as a negative.

Like I said, "some morons" have difficulty with other people having intelligence. Well boohoohoo on you.

William:

I think you're being a bit sensitive here. One connotation (among others) of a Philadelphia Lawyer is someone knowledgeable enough of both the law and relevant decisions, to be able to use the letter of the law to circumvent the intent of the law. The Philadelphia Lawyer is the one who succeeds at getting an obviously (and even admittedly) guilty client off the hook on some legal technicality - which the lawer himself may have engineered for the purpose.

Another definition of a Philadelphia Lawyer, then, is one who has entirely (and successfully) divorced legal and illegal, from right and wrong. He's extraordinarily skilled at the law itself, without regarding the purpose of the law as being relevant to his trade.

Ironically, the article called Rothschild a "Philadelphia lawyer" --- something of a synonym for "shyster."

— Larry/Andy/Suzie/Airhead

If only that were even remotely true, now and for the last two thousand or so years.

Check out your newspaper, almost any day these days. Which gets more coverage, tiny spec Israel or Russia? And for what reasons?

Do you know ANY history at all?

Far more than you do, Carol, tho I think that may not be saying much. You really need to get out more. Regardless of your feverish fantasies, the world does not revolve around Israel and Judaism.

So, you measure world importance by how much one gets into American papers? What an incredibly childish concept. Who's ignorant of history?

I think you're being a bit sensitive here [regarding "Philadelphia lawyer"].

— Flint

In Philadelphia, the positive aspect of the phrase is emphasized, while the negative aspects are left for the rest of the world to express their sour grapes over. Especially when on the losing side of a case. The idea that there was something possibly ironic about a Philadelphia school's alumni magazine using the term "Philadelphia lawyer" in the positive sense is stupendous stupidity, of the "retired L.A. engineer who keeps getting his pro se Supreme Court appeals rejected" sort.

The Philadelphia Lawyer is the one who succeeds at getting an obviously (and even admittedly) guilty client off the hook on some legal technicality - which the lawer himself may have engineered for the purpose.

If only that were even remotely true, now and for the last two thousand or so years. Check out your newspaper, almost any day these days. Which gets more coverage, tiny spec Israel or Russia? And for what reasons? Do you know ANY history at all?

— Carol

You're assuming that is automatically a bad thing! Justice and the law are not identical concepts.

Jesus F. CHrist! THis may be the funniest thread I have read yet. Go back and look at where carol popped up. I was thinking, well, she ought to be along soon here. THen when she did it was at the funniest possible times and... Sorry Carol, I'll adress you directly, ... You have said quite possibly the most absurd and ignorant things you have ever said at PT right here in this thread. Thank you for the laughs. I don't know if you ever read this Carol. But it sounds like a whole new project is opening up to you.

Mention Genesis and science in a more recent post, and see if she pops up again.

Mention Genesis and science in a more recent post, and see if she pops up again.

Comment #85207 posted by Flint on March 9, 2006 09:55 AM One connotation (among others) of a Philadelphia Lawyer is someone knowledgeable enough of both the law and relevant decisions, to be able to use the letter of the law to circumvent the intent of the law.

No one wants to hear what you say, Larry.

In a fascinating new experiment, 8-celled chorella "colonies" have been shown to have more functioning neurons between them than all of the multiple personalities clustering around the alleged human entity known as Larry/Andy FarFromHisMeds.

(The experimenters were forced to concede, in a footnote authored by grad student B. L. Astfromthepast, that even the far more typical one-celled cholera might well have more functioning intellectual capacity than Larry: "However, that was not the focus of our work, and we're really not in a position to comment further at this time.")

Shut up, maroon.

The second attempted use of "chorella" came out as "cholera" in the above post.

My apologies to single and multi-celled chorella everywhere. No offense was intended to any pond scum anywhere (other than the maroon).

And there are two contradictory creation myths in Genesis!

— Arden Chatfield

You're assuming that is automatically a bad thing! Justice and the law are not identical concepts.

— Flint

Yes, this was exactly my point. The pejorative version of Philadelphia Lawyer is the person who uses the law to circumvent justice. This is only a bad thing if you are NOT the guilty party, and it's wonderful if you are.

There's a story told of (I think) Commodore Vanderbilt the robber baron calling in his lawyer and saying "Find me a legal way to do this." His lawyer replied, "But sir, doing this is not legal!" and Vanderbilt said, "I know, but that's not the question I asked." Finding a legal way to do what's not legal is where a Philadelphia lawyer really shines.