Follow the Bi... er, the evidence wherever it leads

It really seems Behe, Dembski et al have really let their guard slip a LOT since the Dover decision about the whole "we can't link ID to Christianity in public" thing. Has anyone else noticed this, or is it just me? Do you think they're about to just give up the pretense altogether?

Newspeak good "behespeak" better.

Yes, that would be the smart thing to do. Also honest thing.

Behe returned his lab coat long ago.

He is no longer a scientist, degree notwithstanding.

Therefore, what Behe says about science is not astonishing at all. Clearly, Behe is a supernaturalist.

Perhaps the Delta Pi Gamma could chip in and buy him a pointed hat with stars and crescent moons. That is, if Harold would pay his dues...

Newspeak good "behespeak" better.

There is no further reason for the IDistas to continue to pretend that they are not simple creationists of one flavor or another. They have been outed in the most public way posible.

So, I predict a growing willingness to admit their religious agenda, after all, it is the only card they have left to play.

ID and its parent "creation science" are merely attepmts to cover a stunted and incorrect reading of Genesis with the mantel of science. Behe, and Dembski offered to provide "proof" of God that turned in to "poof" of God. Along the way, these creationists have joined with other antiscience forces such as the HIV deniers, the global warming deniers, etc...

I guess the science deniers figure, "If you can't beat them, and can't join them- try to deny they even exist." So, I expect renewed "missing links" , more "all mutations are deadly," and "evolution violates the Laws of Nature arguments. The Behe IC and Dembski SC/EF/CSI/SCI/BS.BS/BS will disapear. Wells will be rehabilitated. Guillermo will be cheered as the new genius of creationism/ID. A new creationist text opposing natural origins of life will be published (will Shapiro write the forward?).

It really seems Behe, Dembski et al have really let their guard slip a LOT since the Dover decision about the whole "we can't link ID to Christianity in public" thing. Has anyone else noticed this, or is it just me? Do you think they're about to just give up the pretense altogether?

So, I predict a growing willingness to admit their religious agenda, after all, it is the only card they have left to play.

Even now, I am sometimes singled out by Darwinists as the most "reasonable" Intelligent Design proponent, because I've written that I think common descent is true. I'm embarrassed to admit that I derive some odd, involuntary pleasure from being thought the "best" of the lot. My reaction is especially irrational because some of my Intelligent Design colleagues who disagree with me on common descent have greater familiarity with the relevant science than I do.

p. 3 of Michael Behe (2006). "Godly Science (Correspondance)." First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life. 161, pp. 2-3. March 2006. HTML: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0603/correspondence.html PDF: http://find.galegroup.com/ips/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=IPS&docId=A142636170&source=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=ucberkeley&version=1.0

Very objective Mr Behe. One has to wonder why those godless atheistic scientists are ignoring your evidence for intelligent design. Oh yeah we know. They obviously fear the existence of God and are suppressing the "evidence" against themselves. Sure.

Michael Behe at Calvary Chapel, March 6th, 2002:

"But a Darwinist cannot invoke angels adding staples to traps, because the angels are on OUR side"

Uh, why do you keep claiming that you are following the evidence wherever it leads?

Balderdash.

As you well know, there a certain things that are not allowed to even be considered before the investigation even starts.

Accurate or not, that is a methaphysical positon as much as any.

Quit lying.

Mr. Goldstein:

they do so because Creationists think that their "truth" trumps all evidence, that nothing can contradict their scriptures, and that the reward for "witnessing" to their "truth" will be so eternal life.

Clearly, they CANNOT AFFORD to follow the evidence; the stakes are too high.

Maybe it's a "what have we got to lose" reaction to setbacks in Dover, Ohio, etc., but from recent Behe and Dembski comments I am detecting a hint of the Gosse Assertion. Not necessarily in what they personally believe, but what they think their audience should believe.

...the breadth of freedom available to a Christian interpreting the physical evidence of nature.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

As you well know, there a certain things that are not allowed to even be considered before the investigation even starts.

The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are: 1. Observe some aspect of the universe 2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed 3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis 4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions 5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". So ID's claim that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong. However, what science DOES require is that any supernatural or non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to steps 3, 4 and 5. And HERE is where ID fails miserably. To demonstate this, let's pick a particular example of an ID hypothesis and see how the scientific method can be applied to it: One claim made by many ID creationists explains the genetic similarity between humans and chimps by asserting that God --- uh, I mean, An Unknown Intelligent Designer --- created both but used common features in a common design. Let's take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method: 1. Observe some aspect of the universe. OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres). 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is "an intelligent designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C gene in both products." 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. Well, here is ID supernaturalistic methodology's chance to shine. What predictions can we make from ID's hypothesis? If an Intelligent Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then we would also expect to see ... ? IDers, please fill in the blank. And, to better help us test ID's hypothesis, it is most useful to point out some negative predictions --- things which, if found, would FALSIFY the hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that the hypothesis is wrong. So, then --- if we find (fill in the blank here), then the "common design" hypothesis would have to be rejected. 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. Well, the IDers seem to be sort of stuck on step 3. Despite all their voluminous writings and arguments, IDers have never yet given ANY testible predictions from their ID hypothesis that can be verified through experiment. Take note here --- contrary to the IDers whining about the "unfair exclusion of supernatural causes", there are in fact NO limits imposed by the scientific method on the nature of their predictions, other than the simple ones indicated by steps 3, 4 and 5 (whatever predictions they make must be testible by experiments or further observations.) They are entirely free to invoke whatever supernatural causes they like, in whatever number they like, so long as they follow along to steps 3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities or causes using experiment or further observation. Want to tell us that the Good Witch Glenda used her magic non-naturalistic staff to POP these genetic sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine â€"- just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test that. Want to tell us that God --- er, I mean The Unknown Intelligent Designer --- didn’t like humans very much and therefore decided to design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works for me â€" just as soon as you tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test it. Feel entirely and totally free to use all the supernaturalistic causes that you like. Just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test your predictions. Let's assume for a moment that the IDers are right and that science is unfairly biased against supernaturalist explanations. Let's therefore hypothetically throw methodological materialism right out the window. Gone. Bye-bye. Everything's fair game now. Ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies, magic star goats, whatever god-thing you like. Feel free to include and invoke ALL of them. As many as you need. All the IDers have to do now is simply show us all how to apply the scientific method to whatever non-naturalistic science they choose to invoke in order to subject the hypothesis "genetic similarities between chimps and humans are the product of a common design", or indeed ANY other non-material or super-natural ID hypothesis, to the scientific method. And that is where ID "theory" falls flat on its face. It is NOT any presupposition of "philosophical naturalism" on the part of science that stops ID dead in its tracks ---- it is the simple inability of ID "theory" to make any testible predictions. Even if we let them invoke all the non-naturalistic designers they want, intelligent design "theory" STILL can't follow the scientific method. Deep down inside, what the IDers are really moaning and complaining about is NOT that science unfairly rejects their supernaturalistic explanations, but that science demands ID's proposed "supernaturalistic explanations" be tested according to the scientific method, just like every OTHER hypothesis has to be. Not only can ID not test any of its "explanations", but it wants to modify science so it doesn't HAVE to. In effect, the IDers want their supernaturalistic "hypothesis" to have a privileged position â€"- they want their hypothesis to be accepted by science WITHOUT being tested; they want to follow steps one and two of the scientific method, but prefer that we just skip steps 3,4 and 5, and just simply take their religious word for it, on the authority of their own say-so, that their "science" is correct. And that is what their entire argument over "materialism" (or "naturalism" or "atheism" or "sciencism" or "darwinism" or whatever the heck else they want to call it) boils down to. There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses, whatever they are, should not be subjected to the very same testing process that everyone ELSE's hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go through. If they cannot put their "hypothesis" through the same scientific method that everyone ELSE has to, then they have no claim to be "science". Period.

Since it refers to Behe too, it's somewhat relevant to this thread, but, following Lenny's "Why ID is not science" my recent Talk Origins post uses William Dembski's own words (with my added comments) to show why ID is not science:

WD: You're asking me to play a game.

No, you're already playing a game. We're asking you to stop.

WD: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position."

We'll settle for less detail, since we've had a few years' head start. Unless you count Paley, in which case you had the head start. But we don't just need "causal mechanisms," we also need you to tell us what those mechanisms explain. You know, the "what happened and when" of biological history. Even YECs can do that part, so we're confident that you can too.

WD: ID is not a mechanistic theory,...

It isn't a theory, period.

WD: ...and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.

ID can't match any level of detail, which is why you no longer demand that it be taught in schools. So you just promote the phony "critical analysis" of evolution, which insulates all the other attempts at "theories", e.g. YEC, OEC, saltation, front loading, etc., from a real critical analysis. Nice trick, I must admit.

WD: If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots.

Yes it does. You conveniently overlook the fact that when a designer is detected in forensics and archaeology - using the "side information" that those fields have that yours lacks - investigators continue to "connect the dots" by determining what the designer did, when and how. In contrast, the object of your game is to get your critics to dwell on whether or not there is a designer. That saves you from having to say what the designer did, when and how. And you don't want to do that because you know that the answer is "it's still evolution." Maybe not your "Darwinism" caricature, but still evolution.

WD: True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

Then what exactly are the "fundamental discontinuities?" They must not be biological because Michael Behe made it clear that there is "biological continuity" (his phrase for common descent at the Kansas Kangaroo Court), and you have not challenged him on it. So for all your gyrations about "the" flagellum, barring any extraordinary evidence to the contrary, the most reasonable explanation is still that modern flagella originated "in vivo" not "in vitro." Likewise humans are "modified monkeys," not "modified dirt." And the process is still evolution.

But we understand. You can't say too much because you need YEC political support. We know the game. Like astrology, which Behe likened it to at Dover, ID continues to fool millions of people, but it fools no biologists except the handful who already sold out to pseudoscience.
And since the sell-outs seem to know that it's a scam, we can't necessarily say that it fools them either.

When I lecture in favor of the idea that intelligence is explicitly needed to explain some aspects of biology, the response is not typically, "Gee, that's interesting, but I disagree." Instead, people become angry, denouncing the mildest of challenges to materialism as unspeakable heresy.

— Behe in December 2005 First Things

When I lecture in favor of the idea that intelligence is explicitly needed to explain some aspects of biology, the response is not typically, "Gee, that's interesting, but I disagree." Instead, people become angry, denouncing the mildest of challenges to materialism as unspeakable heresy.

Say whatever it takes, seems to be the idea. I assume that Behe really is comfortable with the old earth, but just as one pretends to be scientific in order to promote the ID agenda, one supports any rejection of evidence when that becomes the most obvious route left.

ID was fine with most (not all) creationists as long as it looked like a winning strategy. But it seems more like a sell-out the moment it quits selling to anybody other than the anti-scientists. What's Behe supposed to do, attempt to appeal to the science and legal sides, which have both resoundingly rejected him and his ideas?

Johnson said it from the first, that the strategy was to destroy science (through his mislabeling the scientific method as "materialism", then clearly opposing "materialism"). Behe is only following that logic, by noting that any fact about the world is deniable so long as it is religiously "sound". He has operated according that that notion all along, so it should not be surprising if he is willing to also say it post-Dover.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Was'nt Behe then one who declared that astrology is science?
*snicker*

Well, let's be fair to Astrology. It does produce a few testable hypotheses. It's just that they get disproven pretty easily.

"The danger to Christians from osmosing alien, materialistic presumptions, I think, far outweighs the danger of being wrong about any particular scientific point."

Well said Dr. Behe! Well said! Now we must distance ourselves from all the dangerous materialist science. The materialistic germ theory should be replaced by Augustine's: "All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to these demons; chiefly do they torment fresh-baptized Christians, yea, even the guiltless, newborn infants." Afterall, this materialistic, godless germ theory robs God as being the force behind life and death. And this materialistic theory of gravity takes us dangerously close to the idea that naturalistic, atheistic forces are at work in our world - rather than God. Dangerous, dangerous ideas are these! Better to rid ourselves of these "scientific" falsehoods - even given the possibility that they are right - than endanger our immortal soul.

Ah.. Frank J you said:

...He [Behe] knows darn well that the most devastating criticisms of the ID strategy come from those (e.g. Kenneth Miller) who believe that God is ultimately responsible for life, and who politely, and meticulously disagree that "intelligence is explicitly needed to explain some aspects of biology."

I read "intelligence is explicitly needed to explain some aspects of biology" and immediately thought about the usual suspects (Behe Dembski Nelson Berlinski etc) and wondered if their religious beliefs had a deleterious effect on their intelligence i.e. made them stupid.

The whole popular idea that something known by the word 'god' is intelligence or can be intelligent (first person singular) is just simple Freudian projection by, strangely, people who have spent a great deal of their life grinding out a Ph.D.[or two] and so may stake a claim to 'intelligence' in a conventional sense, but at the cost of self awareness at that critical stage in life when one actually BECOMES an adult. An intuitive understanding of art, culture in context outside of their own very limited field is simply unlearned. In fact their over education is confused to be 'intelligence'.

The fact that a few sycophants latch onto their pseudo science mumbo jumbo and then inflate their already inflated delusions of their own capability leads to an ego inflation feedback loop.

At what age do these people finally deflate ? 60 yrs at least in the notorious Larry case although he could be called a child in some aspects of his makeup. For those who plainly are not that intelligent, by academic success measure i.e.very well educated, the stakes for having a superior 'intelligence' as the great old delusion are far less.

I look forward to a long period of DI/ID deflation. But just in case I'm putting a medieval church Sheela-na-gig above my front door to ward off any proto Behes.

Behe, rivaling Dembski for the title of "king of chutzpah," is specifically baiting those in the audience who "become angry, denouncing the mildest of challenges to materialism as unspeakable heresy" to drown out the others. He knows darn well that the most devastating criticisms of the ID strategy come from those (e.g. Kenneth Miller) who believe that God is ultimately responsible for life, and who politely, and meticulously disagree that "intelligence is explicitly needed to explain some aspects of biology."

It's a fight between "a tiny lunatic fringe of fundamentalists" and "everyone else --- including most mainstream Christians".

Where, sadly, according to most polls, the definitions of "tiny" and "most" might be open to debate.

It really seems Behe, Dembski et al have really let their guard slip a LOT since the Dover decision about the whole "we can't link ID to Christianity in public" thing. Has anyone else noticed this, or is it just me? Do you think they're about to just give up the pretense altogether?

The idea of teleological design in life has been fought by people on your 'side' of the aisle for years, and those forces won in Dover with a ruling that ID *is* religion. It's worth remembering that the Dover decision was a victory for the real Intelligent Design movement. The Dover school board's scheme had nothing to do with modern ID research. They were trying to hijack ID's good name in order to sneak Biblical Literalism into the public schools, and then they lied about it when they got caught. That's a good thing, because now ID is no longer of any use to them. They've got no choice but to move on to some other kind of trickery, which means that real ID supporters can start concentrating on their research and begin the long process of salvaging their repuation. What you said is that you would vote against tenure for what a candidate "claims" or "thinks" about ID - IOW, his/her beliefs and expression, things clearly under the protection of the Constitution's first amendment, civil rights law, fair employment practices and your own university's policies. How so? People who support real ID don't fall into a protected class. Dr. Myers thinks that they're crackpots. Maybe he's wrong, but that's his privilege. There's no law that says he has to support people even if he thinks they're crackpots. People who support Dover-style fake ID are religiously motivated, so they have a certain amount of protection from discrimination. But this doesn't give them carte blanche to do whatever they want. If someone's religious beliefs compel them to reject the scientific method and lie about it, then they're not qualified for a teaching position.

which means that real ID supporters can start concentrating on their research

Funny how not a single paper on ID has been published aside from some awful reviews, data-less projections and that horrible computer model. ID needs to have a research theory to work with before they can go anywhere.

The Dover school board's scheme had nothing to do with modern ID research. They were trying to hijack ID's good name in order to sneak Biblical Literalism into the public schools, and then they lied about it when they got caught.

which means that real ID supporters can start concentrating on their research

Behe

The danger to Christians from osmosing alien, materialistic presumptions, I think, far outweighs the danger of being wrong about any particular scientific point.

Translation: you're better off lying for Jesus than lying for the devil.

The interesting follow-up question for Behe: how in hell would he know?

Behe is a genuine scumbag. Too bad I ran out of pity for his problems years ago, when he was first told to get psychological help.

Behe

I'm embarrassed to admit that I derive some odd, involuntary pleasure from being thought the "best" of the lot.

Geebus. Talk about a "cry for help."

No, "Dr." Behe, there 's nothing "odd" about taking pleasure from being considered the "best."

If you really looked in the mirror and took your shrink's advice, "Dr." Behe, you'd realize that your so-called "involuntary" pleasure was actually a driving force for much of your behavior. After all, you were never going to be the "best" biochemist. You weren't even going to come close.

So why not go find a bunch of thumb-suckers and compete with them?

Congratulations, "Dr." Behe. Say hi to the "best" ID peddling-lawyer and the "best" ID-peddling mathematician for me.

Or maybe I'll say hi to them for you, like I sometimes do.

Heh.

Behe ... is no longer a scientist, degree notwithstanding.

Therefore, what Behe says about science is not astonishing at all. Clearly, Behe is a supernaturalist.

"I see you have quite gone over to the supernaturalists." - Sherlock Holmes, The Hound of the Baskervilles

The danger to Christians from osmosing alien, materialistic presumptions, I think, far outweighs the danger of being wrong about any particular scientific point.

If God is really responsible for the world around us, and the world around us tells us evolution is how life came to get the way it is, how is that "alien" and "materialistic"? As a Christian, I think it's a lot more dangerous to think facts have to be ignored to save my soul or something.

which means that real ID supporters can start concentrating on their research

Heh, heh, and what was stopping them before this?

James Bond: "Who would pay a million dollars to have me killed?" M: "Jealous husbands, outraged chefs, humiliated tailors ... the list is endless!"

which means that real ID supporters can start concentrating on their research

That nearly caused a few ounces of Yuengling

Lager.

Ah, well . . . I suppose it must be good for SOMETHING.

;>

Behe ... is no longer a scientist, degree notwithstanding.

— Alan Smithee

Behe ... is no longer a scientist, degree notwithstanding.

Even now, I am sometimes singled out by Darwinists as the most "reasonable" Intelligent Design proponent, because I've written that I think common descent is true. I'm embarrassed to admit that I derive some odd, involuntary pleasure from being thought the "best" of the lot. My reaction is especially irrational because some of my Intelligent Design colleagues who disagree with me on common descent have greater familiarity with the relevant science than I do.

I should have mentioned, once again, that there is nothing more materialistic than suggesting that life is designed analogously with computer chips. Behe, who thinks he is an anti-materialist, is one of many who believe humans to be not much more than sophisticated robots (I'm sure he posits something to prevent this, a soul or some other meaningless concept, but scientifically he is unable to notice any distinction between life and machine--while we have a huge evolutionary reason why the two are different).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

There isn't really a whole lot more to say, since Behe doesn't even begin to have an educated view of science and its putative relationship to "materialism". Once again he is simply showing his ignorance, the vast wasteland out of which he and his cohorts produce their "thought".

— Glen Davidson

Registered User quoted Behe:

"The danger to Christians from osmosing alien, materialistic presumptions, I think, far outweighs the danger of being wrong about any particular scientific point."

Then kindly translated for us:

"Translation: you're better off lying for Jesus than lying for the devil."

I think a more accurate translation of Behe's meaning is "You're better of lying for Jesus than *speaking truth* for the devil."

Lynn

Bravo Lynn
As one of those Xtians pointed out once the Devil makes a better theologian than many so called Xtians.

When you sell your soul for Mammon who do you serve ?

The thing that saves Behe is he couldn't lie TO SAVE himself.
Obviously deluded but disarmingly honestly deluded.

Unlike his fellow creationists except wild bill Dembski he has yet to get on a stand and face the acid test. Although I think he would take the money and run away with some lame excuse like he did at Dover. His ego is so damn huge he makes the Enron guy on the stand now (Lay?) look like a pansy.

Coffee break over heads down.

Uh... maybe I'm overexposed, but this seems a little "no true scotsman"ish. I think you really need to elaborate further on what you mean by "scientist", and how Behe has breached that definition, if this statement is to be justified.

How about some actual research and peer review instead of massive public relation campaigns.

I noticed my "real ID vs. fake ID" message got quoted up above, so I thought I'd expand on it.

Back in the day, I was reading sci.math on Usenet, where a guy named Archimedes Plutonium was explaining that he'd disproven Fermat's Last Theorem by finding a counter-example. People explained the flaw in his proof: He was using infinite strings of digits, which aren't "numbers" in the context of Fermat's Last Theorem.

He was a bit of a kook, so he just kept insisting that his definition of "number" was the "right" one, and the whole thing collapsed into a huge flamewar.

When I came back to the group a few weeks later, he was still ranting away, but some other people had realized that he'd re-invented p-adics, and that led to some interesting discussions.

I think the same thing applies to ID. Even if the researchers are complete crackpots, there's still a chance that they'll stumble onto something interesting...but that assumes that they're doing research, and not just producing lawsuits and press releases.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any real ID researchers. Some of the people over at Telic Thoughts seem to have the right motives, but they're not doing any original research.

Chaos_engineer said:
Some of the people over at Telic Thoughts seem to have the right motives

I wish I could agree with you CE but every single IDer that I have come across has fallen in love with pseudo science.
Pseudo scientists exist in all sorts of fields not just evolution, their ego drives them. IDers fall into a predictable range between YEC and agnostics but not atheists(interestingly). And if they say they are atheists they are lying.....That about sums them up. Oh and not one of them is doing any research, except quote mining old science papers to find a gap for their delusion, which for them is like finding gold except its fools gold. And no matter what....when the evidence is as plain as the nose on their faces, reality does not disabuse them of their wishful thinking.
The absolute best thing that will come out of ID is the proof, if any is needed, that ordinary people will believe extraordinary stories despite all the facts.
Gullibility plus neurosis or psychosis are useful to the blind who wish to lead the blind. (I think I'll copy write that last sentence)

Gullibility plus neurosis or psychosis are useful to the blind who wish to lead the blind. (I think I'll copy write that last sentence)

Comment #99587 Posted by bigdumbchimp on May 1, 2006 02:14 PM (e) How about some actual research and peer review instead of massive public relation campaigns.

They can't do research. And I don't mean they're merely too dumb, I mean they have to accomodate the Young Earth Creationists. You can't come up with a theory of the history of life which accomodates Young Earth Creationism. It would be like trying to come up with a theory of the US which accomodates the South winning the Civil War. There's just too much evidence against it, it won't jibe.

Or, as I've always said, the most successful used car salesman is the one who is able to convince himself first. [©2004, all rights reserved.]

— Russell

It would be like trying to come up with a theory of the US which accomodates the South winning the Civil War. There's just too much evidence against it, it won't jibe.

— steve s

The slickest arguments - from the perspective of the public, if not those of us who see right through them - come from those who seem to know that they are peddling nonsense.

So they just advocate a "critical analysis" of the "Civil War" for high school students, knowing quite well that the phony "open mindedness," strategically placed before students really learn anything substantial about the Civil War, will allow them to accommodate their wishful thinking that the South won.

OK I'm listening, won what ?