More Dembski delusions

Number of non-white associates at ICR . . . . . zero.

Number of nonwhite associates at AiG . . . . . zero.

Number of non-white Fellows of the Center for (The Renewal of) Science and Culture . . . . . zero.

Hmmmmmm . . . . . . . . anyone see a pattern here . . . . ?

Indeed, the thread where we watch Dembski's blog and laugh is the most popular thread at After the Bar Closes, by a country mile.

William Dembski's introduction to "What Darwin Didn't Know" (2004), "Why then,does Darwinism continue to garner such a huge following, especially among the intellectual elites? Two reasons: 1) It provides a materialistic creation story that dispenses with and need fpr design or God (This is very convenient for those who want to escape the demands of religion, morality, and conscience)."

So see? Just embrace non-materialism and then you can be forgiven all your lies, and once forgiven you can lie and lie and lie....

As presented by Billy Dembski, I might have thought that there was something afoot here, but, according to the Berkland Baptist Church's own website, the "congregation" is primarily Asian, apparently mostly Korean, http://www.berkland.org/berkeley/ From Berkland Baptist Church's Webpage:. "BBC ministers to Asian-American college students, graduate students and young adults" and " The vibrant, mostly Asian-American church exists primarily to minister to students ... according to its founder and first pastor Paul Kim."

Berkland is an Asian American church according to http://www.xanga.com/groups/group.aspx?id=256897 , a " Berkland xanga blogring" So, we have young...Asian...Christians, some of whom are fundamentalists.

I noticed that when Billy Dembski was asked directly on his blog if he thought Padian was a racist, he didn't respond. This makes sense, since that would be legally actionable, and Dembski's silence speaks far more eloquently about how low the scumbag has sunk. He can't convince any reputable scientists of his claims, he can't manage to ooze his slimy stench on over to Dover to testify, but boy can he try to smear a person indirectly.

I'd be willing to bet money Billy got his ass kicked regularly as a kid and this forum of his provides him an outlet for that past pain. Okay, it's a good thing that Billy Dembski is nearly always wrong, but for him and his utterly worthless group of lickspittle toadies to post up Padian's phone number...well. That just speaks of how low these weasels are.

It boggles my mind how, after abandoning christianity (thanks in large part to creationists, I might add), I find myself drawn even more strongly to the concept of evil--and men like Dembski are the reason. Thanks, Billy, for reminding me just how morally bankrupt religionists like you truly are.

Sounder, I couldn't agree more.

It's been my experience that those who are most immoral are the most vocal about others' immorality. I think this is just another example of what an upstanding, God fearing Christian Billy D truly is.

What a great insight into the true compulsive lying habits (er...I meant morality)of Bill Dembski and friends.

In March, Berkeley's IDEA Club sponsored two talks that I gave to packed houses on the Berkeley campus (go here)

(Note: 'Berkland' is derived from Berkeley + Oakland

It makes me sick. Don't the have a rule/law of "no false witness/testimony" ???

Not if you're LFG* apparently.

*Lying For Jesus^TM

hmm. I lived in both places, and trying to combine the two into a conglomerate makes about as much sense as "Los Angelisco"

I am the person who went along (foolishly) with what William Dembsky said at his Uncommon Descent Blog and agreed that what was presented there sounded racist to me. I was wrong and wish to publicly say so, as is only right and honorable.

However, I have, over the past two days, attempted three times to post a comment at Uncommon Descent and have grown to believe that dissent is the only uncommon thing there, since each time it has remained unposted. I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions. Here is my post that I intended to leave there for public viewing and have been essentially forced to post here -------------------

Dr. Dembski: This represents the third time I have asked to have my comment posted. If it does not appear, I can only assume that you or your moderator has chosen to deliberately omit it, a proposition I find troubling and unethical, since my comment is not insulting or deprecatory to *anyone*. The post is as follows: After viewing the responses to Dr. Dembski's assertions on "The Panda's Thumb," and some sleuthing on my own, I am going to retract any claims --on *my* part --of racism against Kevin Padian. It appears that the Berkland church groups are mostly Asian and were not singled out unfairly, merely to note that they are the kind of audiences Neo-Darwinians would like to reach.

It appears to me as though Dr. Dembski is misinformed because there are some serious discrepancies between what Dr. Dembski has posted here and what is claimed by both the NCSE ( personal communication) and a female (Christian) colleague of mine who attended Padian's talk. Perhaps you can clarify these points, Dr. Dembski, and the points posted at "Panda's Thumb" on the dating of your claims. What Padian said was not "racist" anymore than it is "racist" to say that there are a large number of European hockey players in the NHL who might be good spokesmen for Christianity. To mention the geographic origins of any group is not *inherently* "racist."

To try to smear a man as a racist without good cause is, however, inherently unethical, (which I am sure you would agree with) and to deny the right of a dissenter (me) from having a NON-INSULTING disagreement with your point of view is frankly disturbing. If one claims to be an ethical and moral human being, then one has to walk the walk and not merely mouth the words. And if it is in fact DaveScot censoring this post, I would have thought the Marines taught men the meaning of honor.

End post---------------------------------------------------------

I have placed this here because of the apparent refusal of Mr. Dembski or DaveScot to post this in their forum. I have done so to apologize to Padian and to point out my personal disagreement with the manner in which Mr. Dembski "runs" his blog.

Apparently, there is a strong tradition of censoring comments at the UD blog. Anything that might usurp their perceived authority is not allowed.

Mr JPadilla, your post is to be commended. It is the mark courage to admit, in front of an audience, that he/she was mistaken about something.

Sadly, as you have noticed, Dembski and his blog cronies are unable to make similar admissions. Nor are they able to handle the criticism of others (who may otherwise be sympathetic to their cause). What you have experienced is nothing new. I have heard of countless similar stories of comments being removed and commenters being banned.

Andrew

Earlier this year I counted up all the comments on Uncommonly Dense and Panda's Thumb for an entire month. PT posts got something like 40 comments on average, while UD posts got around 8. Mr. Padilla here is a case study in why this is so. Who would consistently put effort into commenting if they were very likely to be deleted by some tinpot censor? IIRC, we even found that the discussion thread at AtBC where we mock UD, got more comments per time than the whole of UD.

Here is Kevin Padian's phone number 510-524-3456 and his office number @ (510) 642-7434. Since he is so open with criticizing individuals, he must be open to his own personal and individualized criticism from others. We should all let him know how much of a racist he is. Comment by blooooger --- May 9, 2006 @ 2:52 pm

Dembski corrected the statement about the KU talk. It was not Padian but someone who went in Padian's place.

ombudsman, do you think there's a chance the good doctor will provide us with, you know, the actual sentence this "racist" remark was made in?
Because, well, quoting, not a paragraph, not a single phrase, but three independent words out of their context is just about as lame as quote-mining can get.
What do you say?

7. At the Berkeley Defend Science panel in April, Padian did note that Dembski's audience had been much larger than the Defend Science event, and had been predominantly asian-american and fundamentalist. Having personally attended Dembski's lectures, I can confirm that the audience was probably 80%+ people of asian ancestry, and not all Berkeley students --- the audience included folks from around the Bay Area, and from people I talked to at the event I gathered it had been publicized in local churches. The only time I've ever seen something similar was when Kent Hovind came to speak at Cal a few years back.

Comment #100377 Posted by ombudsman on May 11, 2006 09:00 AM (e) | kill ... Point 7 is an admission that the racially loaded term was indeed used in the talks.

Oops. Evolutionists got caught at KU after all. Who'da thunk it.

Most interesting post, ombudsman. Thanks!

FL

Having read the Dembski entry, I cant see anything about it that makes anyone out to be racist, so I cant understand what "Ombudsman" is on about.

After all, is it so wrong to say that someone is an enemy of science if they support ID, something religiously based with no scientific merit at all?

hmm. I lived in both places, and trying to combine the two into a conglomerate makes about as much sense as "Los Angelisco" unless things have changed drastically in the last 10 years or so, Oakland and Berkeley are quite different cities indeed.

For the record - I was another who attempted to post on Uncommon Descent on this subject. I foolishly did not keep the exact text but it was to point out that the accusation was based on what one anonymous person told another anonymous person who then told Dembski and that at least one person in this chain made an error (since admitted and corrected).

In view of the threats to Judge Jones it does seem that this gossip mongering could have serious results one day.

I also think JPadilla did very well. What a good idea to repeat rejected Uncommon Descent comments here. Maybe this is the beginning of a new concept - the shadow blog for rejected comments.

The fact remains that Padian and others in the Defend Science group are describing who the enemies of science are using a racial adjective. It's even worse that it wasn't Padian but rather a colleague who delivered the talk at KU. Now instead of just one bad apple singling out enemies of science by race it's an institution that's doing it.

— ombudsman

Point 7 is an admission that the racially loaded term was indeed used in the talks.

The fact remains that Padian and others in the Defend Science group are describing who the enemies of science are using a racial adjective. It's even worse that it wasn't Padian but rather a colleague who delivered the talk at KU. Now instead of just one bad apple singling out enemies of science by race it's an institution that's doing it.

Given that I'm Asian American AND that I'm a community activist, I REALLY RESENT IT when asshats like you try to speak for me.

You trying to say that you know better than I do what is or is not racist about me?

Sounds like you're pointing the racism in the wrong direction, son....

Mark and Padilla - Yes, well said.

"I also think JPadilla did very well. What a good idea to repeat rejected Uncommon Descent comments here. Maybe this is the beginning of a new concept - the shadow blog for rejected comments."

However, Mark, there could be a problem - PT might have to double the size of the band-width to handle all the banned comments!

Once again, the weasels at Uncommon Declivity provide me with mirth for my morning meal.

According to "Ombudsman," saying "young" and "asian" and "fundamentalists" (in that order?)now equates to "enemies of science" (as if that was ever actually said at all or even implied).

Can you dig deeper into that bin of lies you gather your claims from, Ombudsman? Wait! Billy Dembski already has! In his "explanation" of why he was wrong, he creatively interprets those three words to mean that this relatively minor church is "pervasive" and "large" and "making it harder to teach" ( Although Padian didn't exactly say that either, eh, Billy?).

Why, no, not even Billy's "informant" says that at all, merely that Padian remarked that his lecture attendees and billy's audience were "were different"... because the latter's were 'young,' 'Asian,' and 'fundamentalist.'

Billy further omits that this remark's CONTEXT was one in which Padian did not call anyone an "enemy of science" but merely one that has to be reached out TO, because they are who attended Billy's lecture.

As to Dembski's CLAIM that Padian explicitly stated "this is who we are up against," can Billy or Billy's (invisible friend?) informant please provide evidence that this was in fact stated?

I for one see no reason to believe that this is true either, until I see some documentation, since Billy (or Billy's invisible informant) has already admitted to error and Billy has been quite creative in "interpreting" things that were NOT said. Billy has been caught lying his pasty (oops, is that "racist" too?)ass off far too many times for me to take him at his tainted word.

I also think JPadilla did very well. What a good idea to repeat rejected Uncommon Descent comments here. Maybe this is the beginning of a new concept - the shadow blog for rejected comments.

JPadilla, what you did was indeed honorable and thanks for posting about it here. It appears your attempt to do what is right has resulted in you becoming a non-person at Dembski's blog. Such is often the case for those who are honest or think for themselves there.

You're welcome to post here or the After the Bar Closes forum.

Cheers and welcome!

Chris

Comment #100377 Posted by ombudsman on May 11, 2006 09:00 AM (e)

Dembski corrected the statement about the KU talk. It was not Padian but someone who went in Padian's place. The mention of Berkland and young Asian fundamentalists was still in the talk at KU according to Dembski's sources.

The fact remains that Padian and others in the Defend Science group are describing who the enemies of science are using a racial adjective. It's even worse that it wasn't Padian but rather a colleague who delivered the talk at KU. Now instead of just one bad apple singling out enemies of science by race it's an institution that's doing it.

So Matzke's points 1 through 5 are void as the same talk was delivered by a Padian stand-in in KU. Point 6, whether or not Berkland was mentioned by name, is beside the main point. Point 7 is an admission that the racially loaded term was indeed used in the talks. Point 8 is dissembling in that Padian indirectly, if not directly, did indeed identify young asian fundamentalists as enemies of science and one might reasonably that being labled an enemy of science is derogatory.

Being from an Asian-American family, I also have to wonder how pointing out that my family members are Asian-American is racist.

When person A pulls the race card against person B because person B identifies the ethnicity of person C (sorry for the convolutions), I have to wonder if person A thinks person C's group is so weak they need defending - which is a form of racism, isn't it?

I don't know who to make my idea more clear and remain succinct. Perhaps someone else can restate my point.

***

Since we have yet to see a transcript of the talk Dembski is referring to, I have to refer to my own experience with Asian-American Christian fundamentalits.

My Chinese in-laws often attend a church that has a very fundamentalist orientation. I sometimes go to take care of my kids so the grandparents can participate in the meeting. The sermon is piped into the playroom, so I hear it in Mandarin and English. There have been many attributions of miracles, but, so far, I have never heard any comment from the clergy one way or the other regarding ID, creationsism or evolution.

Some of my former collegues from the biotechnology industry attend that church, and I asked one what he thought of the evolution-creation discussion. He demurred, somehwat, saying he was an organic chemist and did not have expertise in the field (! See note 1), but in his opinion, things were too ordered-looking to have come about randomly. I asked him if he ever relied on an intelligent designer when he set up his HPLC experiments, and he didn't know what I was talking about. I explained as objectively as I could about the ID philosophy and he assured me that all of his scientific work was done sceintifically. Because he works in an FDA-controlled industry, one could expect nothing else, because, so far, the FDA has not allowed ID-science as a basis for development of medical treatments. (See note 2).

In my experience, Chinese-Americans from Taiwan and Hong Kong, and Korean-Americans from South Korea tend to be Christians and participate in evangelical and fundamentalist churches. (See note 3 and note 4) They are, on the whole, college grads and post-grads working in science, engineering and finance. And most, as far as I have experienced, are like my friend - They believe the creation story, but live their secular lives in a secular manner.

Is this a group we who want to defend the division of church and state need to reach? Yes. I don't know that we need to focus any more attention on this group than any other, however.

****
Editorializing about my own post:

Note 1 - I wish all scientists had the same intellectual integrity as my friend: He has a PhD in organic chemistry and recognizes that his opinon about evolution is just an opinon.

Note 2 - We could start a whole 'nother website about what passes for science at the FDA and the non-scientific influences that lead to drug releases. And, in fact, I think many people have done so.

Note 3 - Mainland Chinese, especially if they grew up in the Cultural Revolution (more like purge) tend to be de-facto atheists.

Note 4 - "Asian-American" is such a pointless term, because it is too broad. I think most people think of Han-looking Asians ("almond" eyes, black hair, brown skin) when they hear "Asian-Americans" but since Asia includes Russia, Australia, Turkey and other Black Sea and Caspian Sea nations, "Asian-American" includes a lot of folks of caucasian origin.

Note 4 - "Asian-American" is such a pointless term, because it is too broad. I think most people think of Han-looking Asians ("almond" eyes, black hair, brown skin) when they hear "Asian-Americans" but since Asia includes Russia, Australia, Turkey and other Black Sea and Caspian Sea nations, "Asian-American" includes a lot of folks of caucasian origin.

Note 4 - "Asian-American" is such a pointless term, because it is too broad. I think most people think of Han-looking Asians ("almond" eyes, black hair, brown skin) when they hear "Asian-Americans" but since Asia includes Russia, Australia, Turkey and other Black Sea and Caspian Sea nations, "Asian-American" includes a lot of folks of caucasian origin.

As you may or may not know, "Asian American" is a created term, born in the 1960s during the student protest era (the Third World student strikes, SF State, etc.). It was a term for empowerment for the Japanese American, Filipino American and Chinese Americans of the time (since they made up the vast majority of Asian Americans), creating a term for themselves, as opposed to having a term placed upon them by outsiders, and to help multiply their political power. In subsequent years, this term was expanded to include other groups who were treated similarly in this country; please note that the emphasis is not on the country of origin, but on how members of the group are acted upon by social forces in this country.

Of course it's well and good to point out what a dishonest lout Dembski, along with most anyone still allowed to post at Uncommon Descent, is. But there has never been a mote of integrity, intellectual or otherwise, in evidence over there, so naturally this latest isn't surprising.

What's interesting is that Dembski seems to be used by the DI and IDiots in general as mere muckraker at this point. He appears to be damaged goods, not suitable to put up as a witness at Dover, not able to put out anything that non-IDiots consider to be even remotely convincing (except perhaps in the abstract--not according to his non-empirical claims about the "real world"), and now, not for anything that pretends to honesty about his opponents. He's the bad cop, editor of the IDiot version of Weekly World News, or some other blatantly dishonest tabloid. It no longer matters that he preserve credibility, since he has none among the knowing, and needs none among those who love and believe a lie.

There is nothing but praise for Dembski and condemnation for Padian at Uncommonly Dense. He's a straight demagogue, and evidently that is exactly what is desired and rewarded by the IDiots today, all done under the aegis of the DI. Others associated with this appalling "think tank" hope that they appear to keep their hands clean, while the libels and slander are performed by the hit man that they have designated and hired. Yes, Paul Nelson ought to have more integrity than to continue to associate with such slime, and if he doesn't we'll know something about him that we didn't know, or at least wanted not to know.

This may backfire against these guys, because no matter how low they have proven to be in the past, they have sunk even below that sewer at this point. They seem to be doing desperate things now, for they lost big at Dover, and the fundies themselves are coming against the IDiots that they only tolerated as a means to win legally. In fact, I've noticed that our arguments against the vacuity of their term "designer" has been picked up by YECers, who like to point out that their own designer is "known" (of course this isn't even slightly true in a scientific sense (the YEC god is only "known" as a set of names in the Bible), but I like to see them recognizing that ID is vacuous for the same reasons that we do).

Dembski may be trying to prove something that has not been in evidence for a long time, namely, that he has some teeth. But I suspect that he's going to be considered even more damaged and "unclean", and he may tend to drag down "clean hands" Nelson and Behe, et al, in the process. Either they're going to have to declare Dembski persona non grata, or they're going to pay the consequences for continuing to associate with people as low as Dembski and DaveScot. It's going to be fun to watch how the self-inflicted damage to the DI and other IDiots plays out.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

At what point does Dembski's comments pass into the realm of Libellous Things One Can Legitimately be Sued For?

"Ombudsman" is "DaveScot". His comment as a banned commenter has been unpublished.

Moses asks: Do you even know what an ombudsman does? His job is to investigate and rectify/prevent administrative errors. Not excuse false charges of racism and bigotry made by his friends. That's the job of the Grand Wizard.

The spell checker function now works.

I don't see the racism.

Are the people at church fundamentalists?

If the answer is yes, then how is this derogatory?

Are the people at the church predominantly young?

If the answer is yes, then how is this derogatory?

Are the people at the church are Asian?

If the answer is yes, then how is this derogatory?

My take on this is that Dembski has nothing left to argue so he is taking the Michelle Malkin approach. Manufacture bogus outrage over nothing and hope nobody looks behind the claims at the actual facts. It has worked well for Malkin in that she sells books, gets face time on television shows, and probably makes a pretty decent living. It is also completely dishonest.

Interesting. "ombudsman," who claims that the use of "asian" and "young" and "fundamentalist" = "racist"...is the same VIOLENTLY HYPOCRITICAL DAVESCOT ...THE MODERATOR OF UNCOMMON DESCENT who wrote http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/451

"Islam is a cancer growing on the planet. It needs to be killed not accomodated. It's an ugly, dysfunctional belief system even in milder forms, that subjugates the female half of the population. However, since we can't just kill them all (we can kill the worst offenders though) we have to put a more attractive alternative in place. The more attractive alternative is democracy. Islam can't survive in democracies for long. It won't go down without a fight so there must be some bloodshed before it's a closed chapter in history."

And : "...Islam is a disease that has no place in the civilized world. That's the only public awareness I'm interested in promoting. I really don't care at all if that's what you expect of me or not. I expect you to be a little less naive but we don't always get what we expect. "
Comment by DaveScot - November 7, 2005 @ 6:17 am

Billy Dembski and EunuchDaveScot: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.

Billy Dembski -- Instructions for your future lying posts: 1)Open Mouth (2)Insert foot (3) Shoot foot (4) Repeat

Data collected from the 2000 census, population estimates from 2004, a 2002 survey of business owners and 2002 statistics from the Selig Center for Economic Growth were used for the report, which breaks down the AAPI population into individual ethnic communities, rather than keep everyone grouped together. Community leaders hope the disaggregated information will defy the myth of the "model minority," which stereotypes AAPIs as well-educated and well-to-do people. Nationally, Asian American entrepreneurs own more than 1.1 million businesses and AAPI buying power has tripled since 1990, from $118 billion to $363 billion in 2004. These statistics, however, mask the disparities among ethnic groups, said Nadine Shiroma, founder of Eastside APIs and ROAR (or Raising Our Asian Pacific American Representation).

PS. Because there are so many references to "ombudsman's" post, I think the PT moderator needs to republish DS-ombudsman's comment, otherwise we are replying to nothing!

Check out the graphic (pAdian as a KKKer) that Davetard just posted:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/images/padianintro.jpg

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1113

"but since Asia includes Russia, Australia"

That'll come as news to the Aussies. They like to think they've got a continent all to themselves.

"but since Asia includes Russia, Australia"

That'll come as news to the Aussies. They like to think they've got a continent all to themselves.

unless things have changed drastically in the last 10 years or so, Oakland and Berkeley are quite different cities indeed.

As you may or may not know, "Asian American" is a created term, born in the 1960s during the student protest era (the Third World student strikes, SF State, etc.). It was a term for empowerment for the Japanese American, Filipino American and Chinese Americans of the time (since they made up the vast majority of Asian Americans), creating a term for themselves, as opposed to having a term placed upon them by outsiders,

LOL, the KKK cartoon post is taken down now. I saved it immediately of course, if anyone wants it. The funny thing about it is that the actual KKK was pretty anti-evolution if I remember my history.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I love watching these guys. Now that Dover's rendered them harmless, I don't fear their cons, just laugh at them.

I love to see DaveScot's attempt at anonymous cheerleading. Reminds me of Dembski's Amazon.com shenanigans from a while back.

What's really ironic about this (well, there are several things) is that 'Asian American' is about the least 'racially loaded' term imaginable. So for Dembski to be beating on Padian for using it seems to imply that NO term for Asian American is permissible to use, and that referring to them as a group in ANY way is racist. What's funny about that is that it's a perfect example of the kind of turbocharged 'political correctness' that conservatives claim to hate so much about 'liberals'.

It's also very telling that Dembski is trying to say that 'fundamentalist' is a forbidden word as well.

Nick, I think you need to put up the KKK cartoon since the cowards at Uncommon Descent took it down. Let people know exactly what they are dealing with.

It's now posted HERE:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=446347d9869fd713;act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=2790

The statement Dembski is claiming Padian made is about as racist as a marketing exec saying: "In Berkeley, we think we've achieved the highest market share we can reasonably expect among most demographic groups except fundamentalist christian asians; only about 20% of fundamentalist christian asians look favorably on our product. This is what we're up against."

It's not racist to point out that people of different backgrounds behave differently in ways that seem to correspond to race. Race exists and people differentiate according to it in many ways. It is racist, however, to use BS accusations of racism in others to. further one's own dishonest agenda, in my opinion

Is someone keeping a consolidated list of Dembski lies?

It could prove invaluable to someone cross examining Dembski if he ever manages to pluck up enough courage to climb into a witness box.

Oh, hell, I turn away to do some work and the cretins try once again to outdo themselves. Okay, false accusations of racism. False claims of statements by Padian. Padian mocked as a KKK-Freakin'-member over utter lies posted on Dembski's Delusional Den? What IS the threshold for a viable libel case on the internet nowadays?

They're not all that different. The Rockridge area is shared by both, as is the upscale residential band in the hills and the depressed band in the flats. South Berkeley isn't quite as bad as East Oakland, but other than that you can easily move between the cities without noticing.

I would assume the term was specifically designed to replace 'Oriental'. (Which I still hear in the midwest but NEVER hear in California.)

Yup.

yeah, right, and their downtowns look exactly the same too. oh, and what about the way each is governed? oh yeah, exactly the same. /sarcasm are you sure you actually live there??

"but since Asia includes Russia, Australia" That'll come as news to the Aussies. They like to think they've got a continent all to themselves.

northern half of Oakland.

actually, let me reword that.

not the northern HALF, more like the northern 1/8th of Oakland is indistinguishable from the southern 1/8 of Berkeley.

and neither city would define themselves by these areas.

actually, let me reword that. not the northern HALF, more like the northern 1/8th of Oakland is indistinguishable from the southern 1/8 of Berkeley. and neither city would define themselves by these areas.

Check out the graphic (pAdian as a KKKer) that Davetard just posted

— Mr. Christopher

Hmm. "Ombudsman" can also be an anagramm for "Dumbo's Man"...

Hmmm ... the image generates a 404 and the link to the post says none is found. Pulled by Billy?

It seems the peanut gallery liked the "Defenders of Science" political satire so much they archived it at antievolution.org" Check it out quick before they make it disappear! Comment by DaveScot --- May 11, 2006 @ 4:28 pm

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation

Oh, and hey FL, since you're so gung ho about hunting down racists and all, would you mind explaining to me why neither ICR nor AIG nor Discovery Institute's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture has any leading figures, of any note, who are not white (and, with the lone exception of Nancy Pearcy, white MALES, to boot)?

Is there some legitimate scientific reason for that, FL?

Whereas there are lots of minorities and women on the Panda's Thumb crew?

Speak for yourself, guy!

Hmm. "Ombudsman" can also be an anagram for "Dumbo's Man"...

Posted by Pizza Woman on May 11, 2006 06:59 PM (e) Speak for yourself, guy!

yeah, right, and their downtowns look exactly the same too.

— Sir_Toejam

oh, and what about the way each is governed? oh yeah, exactly the same. /sarcasm

are you sure you actually live there??

just because cities overlap in spots, or have similar geography in spots, DOES NOT make them similar in whole.

Hard to read copy archived here

— steve s

Whereas there are lots of minorities and women on the Panda's Thumb crew?

— steve s

All the pizzas mah heart belong to Lenny!

Well, at least until Monday, when LPG gets back from his hard-earned vacation.

Dang, it's gonna be hard to give up that Vikin' Piss, too. (Beats the heck out of mere tips, far's ahm concerned, wipes foam from mouth.) But each to their own.

And there is the ravishing goddess Andrea Bottaro.

I didn't know if Andrea was female or an Italian guy.

— steve s

Um, do you work or live there?

And there is the ravishing goddess Andrea Bottaro.

Boy, I'm flattered. First time anyone called me "goddess". Or did you mean "godless"?

I didn't see the KKK cartoon, but William Dempski has pulled it from the site, describing it as "totally inappropriate". Not that that excuses whatever the original cartoon was, or the rather baffling Spanish Inquisition "joke" that has replaced, but, well, y'know, whatever, it's gone now. Which is something.

Boy, I'm flattered. First time anyone called me "goddess". Or did you mean "godless"?

— Andrea Bottaro

If we are going to talk about the moral highground here, do realize the power and authority in academia are not in the hands of Dembski or Berkland. Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it's the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it's not explicitly stated. If you are going to argue against that, just look at the Sternberg case. Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission. Try saying grace with Kevin Padian there.

The following actually happend during a med school interview..."So I see you are a Christian, what is your view on abortion?" I fail to see how this relates to someone who wants to be a pathologist.

NCSE claims it is the scientific process that's at stake. I adhere to the scientific process, but I don't believe in scientific naturalism. (see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/unfair.cfm) They are two different things. Adherence to scientific naturalism should not be the criterion, but adherence to scientific process is.

"Young Asian Fundamentalist"

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

I adhere to the scientific process, but I don't believe in scientific naturalism. (see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/unfair.cfm) They are two different things. Adherence to scientific naturalism should not be the criterion, but adherence to scientific process is.

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

The following actually happend during a med school interview..."So I see you are a Christian, what is your view on abortion?" I fail to see how this relates to someone who wants to be a pathologist.

Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it's the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it's not explicitly stated.

— JFWANG

If you are going to argue against that, just look at the Sternberg case.

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

1) On politically incorrectness of ID in grad school admission- I mentioned the Sternberg case in my post as an evidence of persecution. If you believe the "persecution" is just in my mind, then I really can't convince you otherwise. I don't know of any studies. But if you think anybody would put church activities (unless it's unitarian) on their resume for grad school, you must be mistaken. Assume YOU are on the admissions committee and someone highly qualified (years of undergrad research in lab, good grades, demonstrated interest in the subject..etc.) comes up for review with a blurb on serving as a missionary, would you look upon that experience negatively? I personally know examples of the above, but the applicants were smart enough to avoid putting "church" in their list of activities.

2) On the difference of scientific process and scientific naturalism- The scientific process is a method of inquiry. It is limited in scope in detecting immaterial things. Scientic naturalism is a materialist PHILOSOPHICAL belief that all matters in universe can be explained with the scientific method. However, Scientific naturalism cannot be proven with the scientific method. Carl Sagan believed the universe always existed. Christians believe God alwyas existed. Neither claims can be substantiated with the scientific process. (actually Sagan's been proven wrong in his assertion, but that's not really important. big bang can still be explained as "always existed")

Of course, the inquiry into origin is an legitimate and valuable endeavor. Like Russell, I find a large part of my life's joy coming from satisfying my mind. Given the incredible complexity of life and the current lack of a materialist mechanism of origin (no one's able to show a RNA strand forming from the early atomsphere), I tend to believe in an "intelligence" for origin. Of course others have the right to believe in random chance for orgin. My stance cannot be proven. Materialist stance can be proven, but is highly unlikely to be proven. Any decision on this the matter of origin in the current time is rash, but alas, we all have to choose a side based on probability.

The majority of basic research has little to do with belief in evolution. What's the connection of doing a western blot with a belief in evolution? Most research has to do with how things work, not how things came about.

3) On being called a "retard"- please qualify on your criteria. I believe in the scientific process, but also see its limitations. I do not believe in scientific materialism.

On being called a "retard"- please qualify on your criteria.

The last sentence should have read: "I believe in the scientific process, but also see its limitation. I do not believe in scientific naturalism."

Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it's the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it's not explicitly stated.

— JFWANG

If you are going to argue against that, just look at the Sternberg case.

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

Try saying grace with Kevin Padian there.

JFWang:

FYI, what you are labeling "the scientific process" is typically referred to as "methodological naturalism" when it is being contrasted with scientific naturalism (aka ontological naturalism or physicalism).

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

1) Casting pearls infront of pigs- sounds a little familiar...if by pearls you mean applying the scientific process to examine evidence, I am all for it. If by pearls you mean scientific naturalism, then it's only valuable if you want to live an uberman life. It cannot be proven to be objectively true, so believe whatever you want.

2) On academic freedom and loyalty oath- The problem with a royalty oath is academic freedom, not necessarily being communist or anarchist. The question is whether students not believing in materialist evolution are capable of doing outstanding research and adding to human knowledge. You examined the evidnece, read the research proposal, and make a determination. Religious activity should not enter into consideration.

If I was a math grad student at Ohio State, then I don't think I have that much to worry about. You think we want to keep our mouths shut and keep anonymous in discussions? Kurt Wise is teaching in middle Tennessee. I don't want to be doing research in Tennessee. (I assume one of Gould's Ph.D.s should have enough research ability to not teach there given a choice.)

3) My apologies for the blurb on Padian. I have not met nor taken classes from him, so I should not have simply assumed he would object to me praying. However, after reading about his political affiliations, I would feel extremely uncomfortable revealing my religiosity.

I admit such "persecution" has never happend to me, but then I am really careful with what I say and who I say it to. Plenty of stories with people around me. Do you want to take my word for it? I had asked earlier about the scenario when YOU are on the admissions committee. What do you yo'll think?

Materialism can be as strong of a exclusive claim on truth as any religion. Read the below.

http://telicthoughts.com/?p=640

"Our art department at UD is working on a more suitable image drawn from the Spanish Inquisition."

Well, I hope UD recieved permission to repost (reprint) copyrighted-owned images.

Perhaps the owners of Monty Python rights would be interested in how UD procured and is implementing THEIR property.

JFWang,

I think Andrea did a good job dealing with your worries in the comments section of the Telic Thoughts post.

Sure, nearly anything "can be as dogmatic" as anything else. PZ Meyers is an easy target, too. He seems to be a very good scientist, but when he discusses issues outside of science, he "can be as dogmatic" as any other crank.

So forget about him. (Unless you want to post to his blog.) You can talk to me, instead.

My first question: What is materialism?

Sorry, your exact words were not "can be as dogmatic" - I misquoted. If the reader will grant that "dogmatic" can mean the same thing as "strong of a exclusive claim on truth" then we can continue.

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

I think both of us recognized that being of different religions, it would be rather ill-mannered to talk to the other about religion without being asked. Was that my 'keeping my faith secret'? If so, what's so horrible about that?

Hey.

Isn't it a sin to keep one's Christian faith secret for material gain?

1) Materialism- ontological naturalism. The philosophical belief that nothing supernatural exists in the universe. Basically, the scientific process is sufficient to explain everything in the universe. But can someone please explain to me how you would prove with the scientific process "the universe is all there is, there was, and eve will be."

2) On professors- Unfortunately, not all professors can be as open minded about religion. Some even view it as a "virus!" Yikes. You think if a IDEA club president, highly qualify as the person might be, will get a equal shot in the ph.d. admission process? The question is whether disbelief in evolution takes away from someone's ability to do scientific research under the scientific process. I don't think so. But some do. And you can see how this would affect a rec letter.

3) Sinful to keep faith secret for material gain?- I doubt anybody enters research for material gain, but I see the point you are trying to make. The short answer is...If there is no gain from unnecessary conflict, why would I start a fight? You witness with your life and your deeds, not ideas alone.

However, when I am being called a IDiot, I want people to know my philosophical position is no more far fetched than anyone elses. It is my position that you don't have to be a "retard" to be a theist. You just have to pick your fight.

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret even to get a recommendation letter and a shot at grad school admission.

But if you think anybody would put church activities (unless it's unitarian) on their resume for grad school, you must be mistaken.

2) On professors- Unfortunately, not all professors can be as open minded about religion. Some even view it as a "virus!" Yikes. You think if a IDEA club president, highly qualify as the person might be, will get a equal shot in the ph.d. admission process? The question is whether disbelief in evolution takes away from someone's ability to do scientific research under the scientific process. I don't think so. But some do. And you can see how this would affect a rec letter.

What's the connection of doing a western blot with a belief in evolution? Most research has to do with how things work, not how things came about.

However, when I am being called a IDiot, I want people to know my philosophical position is no more far fetched than anyone elses. It is my position that you don't have to be a "retard" to be a theist. You just have to pick your fight.

On arrogance of Christianity-

Ivan: "chocolate is the best ice cream flavor"

Boris: "rocky road is the best ice cream flavor"

Stalin: "vanilla is the best ice cream flavor. we will all eat vanilla ice cream from now on."

That's arrogance. What's wrong witht he above? Two things:

1) Ice cream favor is subjctive preference. Nothing can be "best" according to preference.
2) Even if you have something objective better, you don't have the right to make others go along with you.

I'll give adult jehovah's witnesses the right to refuse blood tranfusion. I'll try to persuade them as I would peruade someone not to commit suicide, but it's within their right to reject. You are given the dignity to make a response to God's invitation. Love has to be based on the dignity to chose. You can't chose to love and marry someone when a gun's pointed to your head.

I am Chinese-American and according to your logic...Christianity came to me through "imperialisit" missionaries who had nothing else better to do but come to China to force their subjective point of view on my ancestors. The problem with the above is...

1) Christianity, if true, makes an objective claim on reality. So a decision to accept or reject is warranted.
2) No one forced me to accept. In fact, there wasn't even a dangling carrot. I chose against my personal preferece for hedonism in light of the truth claim. I doubt anybody developed a love relationship with God based on threats.

Sorry, I am leaving the evo-ID discussion here. My point is Christianity is indeed exclusive, but exclusivity does not denote arrogance.

It is my position that you don't have to be a "retard" to be a theist.

— JFWANG

Sorry, I am leaving the evo-ID discussion here.

One last post before I run off to dinner...

1) On perceived "persecution"- I reread some of my posts and realized I might have come across too much of a whiner. Believe what you will, but let's all try to be generous in our own conducts.

2) Ph.D.'s on ID?- That's for the philosophy department. But scientists are still within their right to point out the short-comings of the evolutionary theory. Yes, you can still practice the scientific process, but reject materialism.

3) On western- This deserves a longer treatment. Will write on it when I get back from dinner.

Christian students have to keep their faith a secret

JFWang,

Thanks for your replies.

I'm not sure how, the scientific process is sufficient to explain everything in the universe follows from The philosophical belief that nothing supernatural exists in the universe, but if the first statement is required to be a materialist, then I am not one, even though my personal philosophy includes disbelief in anything supernatural. So I would agree with you, anyone who would make the claim that the scientific process is sufficient to explain everything in the universe is being dogmatic. I would modify it to say, "The scientific process is the best method we know of to explain everything in the universe." Perhaps we will develop a new epistemology where we can know for a fact that there are things beyond the material universe, but faith certainly is not it.

I do agree with you that unnecessary conflict has no gain. I certainly don't bring up religious issues at an insurance appointment. But necessary conflict does. If you could prove that professors were treating people of one faith differently than people of other faiths or non-faith, then you would have an establishment clause case that I would help you fight. I recognize that if it were true, it would be hard to ferret out, but your new career is to do research on hard subjects that don't yield up ready answers! You should be able to apply all the tools of evidence gathering and reasoning to this problem that you would use to find out where the active sites are in some novel protein.

There are jackasses on this web site, and I am one of them sometimes, who insult people who don't believe what they do. I agree with you again. When we act like that, we are no different than Dembski and DaveScot. If you haven't spent much time in blogland, you'll find that you have to develop a thick skin pretty quick. If there were a special filter that could edit out ad hominems, some posters would never be heard from again!

I don't believe religionists are retards, just wrong.

Adherence to scientific naturalism should not be the criterion, but adherence to scientific process is.

Yet another pointless religious war.

Is it that time of the month already?

Lessee . . .. Donald did his monthly driveby, check. FL followed with *his* monthly driveby, check. Sal then does *his* monthly driveby ---

Waaaaiiiiitttttt a second. It ain't time for the pointless religious war yet. That isn't supposed to come until AFTER Sal does his monthly driveby.

Yes, you can still practice the scientific process, but reject materialism.

Comment #100610 Posted by steve s on May 12, 2006 06:15 PM (e) Sorry, I am leaving the evo-ID discussion here.

they do bring out the worst in me.

I'm going to put Lenny in the killfile if he doesn't cool it with the chapter length cut and pastes.

Listen, (or not),

I think JFWang is not the typical fundie IDiot. I think he/she may be an honestly misled person.

Now is our chance to shine.

If we claim to want to change minds, we have to remember all those maxims about "more flies with honey" etc. Even if you don't like flies, perhaps they are just butterflies who haven't had a chance to spread their wings. (Anyone got a Precious Moments(TM) icon to place here?)

A person can be exacting in their requirements for evidence without being mean.

If someone gets caught up in Ken Ham's website and beleives all of his drivel without a chance to check it, then comes here to try and convert us, and we call them names and insult them, guess what? Ken Ham is right! We evil Darwinists really can't have a civil discussion and we really do attack anyone who doesn't believe as we do.

Your choice.

2) On academic freedom and loyalty oath- The problem with a royalty oath is academic freedom, not necessarily being communist or anarchist.

— JFWANG

If I was a math grad student at Ohio State, then I don't think I have that much to worry about. You think we want to keep our mouths shut and keep anonymous in discussions?

Kurt Wise is teaching in middle Tennessee. I don't want to be doing research in Tennessee. (I assume one of Gould's Ph.D.s should have enough research ability to not teach there given a choice.)

I think JFWang is not the typical fundie IDiot. I think he/she may be an honestly misled person. Now is our chance to shine.

Everyone has their style of debate/discussion, and I don't avoid insults at all when my opponent has consistently engaged in ..well, say the behavior and style of a Dembsky. JFWang there isn't even close to that, and in fact seems pretty patient and innocuous, if misguided.

If the International Unit of weaseldom were to be termed a "Dembsky," (Dk) ol' JFWang there would only rate a .2 Dk. He doesn't seem too bad at all, in comparison.

Ah, hell, I forgot to add that the preferred pronunciation for the IU of weaseldom (Dk) is "dÄ­k"

Hmmm..JFWang posted a comment at Dembsky's site http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1114#comment-34315 "Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it's the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it's not explicitly stated." That has raised his Dk value to .35 due to his silly assertion.

I'm going to put Lenny in the killfile if he doesn't cool it with the chapter length cut and pastes.

Oh, i don't. It's just annoying to have to put a brick on the Page Down button and go make some tea while the computer scrolls through your comment.

"Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it's the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it's not explicitly stated."

Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it's the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it's not explicitly stated. If you are going to argue against that, just look at the Sternberg case.

JFWAng: My stance cannot be proven. Materialist stance can be proven, but is highly unlikely to be proven.

Need I say more... ID is dead, long live cdesign proponentsists

Hi All,

Sorry to respond so late. Had Bible study later on in the night and just got home after hanging out with the guys. Been thinking about the issues and want to write some responses. Thank you for all the people who want to keep it civil. I really do appreciate it. I too would prefer Craig's style to Dembski's edginess.

1) western blot and homology- Agree. Working with the technology doesn't necessarily mean I thought about the ramifications. I have been thinking about the issue all night and got some ideas, but realized too I need to do a little bit more reading on the literature before I give a reply. I know you guys have a pretty low view of IDers already, so I want my answer to be relevant. Homology as a whole was something that bothered me, but I reasoned my way through it. If you want my answer to be more complete, please suggest some more literature on binding that I should consult. Otherwise I'll just have to do my best to answer over the weekend.

2) How can one accept the scientific process and reject ontological naturalism?

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

If I do not evoke supernatural agents for the hypothesis, then metaphysics do not enter the picture. It's that simple. The scientic process is limited to natural phenomenon. Creation is not a natural phenomenon. You can accuse me of intellectual dishonesty by not applying the scientific process to creation, but please show me how my "creationist" theory is any worse than martian rocks and space aliens which dodges the origin question. The theory is cells coming out of an amino acid punch bowl. Possible? yes. But you tell me how you get 300 genes together with everything fitting. On top of that, you have to give an answer on the origin of the molecules in the early atomsphere. (I thought I read somewhere there's now a physical mechanism to show how matter can arrive from nothing.) Can someone send me the name of the paper. I couldn't find one.

3) On ID is not science, Evolution is, Dover, ...etc.

I am going to first confess I never investigated the Dover case thoroughly. Just read about Dover in the times. All I have to say is...Teach the scientific process. Teach the data. Teach the pathways. Things you can see with a microscope. Let the kids decide later in life when they can see more of the evidence and understand the evidence better. Fair?

4) loyalty oath- The whole point is whether it's fair to judge someone's research ability on criteria that has nothing to do with research ability. Being communist does not impair your ability to teach monetary theory, although your brand of monetary theory will be threatening to the establishment. Being anti-neodarwin doesn't take away from your ability to do scientific research. I don't see a need for the supernatural for explaining how things work.

5) On my rightwing pastor- I don't know where to begin here. If anything, I am more concerned about social injustice...income disparity, corporate governance, medical coverage...than most people. (of course I assume by rightwing you meant the above.) I think my pastor would vote democrat if not for the abortion issue as would I for that matter. Let's not open another can of worms here.

Being Christian doesn't mean you chuck your brain at the door. I feel like if you belief is not constantly examined and even threatened, then it's not a very deep belief at all. Off to bed. I'll definitely write more on homology next time, not trying to dodge the question here.

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

I am going to first confess I never investigated the Dover case thoroughly. Just read about Dover in the times. All I have to say is...Teach the scientific process. Teach the data. Teach the pathways. Things you can see with a microscope. Let the kids decide later in life when they can see more of the evidence and understand the evidence better. Fair?

The scientic process is limited to natural phenomenon. Creation is not a natural phenomenon.

On top of that, you have to give an answer on the origin of the molecules in the early atomsphere. (I thought I read somewhere there's now a physical mechanism to show how matter can arrive from nothing.) Can someone send me the name of the paper. I couldn't find one.

1) western blot and homology- Agree. Working with the technology doesn't necessarily mean I thought about the ramifications. I have been thinking about the issue all night and got some ideas, but realized too I need to do a little bit more reading on the literature before I give a reply. I know you guys have a pretty low view of IDers already, so I want my answer to be relevant.

As I suspected, your gripe is that scienec won't accept your religious opinions WITHOUT testing them using the scientific method. Your complaint is that science simply won't accept your religious opinions on your holy-say-so.

Yes, by all means read the literature but I would much prefer to hear what you think, not regurgitation from the literature or someone else's quotes. What do your reasoning processes tell you.

Yeah, Lenny, I know that the likelihood of someone coming from that kind of perspective admitting to learnin' something new from us "evil" evo-loo-shun-ists is pretty low, but what can it hurt to have a civil conversation with the guy?

An' he does seem like kind've a sweet kid to me, not too troll-y or yucky so far...

Hey, JF? How do ya feel about, ahm, legless reptiles?

Um, Lenny, AFAICT, JFWang seems to be committed to the use of methodological naturalism in science. Indeed, he's quoting you rather approvingly on the subject, as far as I can make out. I think you're jumping to conclusions.

Actually, I was very pleased to read that JFWang thinks it's appropriate to look up what other people have written before forming his own opinion. If only all of the anti-evolutionists would do some homework before marching in with defiantly flawed opinions!

Yeah, Lenny, I know that the likelihood of someone coming from that kind of perspective admitting to learnin' something new from us "evil" evo-loo-shun-ists is pretty low, but what can it hurt to have a civil conversation with the guy?

Yes, you can still practice the scientific process, but reject materialism.

Re "Even if you don't like flies, perhaps they are just butterflies who haven't had a chance to spread their wings."

But wouldn't those be coccoons? (Or larva?)

Henry

"Berkeley back in the 50s had a loyalty oath for its faculty and now it's the same loyalty oath for graduate students across the country, except it's not explicitly stated."

No matter how you slice it, that's an exceptionally stupid, wingnutty thing to say.

4) loyalty oath- The whole point is whether it's fair to judge someone's research ability on criteria that has nothing to do with research ability.

— JFWANG

Why do so many people believe in the 'persecution' stories? Is it because ID lacks in much of any scientific relevance and thus this must be because of the evil scientists who refuse to acknowledge or print ID research? Of course no evidence of much of any ID relevant research has been presented.
Lacking even the basic evidence that ID is scientifically fruitful or that Christians are persecuted in the US for their beliefs, seems rather ridiculous and yet, recently various Christian organizations have complained of the religious persecution Christians face in the US. Imagine that...

Sigh... As a Christian myself I am quite surprised that some of my fellow Christians believe these stories without doing much digging themselves to determine the level of veracity.

Why do so many people believe in the 'persecution' stories?

I admit such "persecution" has never happend to me, but then I am really careful with what I say and who I say it to.

Wanna play that game? A biology teacher told me once that when he applied to a Catholic high school, his interviewer said "Well, we welcome everyone here - except atheists of course."

Christianity came to me through "imperialisit" missionaries who had nothing else better to do but come to China to force their subjective point of view on my ancestors.

It did. Dominicans especially went to China and insisted that anyone who would not convert would go to hell to be tortured. Eventually the Chyinese government got fed up with it and executed some and expelled others.

If the attitude of the dominicans, and other denominations, is not imperialism, I don't know what is.

Once again, DaveScot has seen fit to censor my posts at Uncommon Dissent, so I am forced to post my views in other forums. Like here. This is the post I attempted to make at Uncommon Dissent:

DaveScot says: "Suicide bombers kill/wound as many as possible, they don't know who the victims are, they don't care whether the victims have done anything wrong (perceived or real), and in their indiscrete targeting even kill people of their own creed."

You must mean "terrorists" DaveScot, not all suicide bombers. Suicide bombing is a monthly event in places like Iraq, where the relevant distinction between suicide bombers that attack military and civilian targets is clear:

1. Suicide bombing against military targets is classified by Military Historians as a form of armed violence in assymetric warfare.
2. Suicide bombing against indiscriminate or chosen civilian targets is called terrorism.

Even though you claim to have been a Marine, I'm not surprised you didn't know that, DaveScot. Your ignorance on multitudes of subjects -- as well as your hypocrisy -- seems unlimited. Quote:

Islam is a cancer growing on the planet. It needs to be killed not accomodated. It's an ugly,
dysfunctional belief system even in milder forms, that subjugates the female half of the population. However, since we can't just kill them all (we can kill the worst offenders though) we have to put a more attractive alternative in place... It won't go down without a fight so there must be some bloodshed before it's a closed chapter in history. Comment by DaveScot - November 5, 2005 @ 6:01 am

Don't bother making excuses for this, DaveScot. I know you can, but why bother? Your accusations are amazingly hypocritical. Yes, I know you claim to have said this due to Islam's alleged "subjugation" of women due to their inability to vote. You'll conveniently forget that women in the United states only got the right to vote less than 90 years ago (1920). You'll conveniently forget that women in Islam do have the right to vote in many democratic and even monarchical Islamic states. You'll forget that women in the U.S. recieve unequal pay for equal work to this day.

But that's not the point, is it, Dave? The point is that you, as a petty tyrant, have a minor position of power and brook no dissent from your simpleminded claims. And, as an innately status-concious, insecure, simple-minded "tough guy," you won't have the ethics neccessary to post this. That is pretty funny

My Point is quite simple,DaveScot, and I know you read the posts here: You excoriate Kevin Padian (again, wrongly) for saying that religious fundamentalist fanatacism that leads to murder...is wrong.

You then take that simple idea and twist it to mean that Kevin Padian somehow hates all fundamentalists and lumps all killers together unfairly, according to your erroneous redefinitions of what a suicide bomber is. As I noted, SOME suicide bombings are considered legitimate military actions when directed against military targets. But you say :

"If Padian can't tell the difference between a mass murdering suicide bomber indiscriminately blowing up crowds of people and a gunman carefully selecting a single target for murder then Padian simply isn't playing with a full deck and one has to hope he never decides to murder anyone because he isn't able to distinguish between killing a crowd of strangers and a single person against whom he holds a grudge."

Let's be quite honest, DaveScot: from what I have read at Uncommon Descent and other forums, your only interest in attacking Kevin Padian is not because he is a "racist" or that he "hates fundamentalism" because he said no such things. What you hate is that Kevin Padian testified in the Kitzmiller case, so you have embarked on what one writer at Panda's Thumb has called a "SwiftBoat" campaign.

You rail at Padian for trumped-up claims that he NEVER said and then excuse your own murderous statements about killing Muslims. This is hypocrisy. You fail to allow others to point out your errors. This is called hubris. Here is what I really think, DaveScot -- a person here, in the "After the Bar Closes" section analyzed you to what I think is a tee: You are at best a mediocre mind that was able to get in on the ground floor of a company which took off. But it was not due to your innate mental abilities--you don't *really* know math, or stats or information theory, or genetics, or much of anything. It was simply luck. You have an overweening sense of your own self-importance however, and now seek the attention of others via your imagined mental abilities, but you fail in direct debate and exchange of ideas. So you used troll tactics at "Darwinist" sites until you got the attention of William Dembsky, who used what little computer skills you have to appoint you "gatekeeper" and you now feel all filled with self-importance, but still cannot manage a coherent supported debate.

So what is left for you but to pose and preen and attack people like Padian dishonestly and hypocritically while disallowing any disagreement...while others laugh at your inanity and point out your errors and fallacies and utter lies by the boatload at places like...here.

I will vote with my feet. In Mark 6:11 says that when one is not welcome or unheard, "shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them." I believe I'll do just that.

But if you think anybody would put church activities (unless it's unitarian) on their resume for grad school, you must be mistaken.

— JFWANG

I would estimate that about one third of the several dozen applications that I reviewed this year included mention of work done in church-sponsored activities, religious studies, or missionary work. These items (like athletics) neither add to nor detract from an applicant's chances for acceptance.

* Note: I am inclined to give extra weight to students who are excellent cooks. These students have skills directly relevant to biochemistry bench work, and they tend to bring tasty items to lab meetings and parties.

Does anyone notice that DaveScot is doing us all a service by debunking (time and time again on Dembski's blog), the notion that ID isn't about religion?

Does anyone notice that DaveScot is doing us all a service by debunking (time and time again on Dembski's blog), the notion that ID isn't about religion?

— Shalini

Is a willingness to correct error a virtue? No, it is simply a minimum standard for participation in argumentation. Implying that we should be impressed that someone corrects errors that others have pointed out is like saying that a child caught with hand in cookie jar should be rewarded for the simple act of removing his hand when caught. It is only by comparison to the astoundingly bad record of antievolutionists in general in correcting their misinformation that Casey Luskin could appear virtuous in this regard. (Source)

My life's been pretty dull recently. Shrug. My mind is like a void. I haven't gotten anything done lately. I can't be bothered with anything recently.

I've just been staying at home waiting for something to happen, but I don't care. Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I can't be bothered with anything recently.

I haven't been up to much lately. I've basically been doing nothing , but it's not important. I can't be bothered with anything recently. I've just been letting everything happen without me lately.

I haven't been up to much today. I've just been letting everything happen without me. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. I've just been hanging out doing nothing. I just don't have anything to say right now. More or less nothing happening.

I've just been staying at home not getting anything done. I guess it doesn't bother me. Shrug. I haven't been up to anything. I haven't gotten much done today.