Would the Real "Michael Egnor" Please Stand Up?

There are techniques in linguistic analysis to determine authorship. Even computer programs to do it for you.

While you don't obtain certainty this way, strong likelihood is possible. This was done decades ago now to assign authorship of each of the The Federalist Papers.

It is the classic "20 post" syndrome that many creationists exhibit at TO. They realize that they have blown it, but they can't bring themselves to admit it so they ramble on and on making themselves look even worse.

All he had to do was just say, "darn, I messed up that one." How many posts ago? That is all that it would have taken to keep from doing what he has to resort to, now.

My guess is that the other scam artists at the Discovery Institute are trying to figure out a way that they can pull the plug on him without looking more like idiots themselves.

Wow, "subroveian." That's lower than a snake's belly in a ditch.

In his "response," "Egnor" manages to completely distort pretty much everything about my article, in a way that is so ham-fistedly inept that it is simply impossible for me to continue to believe that the "Michael Egnor" articles are being written by a real person who really believes what he (or she) writes.

— Mike Dunford

The link didn't work. Try this:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30329.html

Mike,

Look at it another way. after all the shellacking Egnor's ideas received in the science blogosphere, first the fig-newton of IT(D) and then the DI quacks themselves have now had to admit that eugenics is an application of ID! Actually Egnor gave the game away (dancing down the pitch forgetting where his leg stump was) and now the junior quacks are tryin to pick the pieces. As someone commented here earlier, with enemies like these who needs friends!

Frank J
From your link:
"Bork pins his own anti-evolutionary attack on Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, a recent book by biochemist Michael Behe."

A recent book?

Of course Intelligent Design Creationists also claim ID isn't out to prove Gods existence. The remainder of your link shows otherwise.

This is all the same claptrap I've been reading from IDiots for the last 10 years. "Evolution is dying", "Waterloo", "We have 600 engineers, lawyers and philosophers who say evolution is dead, along with 100 biologists, mostly chemists".

But enough. I'm about to say something that'll make a law abiding citizen scratch the Darwin fish off my car.

"Bork pins his own anti-evolutionary attack on Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, a recent book by biochemist Michael Behe." A recent book?

You start recasting the issue in ways that are still true to the science but, in fact, actually you're not talking about the science.

A vast conspiracy of Discovery Institute plants under the pseudonym of Michael Egnor is a helluva lot more parsimoniuos then Michael Egnor actually holding a degree in neuroscience.

I wonder if Egnor has a brain tumor.

It is entirely possible that the real Egnor started out posting editorials as part of his committment to the DI. It is also possible that he then tried to defend himself against the onslaught of rebuttals, possibly even in good "faith". It is then possible that he realized that this approach would leave him no time for his real job, (which probably pays more), so he might have allowed the DI to let several other people post using his name for "prestige". If this is the case, he may now regret the entire incident. Or not. Just a possibility.

As far as "if evolution is true then there is no God", I am sure that Ken Miller and millions of others would desagree. One Who Knows should know that. If you agree, then I guess you have to choose. I would recommend spending a life time studying the evidence carefully in order to make an informed choice.

There are techniques in linguistic analysis to determine authorship. Even computer programs to do it for you.

— David B. Benson

One Who knows: This whole site can be summed up thusly, Science=evolution. Evolution is true. Therefore there is no God.

This whole site can be summed up thusly, Science=evolution. Evolution is true. Therefore there is no God. Isn't that what all this is really about?

This whole site can be summed up thusly, Science=evolution. Evolution is true. Therefore there is no God. Isn't that what all this is really about?

Has anyone tried to compare Egnor's latest writings with those of "realpc?" He's been trying to "defend" Egnor by pretending to understand (and by blatantly misrepresenting) what he "really" meant, so it's quite possible that he simply decided that he could be a better Egnor than Egnor himself. Sort of like Mark David Chapman trying to take John Lennon's place.

Hopefully realpc won't go so far as to shoot Egnor, but with that lot, one never knows...

Now that we are on the subject, has anyone ever noticed how exactly one troll shows up in an attempt to derail every thread? They always have a different handle, but as soon as one disappears another takes his place. Could it be possible that someone is paying these guys for some reason? Now what could anyone possibly gain by repeating often refuted nonsense in every thread regardless of the thread topic? Maybe someone is afraid of something.

Its like the Kansas Citizens for Science site; the point over there is not science education, there is precious little of that, but constant ranting about religion.

One Who Knows -

You may know something, but you don't seem to know much about the role of the theory of evolution in biomedical science, or about "intelligent design".

I agree with all corrections that have been applied to your erroneous statement so far.

I will simply add the fact that ID is essentially a cynical political creation. It would be foolhardy to debate its merits without acknowledging the the political dimension.

My point here is not to endorse or condemn any political ideology. Lysenkoism was a politically motivated position masquerading as "science", and the fact that all of its adherents were Soviet Communists was an important part of understanding the issue. The siutation with ID is analagous.

Evidence -

1) ID books, such as the latest Jonathon Wells book, are published by Regnery Press, a self-identified right wing publisher. The latest book is part of a whole "Politically Incorrect Guide" series by Regnery.
2) The Discovery Institute is funded by figures such as Howard Ahmanson, well-known for right wing political views.
3) Funding for or support of ID from "liberal" or "moderate" religious groups is markedly lacking. Pious figures like James Carter or the Dahli Lama have spoken out in favor of mainstream science. The differentiator appears to be politics, not religion.
4) The well-known "Wedge Document" outlines political concerns and aims.
5) ID advocates shun peer-reviewed technical journals, defensible thesis development, and other means of developing or defending a legitimate scientific position, but constantly make statements to the media - and when they do, as mentioned in "1)", they are likely to be featured in Regnery or on "conservative" cable channels.
6) ID advocates have manipulated school board elections in an effort to have ID taught as science in public schools.
7) The Thomas More Legal Center, who represented the losing ID effort in Dover, is a self-described "very conservative" activist group.
8) The overwhelming majority of legislative efforts to have ID taught in public schools were introduced by conservative Republicans.
9) Of course some conservatives have denounced ID, George Will being the ever-touted example.
10) However, the bottom line is, "support for ID" is massively associated with one particular political ideology.

You'll note that I haven't tried to guess why. I have my hypotheses - pandering to fundamentalists who may not benefit economically from, or entirely agree with, the overall right wing platform, and anger at science for "not cooperating" - but no matter why, the data is the data.

With some discussion of politics, which itself always gets back to the eliminati...er, separation, of the church form the state.

By deliberately confusing "separation" with "elimination," you have just exposed both your ignorance and your own religious bigotry.

Dr. Engor has challenged the Global Darwinian juggernaut and has hence put his career in jeopardy. His heresy will make him unemployable in any academic establishment or most hospitals. Very few men approach martyrdom with unfailing courage. This is what is behind this man's apparent flip-flops.

The entire purpose of keeping religion out of public schools is not to eliminate religion, but to allow parents to raise their children as they see fit, without interference from the government. If you force the schools to teach creationism because you're a fundamentalist Christian, you'd better be prepared when you kid comes home from school and asks, "How come Mrs. Pappas makes us cross ourselves the opposite way from what Miss McCarthy taught us?" Or, "Mr. Mohammed says Jesus is just a prophet," or, "Our new teacher is a Rastafarian. What's ganja?" If you'd be happy answering those questions, go ahead and push creationism. If not, you might want to leave the science teachers alone.

but no matter why, the data is the data.

— harold

Bill Gascoyne -

Guilty as charged. Each datum is a datum.

Pumpkinhead said:

"Dr. Engor has challenged the Global Darwinian juggernaut and has hence put his career in jeopardy. His heresy will make him unemployable in any academic establishment or most hospitals. Very few men approach martyrdom with unfailing courage. This is what is behind this man's apparent flip-flops."

Gee, you'd think a world famous neurosurgeon would have tenure by now, what with all his publications and all. Of well, if he can lose his job for making stupid arguments, I guess he'll be a real martyr. Either way, flip-flopping back and forth on certain issues probably won't help.

Dr. Engor has challenged [a pathetic caricature of evolutionary biology] and has hence put his career in jeopardy. His heresy will make him unemployable in any academic establishment or most hospitals. Very few men approach martyrdom with unfailing courage. This is what is behind this man's apparent flip-flops.

— Pumpkinhead

Most regular PT posters object to ID because it fails to meet the criteria for science (repeatable, peer reviewable, publishable and making unique predictions about experiments/observations not yet done). It is not beyond the concievable boundaries that in the future a mechanism of action of supernatural power could be proposed and tested. (We're waiting patiently for the Biologic Institute to publish its double secret research). I object to ID because it is lousy theology. It makes God (and don't equivocate on the identity of the designer) a glorified person. Human beings are intelligent designers. God is transcendent and Christianity traditionally focuses on his compassion, love, mercy, forgiveness, purpose, and redempton. ID makes God the great Gepetto in the sky designing all these living puppets whose strings he gets to pull but never quite getting them right and constantly having to wipe them out and start all over again when He's not having to birth a million to get one or two to survive. He becomes the ultimate cosmic micromanager moving all the quarks and leptons around making everything happen and appear to be empirically discoverable for what purpose?? to fool us into believing that when events seem to be really happening naturally, its all phony? Why is science so useful if all that is happening around us is that some inscrutable supernatural superpower is just messing with our little minds?

Very few men approach martyrdom with unfailing courage. This is what is behind this man's apparent flip-flops.

Lots of men have approached REAL martyrdom -- i.e., unavoidable violent death -- with more courage, honesty and consistency than I've ever seen from the ID camp, most of whom -- particularly Cordova -- can't even stomach a mere grownup debate, and run away and hide in a fog of lies and self-pity the minute they start to lose an argument.

So what sort of "persecution," exactly, is causing poor Egnor to quake in his boots? If you can't describe a specific incident, I'll have to conclude that you're lying about the whole "martyrdom" thing.

Notice the difference in strategy between proponents of Intelligent Design and proponents of Darwinism. Intelligent Design scientists are energetically seeking public and academic forums to debate the science. They fight censorship from Darwinists in universities and federal lawsuits from Darwinists in public school science classes.

When the scam artists can't come up with the "science" when they need it, what is being censored? It looks like self censorship to me.

So what sort of "persecution," exactly, is causing poor Egnor to quake in his boots?

Don't you know? He says things, and he's asked to back them up, or he's shown to be wrong. How can that be fair? Doesn't everyone and everything have the same right to be praised as being correct as everyone and everything else?

According to this country's inherently dishonest first amendment...

This premise alone should serve as proof that Punkinhead neither knows nor cares what he's talking about, and does not share any common moral ground with mainstream America on which to base any adult dialogue.

Of course, since he began his presence here by calling evolutinists "sodomites," this should not surprise anyone...

Well, according to the presuppositions of the Darwinian faith, Engor is wrong. The presuppositions of the Christian faith are different. According to this country's inherently dishonest first amendment, the government has no business establishing a religion, yet it is the religion of evolutionism that has been established. It's presuppositions are assumed in all the discourse in officialdom.

let's change the Egnor quote a bit to make it more germane to his actual field of specialty: Notice the difference in strategy between the proponents of psychic neurosurgery and the proponents of traditional invasive neurosurgery. Psychic neurosurgeons are energeticaly seeking public and academic forums to debate these techniques. They fight censorship from invasive neurosurgeons in medical schools and lawsuits from board certified neurosurgeons in state medical boards. Certainly if anyone at Stonybrook made such a remark he would be up in arms over it. Regardless if scientific or even medical scientific issues could be solved by debate there would be no need for costly labs or medical trials and he knows that.

My point here is not to endorse or condemn any political ideology. Lysenkoism was a politically motivated position masquerading as "science", and the fact that all of its adherents were Soviet Communists was an important part of understanding the issue. The siutation with ID is analagous. Evidence - 1) ID books, such as the latest Jonathon Wells book, are published by Regnery Press, a self-identified right wing publisher. The latest book is part of a whole "Politically Incorrect Guide" series by Regnery. 2) The Discovery Institute is funded by figures such as Howard Ahmanson, well-known for right wing political views. 3) Funding for or support of ID from "liberal" or "moderate" religious groups is markedly lacking. Pious figures like James Carter or the Dahli Lama have spoken out in favor of mainstream science. The differentiator appears to be politics, not religion. 4) The well-known "Wedge Document" outlines political concerns and aims. 5) ID advocates shun peer-reviewed technical journals, defensible thesis development, and other means of developing or defending a legitimate scientific position, but constantly make statements to the media - and when they do, as mentioned in "1)", they are likely to be featured in Regnery or on "conservative" cable channels. 6) ID advocates have manipulated school board elections in an effort to have ID taught as science in public schools. 7) The Thomas More Legal Center, who represented the losing ID effort in Dover, is a self-described "very conservative" activist group. 8) The overwhelming majority of legislative efforts to have ID taught in public schools were introduced by conservative Republicans. 9) Of course some conservatives have denounced ID, George Will being the ever-touted example. 10) However, the bottom line is, "support for ID" is massively associated with one particular political ideology. You'll note that I haven't tried to guess why. I have my hypotheses - pandering to fundamentalists who may not benefit economically from, or entirely agree with, the overall right wing platform, and anger at science for "not cooperating" - but no matter why, the data is the data.

Here we have four-layer Devils' food cake of ad hominem abusive topped with frosting of dishonest guilt by association.

Here we have four-layer Devils' food cake of ad hominem abusive topped with frosting of dishonest guilt by association.

Soviet Marxists were some of the world's deepest believers in the scatological anti-Gospel of Darwin.

Either raging hormones or else trolling insanity...

ID advocates play the ad hominem card as if it were some type of shield. It never seems to matter to them that the bad things about the intelligent design movement are true. If they were really serious about playing the ad hominem card shouldn't they have all their ducks in a row and be able to demonstrate that the stupid and dishonest things about ID are rectified? What are the ID scam artists doing today? Has anything gotten any more competent or honest? Why are the same guys that ran the ID scam running a new scam? Why is it that the new scam doesn't make any sense unless they dishonestly keep lying about the old scam? What controversies are they talking about teaching that their supporters want taught, if ID can't even be mentioned among the scientific controversies?

An ID advocate playing the ad hominem card is like a thief claiming that just because you caught me stealing the money, doesn't mean that I'm a thief. If the shoe fits wear it, or if you don't like the shoes get some new ones. The last thing that you should do is white wash the stupidity and dishonesty with the stupid claim that refering to reality is an ad hominem. Change the reality if you think that reality is bad enough to cry ad hominem.

Doesn't it make any ID advocate think twice when they are offended by the "ad hominem" statements, but they know that the statements are true? What good is claiming ad hominem when that doesn't change the veracity of the statements?

ID advocates play the ad hominem card as if it were some type of shield. It never seems to matter to them that the bad things about the intelligent design movement are true. If they were really serious about playing the ad hominem card shouldn't they have all their ducks in a row and be able to demonstrate that the stupid and dishonest things about ID are rectified? What are the ID scam artists doing today? Has anything gotten any more competent or honest? Why are the same guys that ran the ID scam running a new scam? Why is it that the new scam doesn't make any sense unless they dishonestly keep lying about the old scam? What controversies are they talking about teaching that their supporters want taught, if ID can't even be mentioned among the scientific controversies? An ID advocate playing the ad hominem card is like a thief claiming that just because you caught me stealing the money, doesn't mean that I'm a thief. If the shoe fits wear it, or if you don't like the shoes get some new ones. The last thing that you should do is white wash the stupidity and dishonesty with the stupid claim that refering to reality is an ad hominem. Change the reality if you think that reality is bad enough to cry ad hominem. Doesn't it make any ID advocate think twice when they are offended by the "ad hominem" statements, but they know that the statements are true? What good is claiming ad hominem when that doesn't change the veracity of the statements?

No, ad hominem attacks are irrelevant even if they are true.

I notice you only said that after you realized that what we said about you is true, and you can't escape it. (Is this an admission that your own name-calling posts are irrelevant?)

To state the ID advocates are right-wing conservatives funded by evil corporate kingpins might be true, but says absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of ID itself.

It speaks volumes about the trustworthiness of ID's advocates. (Funny how you mentioned "corporate kingpins," not "religious demagogues." Avoiding something, are we?) And when coupled with their blatant lies, and their total lack of any actual science, it does indeed speak to the falsehood of ID itself.

When listening to conflicting stories about an issue of which I myself am not fully informed, I have no choice but to believe the person who speaks honestly, and ignore the person who's been a well-known liar for decades.

No, ad hominem attacks are irrelevant even if they are true. To state the ID advocates are right-wing conservatives funded by evil corporate kingpins might be true, but says absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of ID itself.

Isn't that what all this is really about?

No, ad hominem attacks are irrelevant even if they are true.

To state the ID advocates are right-wing conservatives funded by evil corporate kingpins might be true, but says absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of ID itself.

Dr. Engor has challenged the Global Darwinian juggernaut and has hence put his career in jeopardy. His heresy will make him unemployable in any academic establishment or most hospitals. Very few men approach martyrdom with unfailing courage. This is what is behind this man's apparent flip-flops.