The morning after <i>Judgment Day</i>

The DI and the TMLC keep harping on Jones extending his boandaries and defining ID as religious. I'm under the impression both groups specifically asked Jones to rule whether ID is religious.

True or false?

NOVA lost credibility when it called Scopes a "science teacher" and showed fictitious scenes from Inherit the wind of G-men arresting a science teacher in class as though it were even close to true. NOVA writers and producers were no doubt aware of Edward Larson’s Pulitzer Prize winning book "Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion," yet choose to propagandize in the form of a documentary. The truth is Scopes was a physical education teacher who occasionally substituted for other teachers, who volunteered to be prosecuted to bring publicity to his publicity whoring town, and who even had drinks with the prosecutor during the trial.

NOVA is now a propaganda arm of the NCSE.

PZM wrote: "The story is very simple, and this is all we need to say: Intelligent Design is not science, and Intelligent Design is a religious idea. That's the message."

Teach the controversy, folks. That's what the creationists wanted, and that's what they will get.

And they lie a lot. That's part of the message, too.

No kidding and everyone knows that guy was not a teacher but instead he was Samantha's husband in Bewitched. Doh!

They noted "Inherit the Wind" was *losely* based on the trial and only an IDiot would think that brief movie clip was a documentary.

Speaking of credibility note ID and the DI have zero. How funny is that?

If that is all you can find to complain about, it must have been a pretty good show.

Mr_Christopher: They noted "Inherit the Wind" was *losely* based on the trial and only an IDiot would think that brief movie clip was a documentary.

It is programs like this that make me reaffirm why "NOVA" is one of the best programs every created. I felt that the arguments (on both sides) were presented fairly and accurately and I was impressed with the level of detail and accuracy that NOVA went to in order to portray the issues presented in the trial.

Regardless of you political and religious views (I happen to be an marginally atheist Republican if you are into labels) I was particularly impressed with the biological and genetic information given in the program. If anything should be presented in a classroom, I would encourage a viewing of THIS PRESENTATION. At a very minimum it offers a clear distinction of what 'science' is and the use of data to prove or disprove a theory. Science is and should always be falsifiable. The scientific method is designed to make conclusions based on the evidence and continue to shape itself as new data becomes available. NOVA did an outstanding job of presenting this information. I am amazed how even fundamentalist Christian family members continue to believe that in science, a theory is the same as a "guess". NOVA clearly articulated this point.

I need to go watch it again. I learned more in the two hours of the presentation than most of the years I spend in biology class in high school.

Republican from Pennsylvania: I am amazed how even fundamentalist Christian family members continue to believe that in science, a theory is the same as a "guess". NOVA clearly articulated this point.

I learned more in the two hours of the presentation than most of the years I spend in biology class in high school.

Sigh. Only 6 comments in and we already have a Hitler reference. Isn't that supposed to be a last resort ad hominem? You want to save the big guns for later, you know . . .

Heart of gold you're too funny! Listen carefully, with or without NOVA, intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design is creationism. Nothing can change those facts!

Ha ha!

Mr_Christopher: Heart of gold you're too funny! Listen carefully, with or without NOVA, intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design is creationism. Nothing can change those facts! Ha ha!

the Hitler comment probably from a James D. Kennedy fan
Hitler burned Darwin's books

NOVA did an excellant job!

This TV show was fantastic! It was educational and dramatic, seriously one of the most gripping and engaging programs I've seen lately. I so much admire the plaintiffs, lawyers and scientists who spoke for me, and defended my childrens' rights to a genuine education with a functional purpose. And if I was sick, I darn sure would want Dr. Tara instead of Dr. Harvey.

Another point NOVA distorted, the textbooks that promoted evolutionism in the 1960s were financially backed by the federal government through the BSCS. Minor point, but not exactly a clamoring for evolution from the masses; more a propaganda effort to indoctrinate the masses into Julian Huxley's evolutionary-centered religion, via the government purse and the BSCS.

I don't recall exactly who wrote it, but I recall reading a review of the trial in which the author said that the trial was tedious and boring. But, there were times when it was rivoting and the absolute star of the show was science itself. If real highschool science classes were as fantastic as what Padian and Miller gave the court, said the reviewer, then kids would be beating down doors to become scientists.

I was challenging NOVA’s credibility.

When my daughter's biology teacher introduced the theory of natural selection, he said he wouldn't spend a lot of time on it because some people objected to it, so I'm afraid Mike is right when he writes that evolution is covered poorly "in high school biology classes...primarily due to the political activities of the creationists over the years." Hopefully the desire to maintain our economic and technological position in the world will be enough of an incentive for pragmatists amongst politicians and businessmen to demand that our students be provided with rigorous training in science undiluted by ancient mythologies.

As a side note, I absolutely LOVE how all this chaps HeartOfGold's ass.

the type of Christian that believes in creationism fails to recognize allegory or metaphor in the Bible (Earth literally created in 6 days and all that) how can we expect them to recognize the legitimate use of 'Inherit the Wind' (ITW)in the context of a documentary television show (after all the 1925 Scopes trial wasn't video taped) Nova accurately stated that ITW wasn't to be taken as historical fact.

BSCS, a nice outfit:
BSCS endeavors to improve all students' understanding of science and technology by developing exemplary curricular materials, supporting their widespread and effective use, providing professional development, and conducting research and evaluation studies.

maybe HeatofGold should view NOVA again, but some will never learn, wonder how often he saw that "Darwin Caused Hitler" program, they called it social Darwanism (nothing to do with Darwin)

Loved it. My only complaint was that I was doing laundry at the time and had to miss the transitional fossil piece while I was getting clothes out of the dryer. Otherwise fantastic (even if I wish they'd delve more into the Discovery Institute's hijinx... but I guess journalistic integrity made that hard for them to do after the DI backed out of the interview). The actor portraying Behe was great. The transcript was even more jaw-dropping performed by that gentleman. Kudos!

Yes HoG, generally the NCSE isn't all that interested in staged PR events. Sometimes they are useful for educational purposes, but no way to actually do science. What's really shocking is the total silence in the scientific literature of this alledged powerful theory of intelligent design. It seems not even its most staunch proponents have been able to actually publish anything new about Nature using this supposedly powerful scientific idea in over a decade now.

Not even in their own on-line journal, which died for lack of anything to say.

The Templeton Foundation even had to pack up and leave when no ID advocate would take their money to do research. No need to do research anyway, is there? Not if you're convinced without it.

By the way...isn't incessant public debating how the old fashioned YE Creationists like Hovind and Gish operate, taunting their opponants when they decline? Way to show how ID isn't Creationism.

Yes HoG, generally the NCSE isn't all that interested in staged PR events. Sometimes they are useful for educational purposes, but no way to actually do science. What's really shocking is the total silence in the scientific literature of this alledged powerful theory of intelligent design. It seems not even its most staunch proponents have been able to actually publish anything new about Nature using this supposedly powerful scientific idea in over a decade now.

Not even in their own on-line journal, which died for lack of anything to say.

The Templeton Foundation even had to pack up and leave when no ID advocate would take their money to do research. No need to do research anyway, is there? Not if you're convinced without it.

By the way...isn't incessant public debating how the old fashioned YE Creationists like Hovind and Gish operate, taunting their opponants when they decline? Way to show how ID isn't Creationism.

Another point NOVA distorted, the textbooks that promoted evolutionism in the 1960s were financially backed by the federal government through the BSCS. Minor point, but not exactly a clamoring for evolution from the masses; more a propaganda effort to indoctrinate the masses into Julian Huxley’s evolutionary-centered religion, via the government purse and the BSCS.

richCares: the Hitler comment probably from a James D. Kennedy fan… NOVA did an excellant job!

HeartOfGold: I was challenging NOVA's credibility. I'm not here to debate ID. But I understand that if you're interested in debating ID, many ID advocates offers to debate meet silence, per NCSE talking point memos.

HeartOfGold: Hitler was certainly fond of Darwin (preservation of favoured races and all).

"Hitler was certainly fond of Darwin (preservation of favoured races and all)."

Hitler was also quite fond of Martin Luther (advocating vicious pogroms against the Jews during the reformation and all).

Mr_Christopher said: "The DI and the TMLC keep harping on Jones extending his boundaries and defining ID as religious. I’m under the impression both groups specifically asked Jones to rule whether ID is religious."

The Nova program mentioned that "both sides" wanted to pursue the issue as to whether or not ID is religious. What they should have said was "both parties." The ACLU and NCSE were the primary drivers, and my recollection is that TMLC also pressed this issue. However, the Discovery Institute was always hesitant, and tried to rein in TMLC on several occasions.

Having observed the trial from (geographically) afar, I was impressed at the time by the ineptitude of the TMLC attorneys as to evolution, biology, and philosophy of science. They had minimal knowledge in any of these areas, and made no attempt to learn. They fumbled around in the dark when cross-examining plaintiffs' scientific witnesses, and even on direct examination of their own witnesses! On numerous occasions they seemed not to know what questions to ask.

I checked out a few of the blogs by the usual suspects this morning, and noticed that the creationists are largely silent (so far, give 'em time) on the Dover documentary from last night…with one exception

— PZ Myers

HeartOfGold:

Mr_Christopher: Heart of gold you're too funny! Listen carefully, with or without NOVA, intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design is creationism. Nothing can change those facts! Ha ha!

I was challenging NOVA's credibility. I'm not here to debate ID. But I understand that if you're interested in debating ID, many ID advocates offers to debate meet silence, per NCSE talking point memos.

No Heartofgold, what you are doing is attempting to launch ad homs because you are incapable of dealing with any of the ACTUAL issues involved in the Dover case. This is the EXACT same thing the DI did after the verdict. They ignored all the facts in the case and all the actual issues and instead started railing against the judge. Instead of addressing anything of substance from the Nova program, you are whining about PBS and the NCSE. It's almost enough to make me think you work at the DI.

You are also full of BS as well. Hitler did not embrace or support evolution. He embraced religion. He used a mix of folksy politics and religion to bolster his racist policies. You can see this continued today. Go look at some racist websites and tell me if they are using evolution to justify their beliefs. I believe what you'll run into is a whole lot of religiously themed justifications.

HoG: Pettiness over use of an old film in the show (and they mentioned it was a film and not a word-for-word account of reality. It was purely to highlight that this is hardly the first example of religiously motivated anti evolution propaganda) - the real question is, why did attempts to get ID into classes rely on continual lying (honestly, they didn't know who bought the books...), quote mining by Behe in court (that was absolutely shameless the way he did that - nice touch showing the interview with deRosier straight after Behe's comment), the threats against Tammy Kitzmiller, pat Robertson saying they voted God out of town (but I thought ID had nothing to do with God? shows what i know).

Why do people who are supposedly more moral than the rest of need to lie all the time and threaten people? And as subscribers to the biblical worldview should probably know that bearing false witness isn't something Jesus approves of. But of course, lying to get everybody to accept what YOU think is right is much more important than what the reality actually suggests happened.

I thought a highlight of the documentary was the display where David DeRosier showed the side-by-side pictures demonstrating the similarity between a flagellum and a poison-injecting organelle.

It is clear that the definition of irreducible complexity doesn't work in this case, DeRosier explained, because although the poison-injecting organelle cannot rotate, it functions perfectly well as a poison injector - even though it is essentially the flagellar motor with a few parts missing.

That is just the kind of pathway that Behe claims doesn't exist for the flagellum. And because the flagellum is the icon of intelligent design, DeRosier's demonstration is a very serious refutation of Behe's premise.

In other words, if irreducible complexity is taken as a marker of design, and Behe claims that the flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity, then the fact that the flagellum in fact does not exhibit irreducible complexity undermines the flagellum's status as an icon of intelligent design.

Publicizing more displays such as the one DeRosier used would be a very effective tool in rebutting ID claims wherever they surface. The NCSE should make a poster based on DeRosier's images and send it around to schools, teachers, and the public at large.

Regards,
Shepherdmoon

HeartOfGold said: "Hitler was certainly fond of Darwin."

Another classic creationist slander. As Tyler DiPietro has pointed out (above), Martin Luther had far more to do with the Holocaust than Darwin. See, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies for Martin Luther's eight-point plan (written in 1543) which mentions neither Darwin nor evolution.

Tyler DiPietro: Hitler was also quite fond of Martin Luther (advocating vicious pogroms against the Jews during the reformation and all).

Steverino: NOVA referenced the movie because more people have a familiarity with the movie than the book.

Steverino: In short, STFU and stop whining.

I loved the show. It was fun to see people I mostly know only on the internettubes. I must have blinked when Prof. Steve Steve was on, so I'll look for him the next time.

I did think they missed the most important part of Mike Behe's cross examination. But that is just me. heheheh

James D. Kennedy was the prime proponent of "Darwin caused Hitler". Kennedy had a massive heart failure, exactly the same as mine. Each of us was given 30% chance of survival. The methods use to save us were developed by use of the theory of evolution. I survived, Kennedy didn't. Maybe it was because he didn't believe in evolution. Ironic!

Hey, could somebody try to fix the syntax of that garbled post, or email it to me so I can fix it myself and repost it?

Steverino, Bill Buckingham was the school board chair. He and Bonsell should have been tried for perjury. After all, "we impeached a sitting president for perjury" as mentioned in NOVA. At least Bonsell admitted it in the program rationalizing his perjury as "just one minute statement" (as in minute = 60 seconds not minute meaning small) Buckingham just railed against the judge. The anger that a Santorum recommended Bush appointee had the temerity to rule against them is quite visible.

Hopefully the political parties will ratchet down the rhetoric. Dems want to get a piece of religious votes too and Republicans realize this level of rhetoric is counter productive to them.

I could niggle on a number of fairly trivial points about the show, but the only issue I seriously disagree with was the implication that it was only during the trial that we at last had a non-sudden fish-to-amphibian transitional, Tiktaalik. Of course it was a poignant reminder that science actually predicts and finds things, ID just denies, but just as surely, we've long had Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, while Hynerpeton has also been known for a while. Evolution-denial has had no excuse for a very long time, then, which they did point out with Archaeopteryx and other transitional forms. Too much, though, Tiktaalik has been held up as a kind of dramatic filling-in of some mythical fish to amphibian fossil gap. True, it did fill in a gap, but it was only a gap in the specifics of the evolution from fish, that is, they went looking for Tiktaalik primarily to learn how quadrupedal locomotion evolved in that line. On the plus side, in roughly that segment they brought up the fact that journalists didn't know about all of this evidence because evolution teaching has been bowdlerized by "freedom fighters" like Stein, Phillip Johnson, and Behe (one should keep in mind that the lack of science interest by many students who became journalists also played a role). That is a very good point, too often lost in the constant whine about persecution that is, of course, meant to provide a smoke-screen for the IDiots' desires to increase censorship and to curtail our freedoms.

GuyeFaux:

Hey, could somebody try to fix the syntax of that garbled post, or email it to me so I can fix it myself and repost it?

Just Copy+Paste it from whatever source you stole it from originally.

Jackelope King said: "Loved it. My only complaint was that I was doing laundry at the time and had to miss the transitional fossil piece..."

For Jackelope King and others, see http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/kevin-padians-k.html for links to Kevin Padian's fascinating presentation on transitional fossils.

HeartOfGold:

Tyler DiPietro: Hitler was also quite fond of Martin Luther (advocating vicious pogroms against the Jews during the reformation and all).

True. Take it to a Lutheran forum.

Steverino: NOVA referenced the movie because more people have a familiarity with the movie than the book.

This defense doesn't make much sense to me. While I grant you that most likely more people are familiar with the film Inherit the Wind than the book Summer for the Gods, I don't see how that justifies perpetuating evolutionist mythology in a Nova documentary, since, in perpetuating this mythology, they are distorting the historical truth, and, it seems, propagandizing.

Steverino: In short, STFU and stop whining.

FYI: href="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/im-gonna-be-a-m.html" rel="nofollow"

Paul Burnett: Jackelope King said: "Loved it. My only complaint was that I was doing laundry at the time and had to miss the transitional fossil piece..." For Jackelope King and others, see http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/kevin-padians-k.html for links to Kevin Padian's fascinating presentation on transitional fossils.

*snort* good one GUYE!

I think Heart of Gold has a valid point. It was the dishonest use of Inherit the Wind footage by Nova that lost the trial for the School Board.

I think the use of that footage prejudiced the Judge, who was a Bewitched fan, after all.

Glen Davidson said: I actually do have a substantive complaint about the NOVA program...

Ravilyn Sanders: My attempt to ungarble what HeartOfGold tried to say: Apologies if the ungarbling puts words in wrong mouths or wrong words in the right mouths!

And you base this accusation on?

"I think Heart of Gold has a valid point. It was the dishonest use of Inherit the Wind footage by Nova that lost the trial for the School Board."

nice joke, since this NOVA footage was not shown during the trial, but I don't think Gold will get it. He probably will quote mine it in his next post.

"True. Take it to a Lutheran forum."

WHOOOOSH! That's the sound of the entire point flying right over your head.

Google: "ad hominem" and "guilt by association".

“I think Heart of Gold has a valid point. It was the dishonest use of Inherit the Wind footage by Nova that lost the trial for the School Board.”

Damn. Godwinned in the 6th comment.

OTOH, richCares, Judge Jones did say that he watched "Inherit the Wind" before the trial. I'm surprised that the DI didn't pick up on that as being prejudicial at the time. (Oops, now I've spilled the beans.)

But the Spaceballs characters were watching a pirated cassette! But Nova used a legal, legit, licensed footage. I know most of you think it misses the whole point and is completely irrelevant, but in the mind of an IDist it would count as a response. All you have to do is to start a sentence with "But" and emphasize various words or create terms out of whole cloth like biotic reality. After that all subsequent responses would be, this has already been responded to. This technique works well to fool all the people for sometime and some of the people all the time.

Tyler DiPietro: "True. Take it to a Lutheran forum." WHOOOOSH! That's the sound of the entire point flying right over your head. Google: "ad hominem" and "guilt by association".

Olorin: OTOH, richCares, Judge Jones did say that he watched "Inherit the Wind" before the trial. I'm surprised that the DI didn't pick up on that as being prejudicial at the time. (Oops, now I've spilled the beans.)

"Martin Luther is the intellectual leader and founder of the Lutheran churches, and his writings are certainly pertinent to the views of modern Lutherans."

So Lutheranism is inherently antisemetic and has a predilection for ethnic cleansing? Well, you answer in the negative just below this remark. I find it amusing that you don't see how your statement contradicts the very case you're attempting to make.

"Evolutionists are much more likely to be racist and fascist than Lutherans, and they are becoming more skilled at hiding this predilection, in my estimation–but I could be wrong."

Wow, I'm impressed! Did you do this thorough investigation in your ass?

Sanders, your points have already been responded to.

Anyway we know Judge Jones's opinion was just a script handed him by the producers of Nova.

And clearly, Nova is a biased television show, therefore I declare a mistrial in Kitzmiller vs Dover.

Did I mention that I'm sure Nova has done a documentary at some point that probably mentioned Hitler?

Anyway, Leni Riefenstahl and I were discussing the bacterial flagellum the other day, and Leni was all like "Can you believe that the guy from Bewitched AND the guy from MASH were both important figures in the history of American Jurisprudence?" I said, "That sounds just like something a Nazi would say." Then she made a film called "Inherit the Triumph of the Wind" or something. Anyway I don't understand German, so it was kind of a one-sided conversation. Plus she's dead.

HeartOfGold: Evolutionists are much more likely to be racist and fascist than Lutherans, and they are becoming more skilled at hiding this predilection, in my estimation--but I could be wrong. But comparing Nova to Leni Riefenstahl, and linking evolutionists to Hitler is not logical fallacy.

richCares: James D. Kennedy was the prime proponent of "Darwin caused Hitler". Kennedy had a massive heart failure, exactly the same as mine. Each of us was given 30% chance of survival. The methods use to save us were developed by use of the theory of evolution. I survived, Kennedy didn't. Maybe it was because he didn't believe in evolution. Ironic!

Heart of Gold, I'm backing you up 200%. You're my kind of guy. When they say "evolution" you say "NAZI!" When they say "Nova", you say "Leni Riefenstahl!"

When they say:

"The existence of the TTSS in a wide variety of bacteria demonstrates that a small portion of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum can indeed carry out an important biological function. Since such a function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed."

You say "NAZI!!!!"

You're my hero! I'm backing you all the way, buddy!

HeartOfGold: It is well known that Darwin, like James Watson after him, believed certain races to be "better" than other races.

HOG prevaricated once more: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life“. It is well known that Darwin, like James Watson after him, believed certain races to be “better” than other races.

He went on stretching the limits of credulity thusly: Nova resorted to propagandizing by choosing to re-use historically inaccurate Inherit the Wind footage, and I compared the tactic to Leni Riefenstahl’s masterful propaganda. This is a valid critique of a documentary film comparing Nova’s tactic to another master film maker, Leni Riefenstahl.

HOG slimes us finally with: Evolutionists are much more likely to be racist and fascist than Lutherans, and they are becoming more skilled at hiding this predilection, in my estimation–but I could be wrong.

One thing that struck me was that Judge Jones hit the Dover school board with court costs for the case. It struck me as ironic and rather unfair that the good citizens of that community, including the science teachers and the parents who brought the suit and/or opposed the board's decision, will have to pick up the tab in the form of increased taxes or service cuts. Does that seem right to you?

Perhaps the school district will make up the difference by cutting music and art classes. Two birds with one stone! No more annoyingly controversial murals.

Too bad the judge wasn't more creative in laying the costs where they belonged. How about billing Boneskull and Bloatingham personally? Or those folks who chipped in to buy the Pandas books -- they seem to have lots of extra cash lying around.

Or wait, I've got it. Tax the Fundie churches! ...What? Oh, never mind then.

Stanton: Please to explain why "evolutionism" could inspire both Fascism, and Communism, which are polar opposite ideas?

Hey, don't pick on my buddy, Heart of Gold. HoG, don't let these guys get to you with their "science" and "logic." You're my buddy, right?

Anyway, I like how you totally clocked them with your flawless argument. They don't even know what hit them, when you were all like BAM, Mind distortion, BAM evolutionism, Leni Riefenstahl, ex-post facto, Hitler, Darwin BAM BAM BOOM.

TKO GAME SET MATCH, My buddy Heart of Gold! He's all in your internets provin' science fake! Take that, Brownshirts!

"Nice deceit, though. Typical commie tactic."

SHIT, they were expecting the right hook and you gave them the LEFT! BAM, Hitler, BAM commie, BAM, Hitler, BAM, COMMIE BAM BAM BAM KNOCKOUT!!!!

Nobody tangles with my buddy Heart of Gold and gets up off the MAT!

HoG, excuse me, but they are logical fallacies. Even if--a big if--Hitler based his thinking in part on some notion of 'Darwinism', that would have no bearing on the question of whether natural selection, acting on variation in populations, explains the evolution of species over time. That is the fundamental question, not whether or how the theory may have been misappropriated outside the realm of science. As for the footage of Inherit the Wind, as other posters have pointed out, it was never mislabeled, and it was appropriate given the point that NOVA was trying to make: that the topic of evolution provokes strong reactions. Has it ever occurred to you that the fact that the Scopes trial has taken on a mythic life is itself indicative of its role both in American history and contemporary thought? To compare the usage of this brief clip with the wholesale distortions and manufactured 'facts' of NAZI propaganda is a case of false analogy. Also, I suggest you check the Oxford English Dictionary under the heading "race, N2". Read the entire entry, please. I think you will find that Darwin is not referring to 'races' as in 'human races'. This is not to say that he was not racist, but the title of the book is not support for that claim. Moreover, to return to the notion of fallacies, even if Darwin were racist, this would, ahem, have no bearing on the question of whether natural selection, acting on variation in populations, explains the evolution of species over time.

Donnie B.: Too bad the judge wasn't more creative in laying the costs where they belonged. How about billing Boneskull and Bloatingham personally? Or those folks who chipped in to buy the Pandas books -- they seem to have lots of extra cash lying around.

Elf Eye: ...that would have no bearing on the question of whether natural selection, acting on variation in populations, explains the evolution of species over time. That is the fundamental question, not whether or how the theory may have been misappropriated outside the realm of science. ...

Just for the record, Judge Jones himself is a member of a Lutheran congregation.

Heaping his dung yet higher, HOG oozed forth: Exactly. But try to parse this question (e.g., with macro versus micro evolution), and you will get pummeled for the inquiry by devout evolutionists who view such questions as heretical.

Mike O'Risal:

Heaping his dung yet higher, HOG oozed forth: Exactly. But try to parse this question (e.g., with macro versus micro evolution), and you will get pummeled for the inquiry by devout evolutionists who view such questions as heretical.

You'll get pummeled not for heresy but for stupidity. This "question" has been answered time and time again. The fact that you continue to ask it demonstrates that you're not interested in the answer from a scientific perspective. You simply use it as a rhetorical device, repeating it ad nauseum as asshole are wont to do.

Now, if your point is that Darwin never specifically advocated Hitler and others’ application of his ideas to get rid of less favoured races, at least not as explicitly as Martin Luther, I can concede this point.

HoG, in your reply to my post on logical fallacies, you committed a new logical fallacy: you changed the topic. Red Herring on the menu tonight, folks.

Heart of Gold said "devout" AND "heresy" BAM!!!! Way to use religious words as an insult, my buddy HoG. Nothing says "insult" like calling someone religious!

A message to all you commienazis here, from me and my buddy HoG, so listen up. You will not win this argument. You can stop now, you've been beaten. Go back to your holy church of believing in Darwin, or your Evolutionpope Dawkins the First will try you for heresy and excommunicate you. Then you'll have to burn in Darwinhell for ONE THOUSAND YEARS!

Elf Eye: HoG, in your reply to my post on logical fallacies, you committed a new logical fallacy: you changed the topic. Red Herring on the menu tonight, folks.

Siamang: some funny stuff

I wish I could say that I had seen the program. However, my local affiliate did not air the program on their main station. They did show it on a secondary station and will re-air it on Sunday (fairly late at night) on yet another secondary station, neither of which I can get in my non-cable TV home. The programs they did air last night had previously aired on the station in October.

I complained. In response I was told:

"Programs of a controversial nature are discussed in great length before decisions are made about broadcast on WKNO. A program with a balanced discussion on Evolution would be a concern, but we would certainly air, as we have in the past.

While accurate in its depiction of the results of the trial featured in the NOVA episode, we felt that it might look particularly one-sided to most of our audience. However, we do have a responsibility to make as much of the national PBS schedule as possible to our viewers, so it was scheduled at the same time as the POV and Independent Lens programs air on WKNO-2. It was a good fit with similar programming and allowed us the only opportunity in a very tight schedule to encore our local programs in honor Veteran's Day on our primary channel. Hopefully viewers will soon discover that access to both WKNO and WKNO-2 is essential to getting all of the great programming available on public television."

This is not some tiny PBS affiliate. This is in Memphis, TN, one of the larger cities in the Southeast US.

If you would like to join me in expressing outrage, the e-mail address is wknopi[at]wkno.org

See, y'all don't know when you're beat, right Buddy, Heart of Gold?

HoG is so brilliant, he's totally run out of real words to pummel you with. He's making up words like "evolutionism" because he's just too awesome to believe.

Just wait until HoG starts speachifying the syllaballic meta-awesomeness to which his brainial capacitorium has progressified. Then you're all in for a glutial whuppifying such as your commienazi buttocks have never comprehendulated.

"...do you concede that Nova was deceitful in their use of Hollywood film footage? Less than forthright in their account of the resurgance of evolutionism in biology text books?"

No.

Heart of Gold?

Is that you from RW?

I'm a fairly regular lurker here and I'm glad I found out this was playing last night. I'm no scientist and many of the things regularly posted and commented on here are WAY over my head but Last night's Nova took a lot of what I had been reading about here and made it make sense in my head (maybe it was the pretty graphics). I have to say thanks to everyone here for keeping us lurkers in mind when you post and giving us a heads up about this show.

My only beef ... there were no commercials so I missed most of the reenactment of Behe's testimony when I had to take the dog out.

Once again thanks so much to all of you taking on the morons.

But try to parse this question (e.g., with macro versus micro evolution), and you will get pummeled for the inquiry

How many generations does speciation from species X to species Y in envrionment E take?

do you concede that Nova was deceitful in their use of Hollywood film footage? Less than forthright in their account of the resurgance of evolutionism in biology text books?

Heart of Gold stated, "Evolutionists are much more likely to be racist and fascist than Lutherans"

Evidence or retraction, please.

HeartOfGold: How many generations does speciation from species X to species Y in envrionment E take?

HOG,

Hitler believed 3 + 3 = 6

I guess that's wrong too?

This is not some tiny PBS affiliate. This is in Memphis, TN, one of the larger cities in the Southeast US

Siamang:
"Just wait until HoG starts speachifying the syllaballic meta-awesomeness to which his brainial capacitorium has progressified. Then you’re all in for a glutial whuppifying such as your commienazi buttocks have never comprehendulated."

Oooh, Siamang, you talk just like President Bush!

I wish I could say that I had seen the program. However, my local affiliate did not air the program on their main station. They did show it on a secondary station and will re-air it on Sunday (fairly late at night) on yet another secondary station, neither of which I can get in my non-cable TV home. The programs they did air last night had previously aired on the station in October.

HeartOfGold: I don't recall writing anything about communism today. Nice deceit, though. Typical commie tactic.

I wonder if PBS knows about these non-airings, and what they think about this. Has anyone seen anything from either PBS or NCSE about why this happened? Did the DI try to contact all PBS stations to get it off the air?

Braxton Thomason: I wonder if PBS knows about these non-airings, and what they think about this. Has anyone seen anything from either PBS or NCSE about why this happened? Did the DI try to contact all PBS stations to get it off the air?

Perhaps HOG can enlighten us on a couple of other unresolved subjects that came up in the documentary.

Judge Jones mentioned that he was surprised by the death threats he received. In fact, those of us who have followed this case know that the threats were serious enough that Jones and his family were placed under the protection of the US Marshall Service.

We also learned from the documentary that Bonsell and Buckingham committed perjury repeatedly. This is also in the transcripts of the trial, and Judge Jones was quite upset when it happened.

Now HOG is obviously qualified to answer the questions of why these events took place and what the justifications for them are. He is, after all, a spokesman for his religion. Bonsell, Buckingham, and the writers of those death threats are all “of the body” as they like to say. They are HOG’s contemporaries. So they get their instructions from the same infallible source.

So if Jones ruled in favor of the “Darwinists”, and HOG and his cohorts don’t do “Darwinian things”, what in their religion justifies the behaviors of perjury and sending death threats to the judge who ruled in favor of science? Where in that infallible source are the instructions to do this?

HOG knows the answer to this. Since he is here to witness for his religion, we would like to know his explanation. Maybe we missed something.

HoG, no, I do not concede that they were deceitful in their use of Hollywood footage because they did not misrepresent it. Not--n-o-t--as in, avoided presenting it as anything other than it was: a Hollywood film. Compare that with Behe's quote mining on the subject of flagella. Now THAT was deceitful. He took something out of context and twisted it so that the words of a scientist whose work demonstrates the power of the Theory of Natural Selection appeared to support his (Behe's) position. But, actually, we still have Red Herring on our plate--or whatever odoriferous fish you prefer. By focusing on the documentary, you avoid addressing the issue of whether ID is science and whether the school board had religious motivations for supporting ID. You are making the documentary the issue, but the above two issues were the ones addressed in the Dover case. So, let's sum things up, shall we: an invalid analogy, red herring (two instances), and guilt by association (two instances). My, perhaps I should use this exchange as a lesson in assessing critical thinking when I next meet my students. Just this week, we covered Red Herrings and Guilt by Association (including Playing the Hitler Card). How fortuitous that I shall be able to present them with real-time examples.

Mike Elzinga: ...Since he is here to witness for his religion, we would like to know his explanation....

I am not here to witnes for my my religion.

Braxton, local PBS affiliates have wide leeway in scheduling. PBS may not like the fact that some affiliates have the guts of a comb jelly, but there's not much they can do about it.

If I lived in Memphis or its environs, I would be writing that PBS station today and letting them know in no uncertain terms WHY I was withdrawing my financial support.

Thank goodness I get my NOVA from WGBH Boston, which not only shows such programming at the appointed time, but also produces it. That's why I still give them monthly donations, despite the crappy programs they use when fundraising (Celtic Women... blechh).

I'm another person who's done more lurking than contributing before now. I must say, I'm loving the replies to HeartOfGold. I wonder if he *chose* to take the name of the whorehouse in the Firefly episode of that name, or if that's just a delicious coincidence?

Well, I'm in for it now. I've just posted at their blog where they're complaining about the treatment their side got. No big deal in itself, but their unjustified whining gets on my nerves. Especially given the hypocritical advice one of their posters gave to the scientists' side.

I decided to use their true name over there, and see if they own up to, or even try to explain away the "creationists" to "design proponents" change.

Ok, wait a minute. How can this site have so many comments? They've just started over there!

I must say, I’m loving the replies to HeartOfGold. I wonder if he *chose* to take the name of the whorehouse in the Firefly episode of that name, or if that’s just a delicious coincidence?

Or a fictional space ship created by a self-proclaimed atheist and evolution-supporter who was also a close, personal friend of Richard Dawkins (and is the reason Dawkins met the woman he is married to).

Reynold Hall: Ok, wait a minute. How can this site have so many comments?

Everyone knows the "Heart of Gold" is the name of Zaphod Beeblebrox's spaceship in "Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

That or he's a Neil Young fan. Right, HoG, buddy?

Siamang: Everyone knows the "Heart of Gold" is the name of Zaphod Beeblebrox's spaceship in "Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy." That or he's a Neil Young fan. Right, HoG, buddy?

A master troll with a lousy command of logic--oh, wait, that's part of the job description.

Ack... posted this in the wrong topic.

For those of you that, like me, missed the original airing, the PBS website indicates that the entire program will be online on Friday. link

xander

Joe Shelby: Or a fictional space ship created by a self-proclaimed atheist and evolution-supporter who was also a close, personal friend of Richard Dawkins (and is the reason Dawkins met the woman he is married to).

Elf Eye: A master troll with a lousy command of logic--oh, wait, that's part of the job description.

OTOH, richCares, Judge Jones did say that he watched “Inherit the Wind” before the trial. I’m surprised that the DI didn’t pick up on that as being prejudicial at the time. (Oops, now I’ve spilled the beans.)

— Olorin

Siamang wrote:

Everyone knows the “Heart of Gold” is the name of Zaphod Beeblebrox’s spaceship in “Hitch-hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.”

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Gold_%28spaceship%29):

“S.S. Heart of Gold is the first prototype ship to successfully utilise the revolutionary Infinite Improbability Drive.”

Irony or intention?

Or have we at last found ID’s mechanism?

HeartOfGold: ....Martin Luther is the intellectual leader and founder of the Lutheran churches, and his writings are certainly pertinent to the views of modern Lutherans. Darwin, Huxley (both Thomas and Julian), et. al are the intellectual leaders of modern derivative evolutionary and humanistic cults, and their ideas have consequences.

//Now, if your point is that Darwin never specifically advocated Hitler and others’ application of his ideas to get rid of less favoured races, at least not as explicitly as Martin Luther, I can concede this point. //

he'd have had a bit of a job advocating Hitler to (mis)use his ideas given that he published OOS in 1859, he was dead by 1882 and Hitler wasnt born until 1889.

OK, I'll bite. I know, I know: I shouldn't because I'm feeding the troll. And I promise that unless HoG answers with something substantive, I won't take the bait any further. HoG, have you ever had a conversation with a child who is prelogical? Do you know how frustrating that is? You suspect that no matter how carefully you explain the situation, the child will not be able to grasp the import of what you say. OK, now I'll assume that your intellect is sufficient to allow you to apply that particular analogy. My work here is done. Besides, I've got to prepare a lesson plan for some young people who will benefit from further education.

I am again confused. If intelligent design is not science, why have evolutionists conceded that it is in fact science?

How would a Darwinist describe the process of creating a dog from a wolf? Say a Great Dane? Was that decided by 'natural selection', or was their an intelligence in its design??

Or do Darwinists have a different word they use for when an outside intelligent force creates a new animal like a dog?

I thought I remember Richard (?) Dawkins conceding in a New York Times article that dogs are in fact a product of intelligent design, I could be wrong.

speaking of propaganda - did anyone else note that the discovery institute clips (shown on NOVA) shows (stock footage? actors?) lab coat clad 'scientists' diligently working on the 'new' science of intelligent design? what is that guy looking at in the microscope? where is the DI lab?

Ok, so it turns out that HeartOfGold is a wise-ass little adolescent getting his jollies off by trying to get someone take him seriously.

From the beginning he appeared fake and over-the-top. Pinning him down certainly demonstrated it.

All he can do now is try to act cute and end up on the Bathroom Wall in the process.

NOVA lost credibility when it called Scopes a “science teacher” and showed fictitious scenes from Inherit the wind of G-men arresting a science teacher in class as though it were even close to true.

I didn't get a chance to watch the program, but I did review some of the trial testimony.

I was pretty shocked to see Darwinist scientists outright calling fellow evolutionists wacko's who didn't know what they were talking about. I believe it was Padian's testimony where he trashed scientists like Gould for being loudmouths who would never submit to peer review. It was very enlightening on what Darwinists think of their fellow evolutionists, once they've passed on I guess..

I have tried to read up on the eviolution of dags and it seems the big thing evolutionists fail to mention is that many dogs were in fact intelligently design and wouldn't have occurred but for invention by an intelligent force. Funny they leave that out.

Bach: I am again confused. If intelligent design is not science, why have evolutionists conceded that it is in fact science? How would a Darwinist describe the process of creating a dog from a wolf? Say a Great Dane? Was that decided by 'natural selection', or was their an intelligence in its design?? Or do Darwinists have a different word they use for when an outside intelligent force creates a new animal like a dog? I thought I remember Richard (?) Dawkins conceding in a New York Times article that dogs are in fact a product of intelligent design, I could be wrong.

One final point I find interesting is the desicovery of a mondern day jelly fish from 505 Million years ago.

Now I understand evolution says that there is no reson why that jellyfish would need to evolve if it was just fat dumb and happy where it was for 505 Million years.

yet at the same time, we are told that the earth was experincing all mannner of dynamic and forced changes which were making thousands of other life forms evolve. Yet the stubborn jellyfish sat there for 505 Million years without a sinle modification. How did it resist evolving?

have tried to read up on the eviolution of dags and it seems the big thing evolutionists fail to mention is that many dogs were in fact intelligently design and wouldn’t have occurred but for invention by an intelligent force. Funny they leave that out.

"How did it resist evolving?"

Ever try an evolve a jellyfish? Those guys are bad ass! They'll sting you!

Creationists - don't ever try and evolve a jellyfish!

Bach: I am again confused. If intelligent design is not science, why have evolutionists conceded that it is in fact science?

Bach: How would a Darwinist describe the process of creating a dog from a wolf? Say a Great Dane? Was that decided by 'natural selection', or was their an intelligence in its design?? Or do Darwinists have a different word they use for when an outside intelligent force creates a new animal like a dog? I thought I remember Richard (?) Dawkins conceding in a New York Times article that dogs are in fact a product of intelligent design, I could be wrong.

Re: dogs

They were not so much intelligently designed as purposefully bred and selected by intelligent humans. Nobody designed or manufactured dogs using wolves as spare parts or something like that.

Bach,

"I have tried to read up on the eviolution of dags and it seems the big thing evolutionists fail to mention is that many dogs were in fact intelligently design and wouldn’t have occurred but for invention by an intelligent force. Funny they leave that out"

I am assuming here that you are talking about the evolution of dog breeds. Dog breeds were not "Designed" they were artificially selected (and all this means is that humans applied the selective pressures). People can not "design" just any breed of dog and then get that dog. They can simply select on standing variation, just as natural selection does.

If there is no variation in the direction of the particular trait of interest or if that variation is not heritable then no amount of "design" or selection will make that trait arise.

Bach: I am again confused. If intelligent design is not science, why have evolutionists conceded that it is in fact science?

Bach: One final point I find interesting is the desicovery of a mondern day jelly fish from 505 Million years ago. Now I understand evolution says that there is no reson why that jellyfish would need to evolve if it was just fat dumb and happy where it was for 505 Million years. yet at the same time, we are told that the earth was experincing all mannner of dynamic and forced changes which were making thousands of other life forms evolve. Yet the stubborn jellyfish sat there for 505 Million years without a sinle modification. How did it resist evolving?

How did it resist evolving?

I wonder if Bach and HeartOfGold are the same person (along with a couple of other trolls posting here).

There is something suspiciously similar in their game-playing.

It could be adolescent imitation of each other.

But 200 years from now, if the knowldege was lost that an intelligent being (man) actually created the dog breeds, would you same Darwinists be arguing that the dog in fact was created by natural selection the same as any other animal. Or would you concede maybe an intelligent being had a hand since we see such an explosion of dogs in such a short period of time, or some other evidence.

How does 'ARTIFICIAL SELECTION' differentiate between natural artifical selection and an intended design based on intelligence of the selector??

Basically, the question is, if you can't concede that intelligence went into the design of dog breeds, why should I think you are truly credible people? I could get any ten people off the street who would certainly concede dogs were bred by people with an intelligent mind that made choices on what it wanted to create, yet scientists can't seem to concede that simple fact.

"""Mike Elzinga said:
Bach Wrote:
How did it resist evolving?

Anything that doesn’t evolve is pretty snug and happy in its own unchanging environment.

You are a living demonstration of this."""

Ohh come on Mike, that can't be true?? What about all those prior human-like beings? Are you saying they were snug and happy because they didn't evolve, unless you believe in an afterlife? They all died off? Which is it?

So if I am to understand, Jellyfish found a snug and happy place for 505 Million years, while other life forms, were thrown about to an fro without a moments rest to get to evolve into a man. Its an amazing, no perhaps even supernatural feat. Are you sure you guys don't believe in the supernatural?

Its almost as amazing as the concept that a life form created itself 4.5 Billion years ago and was so robust as to have evolved and flourished to create all the life we see, yet in that same 4.5 Billion years, that same life form was so fragile as to have only occurred ONCE and ONCE only. Now that is supernatural with a capitol SUPER!

"""I wonder if Bach and HeartOfGold ""

No I'm the one and only Bach. You should be able to have the site check IP addresses and see that we are in fact different people.

And by the way, I have always believed in Evolution, I just think evolution science has basically gone nowhere in 20 years in answering anything and we still get the same textbook answer like Darwinists are reading from the Bible.

We Darwinists recite our hymns to the non-believers.......

Yeah, I don't know, I'd pretty much go with dogs being "intelligently designed" (to a point--obviously they start out from quite an evolved ancestor, the wolf), as long as the definition is quite broad. In fact, it should not be too difficult to determine that something other than NS sculpted dog breeds, once we understand the environment and human proclivities + capabilities (the pathetic level of detail that makes biology science, and ID nonsense).

And of course there's not much confusion about natural vs. artificial selection, either, except among IDists and creos.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

And by the way, I have always believed in Evolution, I just think evolution science has basically gone nowhere in 20 years in answering anything and we still get the same textbook answer like Darwinists are reading from the Bible.

How does ‘ARTIFICIAL SELECTION’ differentiate between natural artifical selection and an intended design based on intelligence of the selector??

How would a Darwinist describe the process of creating a dog from a wolf? Say a Great Dane? Was that decided by ‘natural selection’, or was their an intelligence in its design?? Or do Darwinists have a different word they use for when an outside intelligent force creates a new animal like a dog?

The difference between natural selection and artificial selection is that in artifical selection, humans select which members of a generation of organisms survive, due to either aesthetic or commercial reasons, i.e., a dog breeder allowing only the largest of his German shepherd studs to breed and having the rest of them fixed, or an orchid breeder crossing a species of wine-red orchid with a related species of white orchid in the hopes of getting a white hybrid with wine-red mottling, while in natural selection, it is factors due to interaction with the organisms' environment, ecosystem and different, neighboring species that determine which members of a generation survive or not.

Intelligent Design, as put forth is by its proponents, is that a supernatural designer who can not be observed through natural means has guided natural selection, and that complex biological structures, such as flagella or the vertebrate immune system, could not have arise naturally without the assistance of this supernatural designer, whom Intelligent Design proponents have made startlingly unsubtle inferences that it is none other than God.

If you actually knew how to read books, Bach, you would have known this already.

Dog breeds were not "designed" so no I will not concede that. But I will, and did, say that humans applied the selective pressure that lead to current dog breeds. This is not the same thing. Humans simply worked within the limits of evolution by only allowing certain pairs of dogs to breed.

And as for the jellyfish, I would say it is probably a pretty safe bet that if you actually had a jellyfish from 505MYA and one from today they would in fact be different molecularly and in many phenotypic aspects. They have simply found a stable fitness optimum and have not been perturbed away from it. That is not the same as not evolving. They are certainly evolving very much.

Stanton says: ""If a species or taxon has adapted to a stable, specific ecological niche, then any mutations that would render a generation of those organisms less fit to stay within that niche will be selected against""

Ahh, what is that Darwinists Bible, Chapter 12, Verse 19.

505 Million years? Don't you find that the least bit incredible? That this thing evolved all the way from nothing to a jellyfish and then sat fat dumb and happy for 505 Million years? You saound like David Koresh followers when faced with information is presented that strains your belief system, you return to root memory and start spouting Darwilical verse like a evolution extermist...

Bach: And by the way, I have always believed in Evolution, I just think evolution science has basically gone nowhere in 20 years in answering anything and we still get the same textbook answer like Darwinists are reading from the Bible. We Darwinists recite our hymns to the non-believers.......

Bach: Stanton says: ""If a species or taxon has adapted to a stable, specific ecological niche, then any mutations that would render a generation of those organisms less fit to stay within that niche will be selected against"" Ahh, what is that Darwinists Bible, Chapter 12, Verse 19. 505 Million years? Don't you find that the least bit incredible? That this thing evolved all the way from nothing to a jellyfish and then sat fat dumb and happy for 505 Million years?

Bach: You saound like David Koresh followers when faced with information is presented that strains your belief system, you return to root memory and start spouting Darwilical verse like a evolution extermist...

IANAB, so someone please feel free to correct me if I'm way off base.

Really, the only difference between artificial selection and natural selection is our understanding and interpretation of the environment. In the case of artificial selection, the "environment" that dictated breeding was controlled by fashion and not survival ability. IIUC, this would be more like sexual selection than so-called "survival of the fittest." The fact that humans are the "controlling factor" and are "intelligent" doesn't matter to the dogs or their genes. The labels we use ("artificial selection" vs. "natural selection") are just as arbitrary and artificial as the selection criteria.

temminicki said"""worked within the limits of evolution """

See, this is what I don't get. They weren't working within the limits of evolution theory, they stepped outside those limits.

I don't think anyone believes that evolution, left to its own natural selection and other theories would have ever created the dog breeds of today, it took an intelligence to plan and conceive and take action to build the dog breeds.

Yet, if say man 5,000 years ago bred the dogs, and that knowledge was lost to history, Darwinists would today be arguing, forcefully, that the dog breeds simply occurred by natural selection, would they not?? And they would be calling everyone a crack pot who suggested an intelligent thought went into the design of the dog breeds.

Bach: temminicki said"""worked within the limits of evolution """ See, this is what I don't get. They weren't working within the limits of evolution theory, they stepped outside those limits. I don't think anyone believes that evolution, left to its own natural selection and other theories would have ever created the dog breeds of today, it took an intelligence to plan and conceive and take action to build the dog breeds. Yet, if say man 5,000 years ago bred the dogs, and that knowledge was lost to history, Darwinists would today be arguing, forcefully, that the dog breeds simply occurred by natural selection, would they not?? And they would be calling everyone a crack pot who suggested an intelligent thought went into the design of the dog breeds.

HeartOfGold:

Siamang: Everyone knows the "Heart of Gold" is the name of Zaphod Beeblebrox's spaceship in "Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy." That or he's a Neil Young fan. Right, HoG, buddy?

Yep, on both counts.

The fact that humans are the “controlling factor” and are “intelligent” doesn’t matter to the dogs or their genes. The labels we use (“artificial selection” vs. “natural selection”) are just as arbitrary and artificial as the selection criteria.

Really, the only difference between artificial selection and natural selection is our understanding and interpretation of the environment. In the case of artificial selection, the “environment” that dictated breeding was controlled by fashion and not survival ability. IIUC, this would be more like sexual selection than so-called “survival of the fittest.” The fact that humans are the “controlling factor” and are “intelligent” doesn’t matter to the dogs or their genes. The labels we use (“artificial selection” vs. “natural selection”) are just as arbitrary and artificial as the selection criteria.

"""Stanton said: Intelligent design is an otherwise undetectable supernatural designer designing life as we know it."""

Ohh, is that what it is, sorry, I was confused. I'd never heard of that before...that's crazy talk...
But wait, who's definition is that? The Darwinists?

Since noone knows whether a designer is undetectable, or supernatural (love that word) and since it is not a defined science (as every scientists agrees), then what 'intelligent design' actually would consist of is certainly debateable.

Let’s just play pretend for a minute.

We are at a point in time when man is beginning to be able to modify and create new life.

With the work on DNA and cloning, how long will it be before man has created his own life forms.

Now let’s say for example that after man creates a few life forms, there is a catastrophic event on the Earth.

Call it Global Warming, call it Volcanic eruptions, call it a massive meteor, whatever, but due to the cataclysmic

event most life is wiped out. People do not survive, only Apes are left, except for some special animals that were well protected because they were special – they were man made. 500 million years go by and ape develops into an ape-man hybrid and gets to the point again where he is trying to determine the origins of life.

One ape-man scientist, will call him Darwin Cho Lee publishes a theory that all of the life evolved from an original
life form, he called it evolution and natural selection. He proved it by reviewing the tree of life and natural selection, etc. etc.

But then one day a person discovers an ancient CD, buried deep beneath the debris. They are actually able to read part of it and discover writings that talk about a super natural place called Pandas Thumb which describes
beings that have never been seen before. They are called Man, a god-like creature that once walked the Earth.
This creature was so powerful it had actually created life. They began a cult, more of a religion really to worship Man
as their God, and a Man named Nick, who was like a Jesus who brought the news of the creation of life.
This became the Pandas Thumb religion, soon with millions of ape-man followers who believed the ancient text
that Man had created life.

They were shunned and called stupid by the much smarter evolutionists who knew their science was much smarter then the scribblings on some old manuscript that no one knows who wrote it, etc.

HOG creo troll lying: Mark Twain once wrote something that could apply to Nova’s intentional use of Scopes Trial mythology: “A lie well told is immortal.”

But, as I stated before, the fact that humans were doing the selecting on dogs for thousands of years makes this the longest longitudinal laboratory study demonstrating the effects of selection on variations (the central thesis of evolution).

So the central idea has been demonstrated in a several thousand year long laboratory experiment.

Who says evolution has no experimental support?

If we had evidence of a large variety of dog breeds from 5000 years ago, and the knowledge of how it had been done was lost, we'd probably conclude that the environment that produced such a diversity must have been very strange. If these breeds did not survive to the present and we had only fossils and no DNA to go by, we might even (in our ignorance) classify them as different species. Then again, careful study of the fossils and their relationship to civilizations of the time would probably allow us to re-discover the truth.

If, 5000 years from now, humans disappear and some alien biologists arrive and take a detailed look at the surviving dog breeds, they'd probably conclude, as we would, that the environment that produced such diversity must have been very strange indeed.

Of course, without technological humans around, most of the varieties of dog breeds would probably cross-breed and re-integrate or die out within a few centuries.

Staton said: """Artificial selection is where humans have directed the breeding and survival of other organisms for the humans’ benefit, in other words, the processes of animal husbandry and agriculture."""

AND YOUR NOT LISTENING! I said PRETEND you don't know that man interfered with the natural selection to create dog breeds. If you DIDN'T KNOW that handy piece of information, wouldn't Darwinists today be arguing that all dog breeds occurred by natural selection??? Its a simple question?

Maybe I'm misreading Bach's comments, but it seems like (at least part of) what he's asking is something like: Suppose the human race disappeared and some other beings with a theory of evolution just like ours arrived and saw that there were all these dog breeds (either extant or fossilized), and the evidence suggests that this variety all came from a single common ancestor in just a few thousand years (for most breeds anyway). How would they explain that? Many breeds don't seem very well adapted to any particular outdoor environment, so would the future evolutionary biologists be forced to conclude that there was an intelligent influence involved?

That's an interesting question, and it seems that it would depend on how much is known about humans, their habits, lifestyles, behavior patterns, history, agriculture, civilization, etc. If a lot, then clearly the best explanation would turn out to be that humans were involved in selectively breeding the dogs. If absolutely no trace of humans (other than their dogs) was left, then it might seem quite perplexing.

oops...Mr. Gascoyne beat me to it.

Whew! Looks like Bach's meds are wearing off again.

Mike says: ""Who says evolution has no experimental support?"""

Actually, since an intelligent being was creating new breeds, who says ID has no experimental support. In fact going one further, the intelligence used by man to create new breeds in fact led to a EXPLOSION of new breeds near simultanoeusly, unlike the slow, steady, gradual progression of the darwinist.

In fact, explosions of life have been witnessed in the past, arguing for the intervention of an intelligence and not darwinist gradual accidental selections.

Ohh, is that what it is, sorry, I was confused. I’d never heard of that before…that’s crazy talk… But wait, who’s definition is that? The Darwinists?

Bach: Staton said: """Artificial selection is where humans have directed the breeding and survival of other organisms for the humans’ benefit, in other words, the processes of animal husbandry and agriculture.""" AND YOUR NOT LISTENING! I said PRETEND you don't know that man interfered with the natural selection to create dog breeds. If you DIDN'T KNOW that handy piece of information, wouldn't Darwinists today be arguing that all dog breeds occurred by natural selection??? Its a simple question?

I don’t think anyone believes that evolution, left to its own natural selection and other theories would have ever created the dog breeds of today, it took an intelligence to plan and conceive and take action to build the dog breeds. Yet, if say man 5,000 years ago bred the dogs, and that knowledge was lost to history, Darwinists would today be arguing, forcefully, that the dog breeds simply occurred by natural selection, would they not?? And they would be calling everyone a crack pot who suggested an intelligent thought went into the design of the dog breeds.

Thank you gentlemen I must go take my meds now, I promise to come back and read all your comments, I have pretty much thrown some main thoughts I had out there to understand the arguments.

Don't think ID is always going to be stupid enough to be caught pedalling religion. They will get smarter, they will learn from their mistakes, they may even evolve....hey hey...

Actually, since an intelligent being was creating new breeds, who says ID has no experimental support. In fact going one further, the intelligence used by man to create new breeds in fact led to a EXPLOSION of new breeds near simultanoeusly, unlike the slow, steady, gradual progression of the darwinist.

Stanton: """Please learn how to spell, learn how to read books, and learn how to organize your thoughts, or please go away"""

Thanks Stanton, you are a kind soul. Not all of us have full use of our faculties, or even thumbs, hope you can fogive.

Bach: Thank you gentlemen I must go take my meds now, I promise to come back and read all your comments, I have pretty much thrown some main thoughts I had out there to understand the arguments. Don't think ID is always going to be stupid enough to be caught pedalling religion. They will get smarter, they will learn from their mistakes, they may even evolve....hey hey...

Bach: Stanton: """Please learn how to spell, learn how to read books, and learn how to organize your thoughts, or please go away""" Thanks Stanton, you are a kind soul. Not all of us have full use of our faculties, or even thumbs, hope you can fogive.

What would life on Earth look like now if there had not been an asteroid impact 65 MYA?

What would have evolved from wolves if humans never appeared?

The confusion over what currently is and what might have been contains an underlying assumption that evolution is somehow directed.

Why introduce the artificial assumption that there are dogs to be explained if there were no humans when we know in hindsight the the existance of dogs is tied up with the existance of humans, both of which are here accidentally because of an asteroid impact.

What if descendents of ape-like creatures never developed the intelligence to select dogs? Suppose some other creature (such as a bacterium) wiped out certain variations of wolves? How in regard to selection are humans any different from any other possible selector in the environment?

Nova is so guilty of distortion it's not funny! I can't believe they put this crap on the air using taxpayer funded dollars!

I mean, they made The Wedge sound like it was just about evolution, but ( http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html ):

"Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature."

These radicals are pushing for a complete overthrow of science itself, not just Darwinian evolution!

...

Sorry, couldn't help mocking HoG. :D

I have actually wondered often enough what a later-evolved intelligent being would think about our human-altered world. That's less a problem (as pointed out previously) with domesticated organisms (which will generally revert to wild-type, or die out) than it is with geology and climate records.

The problems are obvious, in that humans do not fit neatly into the patterns of life, for we developed culture in ways that are not especially predictable to us at the present time. We always have trouble in explaining the outliers and whatever does not fit the rest of the "normal patterns".

So Bach, loki troll as he apparently is, found the well-known failing of science (it does not deal well with exceptions), and did his best to make it a problem for evolution alone. Of course that's nonsense, because sure, contingencies are a problem for evolution. In fact, his trolling both exemplifies the unscientific attitude that IDists have toward science and its abilities where regularities rule, and he comes up with a scenario which demonstrates how absurd it is to demand every last detail in evolutionary processes, as the egregious Behe insists that we do.

Indeed, how could we explain some of the genetics of a dog species which descended from our own "tamperings with nature"? We couldn't (certainly not fully), nor would any reasonable person demand that we explain every contingency which arose over the course of "natural evolution". The conclusion: Behe is not a reasonable man.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Bach's comments reminded me of a different sort of intelligent design theory mentioned by Alvin Plantinga, philosopher at Notre Dame. He is known (among philosophers at least) for trying to keep people from accepting ontological naturalism, especially when they base it on the success of methodological naturalism (which he accepts as good science). He gave a talk at CU Boulder recently, and rather than suggesting that god "poofed" new species into existence, he suggested that god might have helped out the populations and individuals that had the characteristics he thought were promising, i.e. those that could eventually lead to creatures that are like us mentally. For example, he could have sneaked them some extra food during a famine or protected them from an oncoming tsunami or things like that. That would make it more like the artificial breeding sort of intelligent design rather than the more familiar kind.

These radicals are pushing for a complete overthrow of science itself, not just Darwinian evolution!

Actually, since an intelligent being was creating new breeds, who says ID has no experimental support. In fact going one further, the intelligence used by man to create new breeds in fact led to a EXPLOSION of new breeds near simultanoeusly, unlike the slow, steady, gradual progression of the darwinist.

If, 5000 years from now, humans disappear and some alien biologists arrive and take a detailed look at the surviving dog breeds, they’d probably conclude, as we would, that the environment that produced such diversity must have been very strange indeed.

This is amazing! Even after getting drubbed in the trial, they're complaining about literature dropping!

Even better, this poster has completely given their game away, again, about how ID is motivated by sectarion religion.

HeartOfGold said: I was challenging NOVA’s credibility. I’m not here to debate ID. But I understand that if you’re interested in debating ID, many ID advocates offers to debate meet silence, per NCSE talking point memos. Comment #134840 on November 14, 2007 11:16 AM | Quote

I just realized that Evolutionists are perfectly happy letting a judge decide what should and what should not be taught in the public schools. Scary.

A Federal judge no less...deciding local curriculum...which is all fine and good for the libtards, so long as the judges decide their way.

Another comment:

* Kevin Padian needs a haircut.

raven: We've noticed. Cretinism conflicts with biology, astronomy, geology, and paleontology.

GuyeFaux: BTW, how does one look for evidence of sexual selection in let's say fossils?

Donnie B. said: One thing that struck me was that Judge Jones hit the Dover school board with court costs for the case. It struck me as ironic and rather unfair that the good citizens of that community, including the science teachers and the parents who brought the suit and/or opposed the board’s decision, will have to pick up the tab in the form of increased taxes or service cuts. Does that seem right to you? Perhaps the school district will make up the difference by cutting music and art classes. Two birds with one stone! No more annoyingly controversial murals. Too bad the judge wasn’t more creative in laying the costs where they belonged. How about billing Boneskull and Bloatingham personally? Or those folks who chipped in to buy the Pandas books – they seem to have lots of extra cash lying around. Or wait, I’ve got it. Tax the Fundie churches! …What? Oh, never mind then. Comment #134909 on November 14, 2007 2:22 PM | Quote

Bach: """I wonder if Bach and HeartOfGold "" ... And by the way, I have always believed in Evolution, I just think evolution science has basically gone nowhere in 20 years in answering anything and we still get the same textbook answer like Darwinists are reading from the Bible. We Darwinists recite our hymns to the non-believers.......

HeartOfGold:

Bach: """I wonder if Bach and HeartOfGold "" ... And by the way, I have always believed in Evolution, I just think evolution science has basically gone nowhere in 20 years in answering anything and we still get the same textbook answer like Darwinists are reading from the Bible. We Darwinists recite our hymns to the non-believers.......

I agree with some of what Bach wrote. For example, Public Radio host Krista Tippett had Darwin's writings solemnly read, complete with organ music, as can be heard in this mp3 of Speaking of Faith Admit it, Darwinism is a religion. Even Krista Tippett knows it (as well as James Moore).

I just realized that Evolutionists are perfectly happy letting a judge decide what should and what should not be taught in the public schools. Scary. A Federal judge no less…deciding local curriculum…which is all fine and good for the libtards, so long as the judges decide their way.

I’m waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won’t come off looking well.

— Head IDiot Dembski

Just noticed something; two of my comments that I had just posted on UD have no disappeared. I've posted again letting them know that I've already saved the UD HTML pages that those comments appeared on when I posted them.

Anyway I can get a screenshot to you guys for comparison's sake?

Hitler said: The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.

So, HeartofGold, can you please explain how does this quote of Hitler's demonstrate that trying to breed orchids or learn about placoderms will lead a person to go out and kill Jewish people for the sake of Germany?

Martin Luther said: But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore.

Now, I've got 3 or 4 people responding to me, well, the comments that got left anyway

"The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future."
having studied Hilter's evil, I have not seen this quote. Did you make it up, or is it frrom kenedy? (I read Mien Kemp)

Probably something James Kennedy lied about: I doubt that HeartofGold would be clever enough to make up a fake quote all by itself.

all of HOG's comments on Hilter are from creationists sites, he appears totally unaware that "social Darwinism" has nothing to do with Darwin. I beleive that Hitler quote was espoused by that great creation scientist "ann coulter". (she failed HS Biology) Ignorant? of course, but his sources know this, they lie, he sucks it up. Absoltely no sense trying deal with his delusions.

Hold the presses! We have another ID prediction from Uncommon Descent. One of the commenters states both the prediction and the scientific basis for it:

"[A]nd by the way, ID predicts that AIDS will outrun any attempts to cure it since it is a curse sent upon sinful humanity. I don’t know if you have read the bible but it is abundantly clear that although G*D is just merciful and loving, he does not suffer a witch to live. and as far as I can tell the pottymouth is very likely a Wiccan. (Erasmus,
11/14/2007, 10:31 pm)

["Pottymouth," from a preceding comment, refers to Abbie Smith.]

And yet, there are people who still insist ID isn't religious.

Olorin, why do you keep trying to pretend that ID and creationism are the same thing? ID advocates aren't trying to force any religion on any one! They only talk about science. Have you no shame? What a hatchet job! You must be pretty desperate to...

Jeez, that's exhausting. How do IDists keep it up year after year?

Hitler was certainly fond of Darwin

Sorry I missed a couple hours of comments here. I was at church.

There seems to be a lot of ambiguity on both sides as to dawg breeding as "intelligent design" vel non. Like Gascoyne, IANAB. And I think he has the right approach (Comment #135000). Since this is a common ID whine, it deserves a simple answer that even they can understand.

Artificial and natural selection are the same thing. In AS, the fitness function is not what works in the wild, but what the human breeder wants. The human breeder does not "design" anything, but merely observes variations that already exist, and selects among them, in exactly the same way as nature selects. Ask an IDiot whether he thinks honeybees are intelligent. They select fruit trees for characteristics that they like; that is, they breed fruit trees the same way we breed dawgs. Do bees "intelligently design" apple trees?

It's ironic that IDers frequently taunt that people have bred dawgs for thousands of years, but no dawg has ever produced an elephunt. Our answer should be that evolution predicts only small changes: dawgs from dawgs. The only way you could get an elephunt from a dawg is by INTELLIGENT DESIGN. And, since this has not happened, it is ID that is falsified, not evolution.

Nihil tam absurdum, quod non dictum sit ab aliquo, as Cicero once told me.

Since dog breeds can interbreed, if man was not selecting which dogs breed with which, after 5000 years the individual breeds would not exist. You’d only have a bunch of mutts. And we would still be calling you a crackpot.

stevaroni:

Hitler was certainly fond of Darwin

He was also quite fond of maps. Does this mean that I should now ignore all my evil maps?

HOG trolling: I just realized that Evolutionists are perfectly happy letting a judge decide what should and what should not be taught in the public schools. Scary.

MPW said: "Olorin, why do you keep trying to pretend that ID and creationism are the same thing?"

I don't. They speak it for themselves. As Jesus once said, whose image is on the coin?

trrll:

Since dog breeds can interbreed, if man was not selecting which dogs breed with which, after 5000 years the individual breeds would not exist. You’d only have a bunch of mutts. And we would still be calling you a crackpot.

Lots of luck getting Chihuahuas and Great Danes to interbreed.

The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future.” having studied Hilter’s evil, I have not seen this quote. Did you make it up, or is it frrom kenedy? (I read Mien Kemp)

Olorin, did you read my whole comment? I mean, I know it's hard to tell the difference sometimes between real nuts and irony, but...

I promise to come back and read all your comments, I have pretty much thrown some main thoughts I had out there to understand the arguments.

Another comment: * Kevin Padian needs a haircut.

Mike says: ""Ah, yes. There it is. The self-centered, manipulative troll, with the mind of an adolescent, who thinks he is a discussion leader with great knowledge. He seems to think we are going to be his groveling students."""

Are all scientists as paranoid as you guys seem to be.

I was simply honestly asking the questions I put forth and had to go for the evening, I just wanted everyone to know even though I wasn't posting, I planned to read everything they said. I thought I would get some good explanations for the questions I put forth. I haven't read everything yet, but having thought about it, I am basically looking to see if eviolution theory even has a name for intelligent manipulation of evolution. If man breeds dogs, so far poeple have calle that artificail selection.
But it would seem to me, scientists would certainly want to differentiate between articial selection that occurred randomly and artificail selection that was purposefully thought out.

Like I said I haven't read everything yet, but if someone knows a term in evolution that means inteligence was used to modify a life form based on intelligent thought, I would like to know what it is, and if their isn't one, why? It would seem such a term is necessary to convey accurate information.

And once again, whoever runs the site could easily tell you based on IP addresses if anyone is using different names to post. I have not.

trrll said: Lots of luck getting Chihuahuas and Great Danes to interbreed.

Mike Elzinga quipped: ...So where did Bach get his “profound understanding” of science; from the bottom of a dirty toilet bowl? Has he even finished high school? ...Wow, what a role model! Do these trolls reproduce? Apparently they do; he isn’t unique.

The Troll Model blithered: ...I am basically looking to see if eviolution theory even has a name for intelligent manipulation of evolution. If man breeds dogs, so far poeple have calle that artificail selection. But it would seem to me, scientists would certainly want to differentiate between articial selection that occurred randomly and artificail selection that was purposefully thought out. Like I said I haven’t read everything yet, but if someone knows a term in evolution that means inteligence was used to modify a life form based on intelligent thought, I would like to know what it is, and if their isn’t one, why? It would seem such a term is necessary to convey accurate information.

trrll said:

Lots of luck getting Chihuahuas and Great Danes to interbreed.

Great Danes, unable to feed themselves because their heart problems prevent them from chasing prey, will simply eat the chihuahuas. Extreme breeds will die out, leaving the mutts to populate the earth.

The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.

HeartOfGold said: I just realized that Evolutionists are perfectly happy letting a judge decide what should and what should not be taught in the public schools. Scary. A Federal judge no less…deciding local curriculum…which is all fine and good for the libtards, so long as the judges decide their way. Comment #135045 on November 14, 2007 8:38 PM | Quote

HeartOfGold:

Elf Eye: A master troll with a lousy command of logic--oh, wait, that's part of the job description.

If I were illogical, I would not be so infuriating.

In case you guys haven't noticed Bach is trolling every single PT article. You're welcome to continue feeding him but I'd say the odds of him getting *anything* are somewhere around 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 (give or take 100).

Enjoy!

Post-Winning Depression.

Due to religious influence on politics, our country's fundamentalist minority has been handed money and power that is helping to create problems like attacking the Theory of Evolution.

Teleological arguments entertained in religion, psychology, philosophy, etc. really don't belong in the Biological or Physical sciences. There are people that express belief in Intelligent Design without having a specific religious bias, which is totally inexcusable because, well... that's just Stupid. Who would believe in this stuff (ID), unless they had to.

To merely look at a complex or beautiful trait, theorize that some malevolent power created it, give their theory really cool anthropomorphic names, declare their finding as the "be-all and end-all" explanation for the universe, the world, all known life, and all scientific debate (and probably everything else). Then verify their really cool, non-theoretical, facts with an argument like "Just Look At It", or "That Thing Has Eyes Because It Needs It To See".

I have to admit... how can you argue with logic like that!

I'm not sure what that says about things Not complex or beautiful. Maybe a Non-intelligent Designer, multiple Designers... or maybe a committee.

When political people want to assert their authoritarian side, they can always count on a fairly good sized religious population that is ready and willing to smash noggins (suppress and intimidate)... and make Everybody follow their marching orders. It really doesn't matter that Science desires to limit itself to the "real world", use it's "Scientific Method", and allow facts to be falsifiable. My guess is that even if the Dover Panda Trial went all the way to the Supreme Court... and won, the fundamentalist authoritarian people would merely criticize the "activist" judges, redefine their argument, and follow their teleological bent.

re: dispirit dog breeding, I recall a little Reader's Digest one-liner reprinting a want ad: "Puppies free to a good home. Mother: St. Bernard, father: a very remarkable dachshund."

But 200 years from now, if the knowldege was lost that an intelligent being (man) actually created the dog breeds,...

*An* intelligent being? If we go along with your very loose definition of "create", one might argue that man "created" dog breeds. But all the work of creating new dog-breeds was performed by *thousands* of dog breeders over many centuries (i.e. *not* a single creator). These dog-breeders were not omniscient or omnipotent. They were very imperfect humans who made plenty of stupid mistakes along the way, and who produced dog-breeds prone to all kinds of horrible health problems.

This is entirely consistent with the "multiple-designers" hypothesis. And the theological implications should not be comforting for you. "Intelligent design" as it as actually observed in the real world is theologically much more compatible with ancient Greek or Roman paganism than it is with Judeo-Christian monotheism.

So Bach, you should tread carefully around this "intelligent designer" stuff, lest you end up promoting paganism over Christianity.

First, it made the case that Intelligent Design is not science...
Second, it showed that Intelligent Design is religion in disguise.

These two statements can be combined into one:

Religion disguised as Intelligent Design is not science.

However, intelligent design itself falls squarely within the realm of natural science and can be investigated using the tools of science. Intelligent design and evolution are perfectly compatible and you can easily believe in both, as most people, catholics, protestants, Jews and muslims do.

Kamehameha the Great: First, it made the case that Intelligent Design is not science... Second, it showed that Intelligent Design is religion in disguise. These two statements can be combined into one: Religion disguised as Intelligent Design is not science. However, intelligent design itself falls squarely within the realm of natural science and can be investigated using the tools of science. Intelligent design and evolution are perfectly compatible and you can easily believe in both, as most people, catholics, protestants, Jews and muslims do.

Kamehameha the Great said: "...intelligent design itself falls squarely within the realm of natural science..."

Didn't you watch the NOVA program? Intelligent design creationism does not fall anywhere near science. But it definitely falls.

raven:

HOG trolling: I just realized that Evolutionists are perfectly happy letting a judge decide what should and what should not be taught in the public schools. Scary.

... The federal judge was just enforcing the US constitution. Which mandates separation of church and state. It is illegal to sneak creo religious mythology into science classes. ...

Dentistry is a secular, humanistic science. It realies on naturalism and not the supernaturalism.

Who don't the creationists object to dentistry?

Hitler said: The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.

Mike Elzinga:

Hitler said: The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.

You still haven’t answered the question about the death threats on Judge Jones and the repeated perjury on the part of Bonsell and Buckingham at the trial (see comments #134940 and #134943 above). As a spokesman for a religion that is critical of Darwin, how do you explain the behaviors of your cohorts? Do you do things like this? Did you participate in the death threats? Do you approve of this behavior? Where does Darwin figure in these behaviors? We are sure you know the answer to this. We would like know how you and your cohorts think about things like this.

Pardon my semantic niggling, but wouldn’t that make him a troll model?

Mr_Christopher: Dentistry is a secular, humanistic science. It realies on naturalism and not the supernaturalism. Who don't the creationists object to dentistry?

Regarding logical fallicies: What do you think about Bill Clinton's perjury, out of curiosity. Would it be ad hominem to call Bill Clinton a philanderer? Hillary the wife of a philanderer?

Regarding perjury and death threats: I am not a prosecuting attorney. We have laws against this sort of thing, and if they occured, there will be prosecutions.

Catch a clue nimrod. I am not a spokesman nor a witness for a religion. When you attempt to classify any criticism of the way evolutionists behave as religiously motivated it calls into question your ability to classify life forms (as good biological librarians are keen on doing).

Mike Elzinga: You appear to revel in making unsupported accusations, yet you can’t explain the behaviors of your cohorts that everyone has witnessed.

Mike Elzinga: You apparently want to blame everything on evolution (we know where that comes from). How do you turn a blind eye to other atrocities? What point are you trying to make other than the fact that you have no clue what evolution is all about.

Mike Elzinga: You appear to revel in making unsupported accusations, yet you can’t explain the behaviors of your cohorts that everyone has witnessed.

Mike Elzinga: You apparently want to blame everything on evolution (we know where that comes from). How do you turn a blind eye to other atrocities? What point are you trying to make other than the fact that you have no clue what evolution is all about.

HeartOfGold:

Mr_Christopher: Dentistry is a secular, humanistic science. It realies on naturalism and not the supernaturalism. Who don't the creationists object to dentistry?

And why don't dentists have convolusions when people ask about Flouride, like biological librarians have when people ask about macro versus micro evolution. (Hint: Denistry is not a religion, evolutionism is). We don't have websites set up by chemists zealously defending chemistry from alchemy, because chemistry is a science, and not a religion, like evoluionism.

HoG asks: "And why don’t dentists have convolusions [sic] when people ask about Flouride [sic]...." (#135158)

Because most dentists are not old enough to remember when religious zealots in the '50s were screaming that fluoride was the work of The Devil, the guise of World Communism, which was out to kill God-fearing Americans by poisoning their water supply. Thank you for choosing that particular example. It damages your position nicely.

HoG dosen't have convolutions himself because he doesn't understand that Religion*Science=Integral[Religion(God)Science(NaturalWorld--God)dGod]

HOG:

How many generations did it take for some human cancer cells to become the new species Helacyton gartleri? It's just a bit different from the organism that it descended from.

HeartOfGold: They are not my cohorts (as should be evident by the unique characteristics of my arguments).

They are not my cohorts (as should be evident by the unique characteristics of my arguments).

HeartOfGold: I just realized that Evolutionists are perfectly happy letting a judge decide what should and what should not be taught in the public schools. Scary. A Federal judge no less...deciding local curriculum...which is all fine and good for the libtards, so long as the judges decide their way. Another comment: * Kevin Padian needs a haircut.

HeartOfGold whaaa! whaaa! whaaa! Stop whining.

HoG dosen’t have convolutions himself because he doesn’t understand that Religion*Science=Integral[Religion(God)Science(NaturalWorld–God)dGod]

The term used is “artificial selection.” It is not, of course, intelligent design, since breeders did not design a final goal and design a breeding program to create it–they just kept and bred the dogs that they most liked. But neither is it natural selection, in which the reproductive success of animals in the wild ultimately determined how the species would change over time.

The term used is “artificial selection.” It is not, of course, intelligent design, since breeders did not design a final goal and design a breeding program to create it–they just kept and bred the dogs that they most liked. But neither is it natural selection, in which the reproductive success of animals in the wild ultimately determined how the species would change over time.

One thing about Casey's response that I'm not sure how to take is this (ongoing) insistence by the Discovery Institute that they urged the school board not to teach Intelligent Design in the curriculum. Is this true, marginally true, or a case of moving goalposts?

First, it made the case that Intelligent Design is not science.

the IDists never clearly explained why ID is science, what it is capable of, or what good it is.

Physics professors do not become angry when students try to come up with schemes to exceed the speed of light.

Physics professors do not become angry when students try to come up with schemes to exceed the speed of light.

Just a thought, but isn’t the term “artificial selection” superfluous in some ways? We humans are natural and certainly our actions are very natural. We may have a more dramatic form of impact than some other selection forces, but I really don’t think we are any less natural. I submit that our breeding programs are a form of natural selection, with the acknowledgement that the traits that give an animal selective advantage are VERY specific and almost always selected.

jimmiraybob:

HeartOfGold: I just realized that Evolutionists are perfectly happy letting a judge decide what should and what should not be taught in the public schools. Scary. A Federal judge no less...deciding local curriculum...which is all fine and good for the libtards, so long as the judges decide their way. Another comment: * Kevin Padian needs a haircut.

Is was, in fact, the people of Dover that decided what the curriculum should be and they came down in favor of science and not fantasy. It was citizen's of Dover and the school district that brought the case and presented the more compelling argument under our common system of law. The citizens of Dover also voted out the ID fanatics. Yes, as an avowed libtard I do believe in our system of rule of law and constitutional democratic action. And you? I'd point out that in addition to committing perjury , stealing the mural and destroying it was also criminal behavior.

But it is legal to sneak secular humanism into “science” class (and by science, we mean evolutionist class, ‘cause these heated national debates don’t occur in chemistry).

Great Danes, unable to feed themselves because their heart problems prevent them from chasing prey, will simply eat the chihuahuas. Extreme breeds will die out, leaving the mutts to populate the earth.

It would not surprise me if the Creationism-in-the-guise-of-ID-tards were in fact moles of ACLU and evolutionists in a scheme to shakedown Dover taxpayers to fund the church of the NCSE. The ACLU guy in the Nova documentary seemed a little to pleased with himself now that I think about it.

Earlier:

Heart of Gold stated, “Evolutionists are much more likely to be racist and fascist than Lutherans”

I asked for "evidence or retraction, please."

******************************************

[cue crickets chirping]

Oh, never mind. Y'all are right - HoG is pure troll.

trrll: The would if religious extremists started insisting that high school classes should give equal time to the idea that the elements are air, earth, fire, and water, or if chemistry teachers were required to read a statement that "because Atomic Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact."

H.L Hastings: I do not wish to meddle with any man's family matters, or quarrel with any one about his relatives. If a man prefers to look for his kindred in the zoological gardens, it is no concern of mine; if he wants to believe that the founder of his family was an ape, a gorilla, a mud-turtle, or a moner, he may do so; but when he insists that I shall trace my lineage in that direction, I say No Sir!...I prefer that my genealogical table shall end as it now does, with "Cainan, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams: Earlier: Heart of Gold stated, “Evolutionists are much more likely to be racist and fascist than Lutherans” I asked for "evidence or retraction, please." ****************************************** [cue crickets chirping]

I'm no scientist but even I know that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not evolutionists. Hitler was into social Darwinism (a different animal than evolution) Stalin hated Darwinian evolution as bourgeoisie propaganda and Mao persecuted the educated including biologists. Your lies are tissue thin.

Is it me or are the creationists getting boring, breathtakingly inane even?

HOG - Stalin was most emphatically not a supporter of the theory of evolution. Vavilov, who essentially initiated the study of the evolution of crop plants, was one of many who died in Siberian prison camps because they accepted the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the variety of life on Earth.

You really need to learn the basics of a subject before you start to expound upon it.

HeartOfGold said: I agree with the elections that tossed out the Creationism-in-the-guise-of-ID-tards. The court case, and a federal judge deciding educational content is a different question, with which I am far less comfortable.

If a man prefers to look for his kindred in the zoological gardens, it is no concern of mine; if he wants to believe that the founder of his family was an ape, a gorilla, a mud-turtle, or a moner, he may do so; but when he insists that I shall trace my lineage in that direction, I say No Sir!

It would not surprise me if the Creationism-in-the-guise-of-ID-tards were in fact moles of ACLU and evolutionists in a scheme to shakedown Dover taxpayers to fund the church of the NCSE. The ACLU guy in the Nova documentary seemed a little to pleased with himself now that I think about it. I have in the past suspected liberal school boards of being willing participants in ACLU lawsuits, ultimately agreeing, as an out of court settlement to dismiss the lawsuit, to do something the school board wanted to do all along, but did not have the courage to go ahead and do without cover.

By george I think I am starting to understand.

So Darwinist evolutionists believe:

1. Not just in natural selection but in ARTIFICIAL selection.

2. That evolutionary processes designed life forms.

3. That the evolutionary process could have been artificailly
selected by an intelligent being (EX: Man).

So that means Darwinist evolutionist believe in an intelligent being, using evolutionary processes to design an animal.

So what you are objecting to is someone putting forth the concept that the being that uses artifical selection to create evolved life forms is a SUPERNATURAL being.

So your not as far apart from the ID crowd as I had thought.

But does ID theory require the being to be supernatural? If the being was natural, it would be perfectly consistent with Darwinst evolutionary theory as explained, or am I missing something.

So do Darwinists actual look for natural artificial natural selection occurences or evidence when doing their reseach?

Evidence: Stalin, Hitler, Mao.
straight out of a creationist playbook, completely made up hype. This troll claims he is not a creationist and is not trying to advance his religion yet he spouts their talking points, that makes him a liar in my book. Liar for Jesus, Buhingham's kindred spirit!

HeartOfGold: It would not surprise me if the Creationism-in-the-guise-of-ID-tards were in fact moles of ACLU and evolutionists in a scheme to shakedown Dover taxpayers to fund the church of the NCSE. The ACLU guy in the Nova documentary seemed a little to pleased with himself now that I think about it. I have in the past suspected liberal school boards of being willing participants in ACLU lawsuits, ultimately agreeing, as an out of court settlement to dismiss the lawsuit, to do something the school board wanted to do all along, but did not have the courage to go ahead and do without cover.

HeartOfGold:

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams: Earlier: Heart of Gold stated, “Evolutionists are much more likely to be racist and fascist than Lutherans” I asked for "evidence or retraction, please." ****************************************** [cue crickets chirping]

Evidence: Stalin, Hitler, Mao. [cue dog hiding in shame]

If Bach is laying out the future arguments of ID (or whatever it will be called), the ID crowd should be worried.

Bach arguments seem to be an example of evolution not proceeding toward some goal of perfection but in fact regressing considerably. One of the problems of inbreeding

Bach: By george I think I am starting to understand. So Darwinist evolutionists believe: 1. Not just in natural selection but in ARTIFICIAL selection. 2. That evolutionary processes designed life forms. 3. That the evolutionary process could have been artificailly selected by an intelligent being (EX: Man). So that means Darwinist evolutionist believe in an intelligent being, using evolutionary processes to design an animal. So what you are objecting to is someone putting forth the concept that the being that uses artifical selection to create evolved life forms is a SUPERNATURAL being. So your not as far apart from the ID crowd as I had thought. But does ID theory require the being to be supernatural? If the being was natural, it would be perfectly consistent with Darwinst evolutionary theory as explained, or am I missing something. So do Darwinists actual look for natural artificial natural selection occurences or evidence when doing their reseach?

tenebrous: I'm no scientist but even I know that ...Mao persecuted the educated including biologists...

In #135088, MPW said: "I know it’s hard to tell the difference sometimes between real nuts and irony, but…"

Too right, MPW. But then, I couldn't resist turning a Biblical allusion against the IDiots, in any event.

Braxton Thomason: And you think I need to wear a tinfoil hat?

HeartOfGold:

tenebrous: I'm no scientist but even I know that ...Mao persecuted the educated including biologists...

Communists including Mao believe that there is no God and that religions are superstitions. Consequently, that leaves out supernatural explanations for the origins of life. What's left if not evolution? You really should study the cultural revolution to understand Mao's motives. Mao did not persecute, Mao unleashed a cultural revolution to counter machinations on the part of underlings.

Heart Of Ormolu said: "Communists including Mao believe that there is no God and that religions are superstitions. Consequently, that leaves out supernatural explanations for the origins of life. What’s left if not evolution?"

You lost me around the last bend of the pretzel logic, HoG. But, if you really believe that, then here's another one for you: God is love; love is blind; therefore God is blind.

HoO further: "You really should study the cultural revolution to understand Mao’s motives. Mao did not persecute, Mao unleashed a cultural revolution to counter machinations on the part of underlings."

How many different subjects can you be in denial about? No wonder you don't have time to learn any biology.

Kamehameha the Great said: "However, intelligent design itself falls squarely within the realm of natural science and can be investigated using the tools of science. Intelligent design and evolution are perfectly compatible and you can easily believe in both, as most people, catholics, protestants, Jews and muslims do."

Ahahana, Solitary One! The logical fallacy here is called "equivocation": changing the definition in the middle of the Iao. Duke Kahanamoku will disown you for that.

So what you are objecting to is someone putting forth the concept that the being that uses artifical selection to create evolved life forms is a SUPERNATURAL being. So your not as far apart from the ID crowd as I had thought. But does ID theory require the being to be supernatural? If the being was natural, it would be perfectly consistent with Darwinst evolutionary theory as explained, or am I missing something.

trrll wrote: Lots of luck getting Chihuahuas and Great Danes to interbreed.

I was just wondering, as you do when reading troll's writing, if Heart of gold calls themselves that because they like DOuglas Adams' work, or because they genuinely think that they (Who so far seems consumed with hate) have a heart of gold in the normal sense of being nice and helpful etc.

But does ID theory require the being to be supernatural?

[insert Godwinesque bogeymen here)...believe that there is no God and that religions are superstitions. Consequently, that leaves out supernatural explanations for the origins of life. What’s left if not evolution?

stevaroni:

trrll wrote: Lots of luck getting Chihuahuas and Great Danes to interbreed.

Be careful what you stipulate. If, indeed, Chihuahuas and Great Danes cannot interbreed, then they are, by definition, different species.

HeartOfGold:

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams: Earlier: Heart of Gold stated, “Evolutionists are much more likely to be racist and fascist than Lutherans” I asked for "evidence or retraction, please." ****************************************** [cue crickets chirping]

Evidence: Stalin, Hitler, Mao. [cue dog hiding in shame]

stevaroni:

trrll wrote: Lots of luck getting Chihuahuas and Great Danes to interbreed.

Be careful what you stipulate. If, indeed, Chihuahuas and Great Danes cannot interbreed, then they are, by definition, different species...

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams:

HeartOfGold:

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams: Earlier: Heart of Gold stated, "Evolutionists are much more likely to be racist and fascist than Lutherans" I asked for "evidence or retraction, please." ****************************************** [cue crickets chirping]

Evidence: Stalin, Hitler, Mao. [cue dog hiding in shame]

Obviously you don't have the first clue as to what constitutes evidence, yet here you are criticizing science. Go figure . . . Show some studies of evolutionists v. non-evolutionists, where racist attitudes are measured. Of course, you'd have sub-groups to account for: Lutherans who accept evolution, Lutherans who don't, non-Lutherans who accept, non-Lutherans who don't . . . Instead, all you can do is pull out the usual trollish refrain. Ho hum. And here I thought you'd at least be interesting . . . [cue more bored cricket chirps]

You have not provided any evidence as Ms Cheryl-Adams requested, having, instead, insulted her.

The word evidence has a meaning that is context specific.

— HoG

I read this on another thread "This little turd, pole-jerker, will be much more wounded mentally and emotionally by the complete absence of response to his inanities than all the insults we can hurl."

this also applies to HOG, just perfect!
just ignore his rants, he will love it!

Stanton: You have not provided any evidence as Ms Cheryl-Adams requested, having, instead, insulted her.

Bill Gascoyne:

The word evidence has a meaning that is context specific.

— HoG

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."
Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) (1832-1898), "Through the Looking Glass"

Stanton: You have not provided any evidence as Ms Cheryl-Adams requested, having, instead, insulted her.

And, by this definition, you are a different species from WWII Japanese, since those Japnese refused to mate with garlic eaters.

HeartOfGold:

Stanton: You have not provided any evidence as Ms Cheryl-Adams requested, having, instead, insulted her.

And she could have left it at that, but instead choose to insult me with her snide cricket parenthetical. You seem to be okay with her dishing it out, but you don’t seem to think she can take it. Thanks for coming to her rescue (I have a feeling she won’t be thanking you, as your chivalry may be interpreted as chauvinistic).

Stanton: You have not provided any examples ...beyond a false quote of Hitler that was [conveniently] fabricated by James Kennedy.

trrll:

And, by this definition, you are a different species from WWII Japanese, since those Japnese refused to mate with garlic eaters.

No, because that is cultural rather than biological, as demonstrated by the fact that Japanese raised in the US have no such aversion.

Eugenie Scott and other expert witnesses are the only ones who came out of this smelling like a rose, with cost plus $250/hour expert testimony fees.

Stanton: You have not provided any examples of racist "evolutionists" ...

Stanton: ...nor have you provided any evidence to support your false claims that Stalin, Mao or Hitler were "evolutionists,"...

Stanton: Whether or not Ms Cheryl-Adams is appreciative of my alleged chivalry is her own business to decide, not yours.

dhogaza: The lying troll states

Eugenie Scott and other expert witnesses are the only ones who came out of this smelling like a rose, with cost plus $250/hour expert testimony fees.

Ummm witnesses on the plaintiff side volunteered their time (though I imagine their expenses were paid for). It was Dembski who charged $200/hour for his deposition and then REFUSED TO TAKE THE STAND.

HeartOfGold:

Stanton: ...nor have you provided any evidence to support your false claims that Stalin, Mao or Hitler were "evolutionists,"...

Actually, I provided evidence on Mao. Mao's cultural revolution was a counter attack against machinations among his underlings. The target was the establishment, not biologists, and the target was largely selected as a "look over there, and not behind the curtain" tactic. Counter revolutionaries were sought in all fields, much more widely than just in the field of biology. Doctors, professors, people in power from all walks of life were subjected to paranoid scrutiny. It wasn't an anti-Darwin campaign, as you folks like to imagine.

How does the Counter-Revolution prove that Mao was an evolutionist? You have not provided any evidence to show that Hitler, Stalin, nor Mao were evolutionists.

Could you provid a reference to a study that supports your contention?

HOG wrote:

"But you’re right, according to this, the NCSE worked pro bono. Then again, cult members often volunteer to support their religious beliefs (such as evolutionism) so it is not that big of a surprise."

Perfect logic. You are shown to be completely wrong in your claims, so what do you do? Do you simply admit you were wrong? No you make up stuff like: cult members often do things like this, therefore the people who volunteered their time to defend science must be cult members. Go take a course in logic, check your facts to make sure they are right, then don't come back.

Why do these people always choose names that are so easy to make fun of? Do they sit around thinking up names that can be easily ridiculed instead of doing science? Why? I mean really, Pole greaser, BJ Bond, HOG wild here and Bach (who is even as we speak decomposing). Grow up, get a life and try to get at least one shread of honesty. If you want to be taken at all seriously at least use a name that sounds real instead of stooping to sophmoric sexual inuendo. What, your name really is HOG... never mind.

Show some studies of evolutionists v. non-evolutionists, where racist attitudes are measured. Of course, you’d have sub-groups to account for: Lutherans who accept evolution, Lutherans who don’t, non-Lutherans who accept, non-Lutherans who don’t …

I very much enjoyed the ID smack down as presented on Nova. I finally got to view it last night (2 days later) as I missed the regularly scheduled prime time presentation. However, a funny thing happened on the way to the rebroadcast. My local PBS scheduled rebroadcast (Jacksonville, FL) was preempted for 5 hours of city council meeting (like watching paint dry) and my secondary cable source (Gainesville) provided audio only. Coincidence? Hardly. I do live in Jesusville, after all.

Apart from the satisfaction derived from the programs outcome, one thing I took away was the unrelenting fanaticism of the religio-crazies. They will never quit. It is the nature of fanaticism. For many years, I have been of the 'live and let live' attitude concerning the entire religion/science debate. What do I care if ignorant plonks want to believe in fairy tales? The last 7 years of Republicanite maladministration has convinced me that such a position is suicidal and that the entire spectrum of right wingnuttery must be resisted - immediately, constantly and with all necessary force. Based on the lessons of history, armed resistance cannot be ruled out.

What do you call an unarmed liberal - an inmate.

HeartOfGold:
Actually, I provided evidence on Mao. Mao's cultural revolution was a counter attack against machinations among his underlings. The target was the establishment, not biologists, and the target was largely selected as a "look over there, and not behind the curtain" tactic. Counter revolutionaries were sought in all fields, much more widely than just in the field of biology. Doctors, professors, people in power from all walks of life were subjected to paranoid scrutiny. It wasn't an anti-Darwin campaign, as you folks like to imagine.

HeartOfGold: Actually, I provided evidence on Mao. Mao's cultural revolution was a counter attack against machinations among his underlings. The target was the establishment, not biologists, and the target was largely selected as a "look over there, and not behind the curtain" tactic. Counter revolutionaries were sought in all fields, much more widely than just in the field of biology. Doctors, professors, people in power from all walks of life were subjected to paranoid scrutiny. It wasn't an anti-Darwin campaign, as you folks like to imagine.

This endless stream of vitriol from Heart of Gold (HOG to his correspondents) is all because NOVA decided to show a MOVIE CLIP? The Horror!!!

I expect if NOVA ever tries to put the dancing hippos scene from Fantasia in a show on African wildlife, the creationists will rampage through the streets of our cities, overturning cars and attacking police and innocent bystanders until the gutters run red with blood. And it will all be NOVA's fault. Because they ran a (gasp! Noooo!!!) MOVIE CLIP!!

This endless stream of vitriol from Heart of Gold (HOG to his correspondents) is all because NOVA decided to show a MOVIE CLIP? The Horror!!!

But you're right, according to this, the NCSE worked pro bono. Then again, cult members often volunteer to support their religious beliefs (such as evolutionism) so it is not that big of a surprise.

"Could you provid [sic] a reference to a study that supports your contention?"

HoG, you really are an a$$hole, aren't you?

For one thing, it's written by Casey Luskin, the DI's small mammal mascot, who is something of an incompetent pipsqueak, so it's hardly worth flicking him around any more.

— PZ Myers

I think Meyer is mellowing in his old age. He needs to be more specific when he can be. We all know "mammal" should be rodent and probably something like Pan rattus (no one wants to claim Homo status for the likes of Luskin). Even if it is a slur on the other great apes, they can't read, and as most of the Discovery Institute's followers know ignorance is bliss.