More "Expelled" News

Never thought, in my life-time, I'd be rooting for Yoko Ono. And I've got a hyperactive imagination.

hmmm... this is interesting. The listing page still shows Expelled being shown here at the UA High Ridge. What's funny is that they don't show it on the sign outside the theater, and the other day there were a ton of public school busses parked outside the theater. I'm going down to take a look, and taking my camera...

How familiar were you with the subject of Intelligent Design prior to this? Stein: Not at all. I'm still not that familiar with it.

Did you do a lot of reading to prep for the role? Stein: Some. I read one book cover to cover, From Darwin to Hitler, and that was a very interesting book—one of these rare books I wish had been even longer. It's about how Darwin's theory—supposedly concocted by this mild-mannered saintly man

And it doesn't scare me at all when scientists say, "Oh, but that can't be proved," because neither can any of the Darwinian hypotheses about how life began be proved. Anyway, I couldn't give a [profanity] whether a person calls himself a scientist. It doesn't earn any extra respect from me, because it's not as if science has covered itself with glory, morally, in my time. Scientists were the people in Germany telling Hitler that it was a good idea to kill all the Jews. Scientists were telling Stalin it was a good idea to wipe out the middle-class peasants. Scientists were telling Mao Tse-Tung it was fine to kill 50 million people in order to further the revolution.

What if someone said evolution is true and it doesn't matter how it has been used? Stein: But I don't believe it is true. And aside from modification within species, I don't think anyone has ever been able to prove one species that evolved by Darwinian means. It's incomprehensible to me how Darwinism could explain something as complex as the organic cell, and it's incomprehensible to me how Darwinism could explain how life began. And they don't even try. As for me, I'm choosing a theory [ID] that seems to fit the evidence, as well as my intuitive feeling of awe in the face of God. If Darwinists can present me with evidence about how the world began and how the cell got so complex, I'll be glad to re-examine my beliefs.

Did you do a lot of reading to prep for the role? Stein: Some. I read one book cover to cover, From Darwin to Hitler, and that was a very interesting book—one of these rare books I wish had been even longer. It's about how Darwin's theory—supposedly concocted by this mild-mannered saintly man, with a flowing white beard like Santa Claus—led to the murder of millions of innocent people.

Not a very good week for fantasy, is it?

doov

Yes, but:

"Some of the other bills that died would have ended Alabama's ban on the sale of sex toys..."

Bag. Mixed. True freedom, nixed.

Sexpelled, again!

It seems to me that Yoko could make more money by letting them continue to show the film and simply demanding a percentage of all of the profits. Now of course they are going to scream censorshop again. The vast Yoko conspiracy is against them!

I wonder if she can also prevent them from showing the movie for free. Also, what happens if they are caught defying the law? Will anyone ever go to jail?

"The temporary restraining order issued April 30 does not affect existing screenings of the anti-evolution film."

In the Yoko Ono story, the court order includes:

"Defendants will produce the following documents on or before _May 6_, 2008: (i) a complete copy of the Movie, (ii) Defendants’ agreements, licenses and contracts with third parties in connection with rights and permissions for all musical compositions or “clips of third-party film or video footage, still photography, and any and copyrighted materials included in the Movie..."

I wonder if the judge will watch the movie and give a "Judge Jones" opinion on it?

At Westmont where I teach, we are explicit about that ["the intellectual frameworks that serve as their paradigms"] when we ask faculty to indicate their agreement with the college’s statement of faith each year as they sign their contracts...

FL.

What did you think of Jeffery Schloss's review?

A quote:

Baylor - a private, religiously-affiliated university
featured in the film – is portrayed as offending academic freedom by failing to allow afull range of positions, including ID and rejection of common descent. Presumably this offense should be corrected. But Biola - another private, religiously-affiliated university featured in the film – endorses, indeed requires, acceptance of design and rejection of common descent. Presumably this does not need to be changed?

and the conclusion:

Sadly, the film contributes to an approach that has raised rather than lowered walls between Christians and the surrounding culture. Sadly, it raises the already growing walls of suspicion about any scholarly attempts to explore the relationship between science and faith. Sadly, it raises walls that don’t protect but constrain the spiritual growth of our students, if they are driven to believe they must choose between God and evolution. And most sadly, it is raising all these walls unnecessarily, along a border that is never demonstrated to have been accurately surveyed, much less to be in need of defending.

screenings will continue for a bit longer at least, no matter what Ono (or desperate evolutionist reviewers)

screenings will continue for a bit longer at least, no matter what Ono (or desperate evolutionist reviewers)

Alabama Kills Evolution Bill

Darwin's theory—supposedly concocted by this mild-mannered saintly man

neither can any of the Darwinian hypotheses about how life began be proved

the screenings will continue

Hi all,

It will get better for us in the weeks ahead. I heard Ken speak last night at AMNH, and then, afterwards I got a chance to hold his new book. I'm sworn to secrecy on this, but believe me when I say that Ken has taken off his gloves to rip the IDiots to shreds.

Regards,

John

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: But no DVD's... Bummer!

Ben Stein Imitating Goebbels: it’s not as if science has covered itself with glory, morally, in my time. Scientists were the people in Germany telling Hitler that it was a good idea to kill all the Jews. Scientists were telling Stalin it was a good idea to wipe out the middle-class peasants. Scientists were telling Mao Tse-Tung it was fine to kill 50 million people in order to further the revolution.

Joseph Goebbels Nazi propaganda minister: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

The creationist flyover-state red meenies are now in full "Advance Backward!" mode. Would that, on this issue, they showed evidence of even ONE quality that could be admired, however reluctantly ironically.

Blip, meet radar:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22intelligent+design%22

Why is Alabama afraid of sex toys?

I never have understood the Hate Yoko cult. She was an artist who did some OK things. And when the four egos of the Beatles couldn't fit inside the same room, she ended up with John. About the time he was ready to go back to work, a psychotic asshole killed him. End.

The current issue is all lawyers all the way down, there is no "Yoko" involved.

Fl said: Good news indeed. Cat’s outta the bag anyway, lots -n- lots -n- lots -n- lots of American eyeballs exposed to Expelled already, and the screenings will continue for a bit longer

FL said: ...lots -n- lots -n- lots -n- lots of American eyeballs exposed to Expelled already...

John Kwok said: Hi all, It will get better for us in the weeks ahead. I heard Ken speak last night at AMNH, and then, afterwards I got a chance to hold his new book. I'm sworn to secrecy on this, but believe me when I say that Ken has taken off his gloves to rip the IDiots to shreds. Regards, John

Raven,

Stacy S. wanted me to pass this along to you in case you haven't seen it:

http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626

Paul Burnett said: I wonder if the judge will watch the movie and give a "Judge Jones" opinion on it?

William Wallace said:

Paul Burnett said: I wonder if the judge will watch the movie and give a "Judge Jones" opinion on it?

Maybe if the ACLU writes the review for him.

Stuart,

Alabama, per se, doesn't hate sex toys. However, most sex toys are designed to penetrate. Since everyone here in Bama knows women don't enjoy sex, therefore they wouldn't buy such devices. Ergo, all such items are obviously sold exclusively to "those" type of men. If they can't buy their perverted items here, we've no doubt they'll move back to California where they came from.

(I would stick an /end sarcasm at this point, but I've actually heard some of my inbred neighbors say this.)

I thought I read somewhere our favorite troll was banned? If not, could someone PLEASE send him to a fundy site so he can get some new material. He's told us that ACLU joke too many times already, and it wasn't that funny to begin with.

Jrobert said: I thought I read somewhere our favorite troll was banned? If not, could someone PLEASE send him to a fundy site so he can get some new material. He's told us that ACLU joke too many times already, and it wasn't that funny to begin with.

http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626 Link to Blake Stacey's blog. Open your mouth about evolution around the wrong people, though, and you can find yourself harassed, ejected from your job and even beaten in the street. Just ask these people. Steve Bitterman was an instructor who taught the Western Civilization course at Southwestern Community College in Red Oak, Iowa. In 2007, at the age of sixty, he was fired because he did not teach the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth. (How many faithful Christians there are in this country who see that story as an allegory, and a powerful, meaningful one, of the loss of innocence!) “I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here,” he said afterward. “From my point of view, what they’re doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the eighth century.” Alex Bolyanatz was an assistant professor of anthropology at Wheaton College, a Protestant liberal-arts college in Illinois. He had been popular with both students and his fellow teachers, but in the spring of 2000, he received a letter from his provost issuing a stern rebuke: “During your term at Wheaton College,” Stanton Jones wrote, “you have failed to develop the necessary basic competence in the integration of Faith and Learning, particularly in the classroom setting.” Jones castigated Bolyanatz for not treating creationism with respect and instead teaching evolution as the plain, scientific truth. Bolyanatz had repeatedly made the point that evolution did not conflict with his own religious faith, but claiming that “The evolutionary model does not discount faith” was not enough to save his job. His experience parallels that of Howard J. Van Till, who taught physics at Calvin College in Michigan. When Van Till made the modest claims that evolution had been scientifically proven and that Biblical texts were influenced by the cultures in which they’d been written, angry community members pressured Calvin College’s Board of Trustees into forming an investigative committee, which subjected Van Till to four years of inquiry. He was, eventually, cleared, but not until the committee had performed, he said, “a test of the entirety of my theological position.” Likewise, Richard Colling graduated from Olivet Nazarene University and taught there for twenty-seven years. A man of strong religious convictions, he argued that one could believe in the Christian God and still accept the scientific truth of evolution. In 2004, he published a book about this belief, and for his pains, he was barred from teaching general biology or having his book used in the school. Colling had been granted tenure, so that at least his job and paycheck were secure, even though the ejection from the community he loved brought him significant anguish. Nancey Murphy of Fuller Theological Seminary did not have that shield, and so when her negative review of Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial aroused Johnson’s ire, she had to fight for her job. Johnson, a lawyer who was one of the instigators in rebranding creationism as “Intelligent Design,” has never displayed a grasp of basic biological facts, but that didn’t stop him from calling up a Fuller trustee and starting a campaign to get Nancey Murphy fired. Gwen Pearson taught biology at the Permian Basin branch of the University of Texas, located in the city of Odessa. Her three years as an assistant professor ended with assaults on her integrity and her physical self: This all became a great deal more serious when I began to get messages on my home answering machine threatening to assist me in reaching hell, where I would surely end up. I also received threatening mail messages: “The Bible tells us how to deal with nonbelievers: ‘Bring those who would not have me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ May Christians have the strength to slaughter you and end your pitiful, blasphemous life!” An envelope containing student evaluations from my evolution class was tampered with. A student wrote a letter to the president of the university claiming that I said in class that “anyone who believes in God gets an F.” Despite the fact that she had never been in my class, and it was clearly untrue, a full investigation of the charge ensued. There were other problems. Often I arrived in class to find “Dr. Feminazi” scrawled on the blackboard. An emotionally disturbed student assaulted me on campus. In town, Maurice Sendak’s award-winning book Where the Wild Things Are was removed from school libraries, as it might “confuse children as to the true nature of Beelzebub.” The California-based Institute for Creation Research (ICR) preached in the county stadium to 10,000 local people. I finally resigned when I received an admonition from the dean in my yearly reappointment letter to “accommodate the more intellectually conservative students with a low threshold of offensibility” in my evolution course. Rather than compromise my academic freedom, I chose to leave what seemed to be a dangerous place. Pearson was faced with an intolerable situation — people who had seemingly never contemplated the nobility of forgiveness — and left of her own volition, but Chris Comer was not so lucky. A dedicated employee of the Texas Education Agency, Comer was serving as Director of Science when she forwarded a brief e-mail message mentioning that the philosopher Barbara Forrest would be giving a talk at an Austin public events center. Forrest and her colleague Paul Gross are authors of Creationism’s Trojan Horse, a book which details how creationism has masqueraded as serious science in order to slip particular religious beliefs into the public schools. For sending a brief “FYI,” Comer was forced to resign. Paul Mirecki was professor of religious studies and department chair at the University of Kansas. He planned to teach a class called “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies,” but canceled those plans after events took an unfortunate turn. He had displayed an acerbic tongue in online discussion forums, and on further reflection apologized for his less temperate remarks, concluding that the class was better taught at another time; that apology and change of plan did not prevent two men from beating him in the street one December morning, for the crimethink of having proposed the class in the first place. Sympathy for a physically assaulted human being did not stay the KU administration, who forced him to step down as department chair. The real occurrence of violence gives death threats a certain cachet of intimidating force. Eric Pianka, a biologist at UT Austin, gave a speech before the Texas Academy of Science, which was presenting him with a distinguished-service award. In his speech, he articulated his fears that overpopulation will lead to a disaster for the human species. The story then took a twist which a fiction writer would be hard-pressed to surpass: a creationist named Forrest Mims claimed that Pianka advocated releasing the Ebola virus to eliminate 90% of the world’s population. Other creationists, like William Dembski, soon picked up the story, leading to online hysteria. Within days, Pianka himself and others in the Texas Academy of Science received death threats. “I don’t bear any ill will towards anybody,” Pianka told one reporter, and elaborated: “I’ve got two granddaughters, man. I’m putting money in a college fund for my granddaughters. I’m worried about them.” The issue of creationism has been simmering for decades, sometimes frothing up into great legal battles which attract widespread attention. The most recent of these watershed events happened in Dover, Pennsylvania, where a school board tried to push “Intelligent Design” into the science classrooms. Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican and faithful Lutheran, delivered a landmark verdict in which he summarized the claims of Intelligent Design proponents as “breathtaking inanity.” Once the verdict was revealed, Judge Jones became the target of character assassination and even received death threats for the crime of doing his job. His decision put Judge Jones on the cover of Time Magazine, but you don’t have to be famous to have someone get very upset about you. Michael Korn sent threatening letters, adorned with skulls and crossbones, to several biology professors at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Several of the messages were delivered by slipping envelopes under the professors’ office doors after working hours; Korn’s missives referred to “killing the enemies of Christian society.” He then skipped town and is currently a fugitive from justice. When will one of these threats come to fruition? When will self-righteous anger, fueled by ignorance, unchecked thanks to prejudicial culture, meet a loosening of inhibitions and end in grief? If you think this is such a long shot that it could never happen and isn’t worth bothering about, what about the sad story of Rudi Boa? A 28-year-old graduate of Edinburgh University with degrees in chemistry and forensic science, Boa was backpacking across Australia with his girlfriend, Gillian Brown. At a bar in Tumut, New South Wales, Boa had an argument over religion with another traveler, Alexander York. Later that night, it appears, York attacked Brown and in the ensuing fight, Boa was stabbed, once, in the chest. York was found guilty of manslaughter. A community center in Phnom Penh, through which Boa had traveled shortly before his death, was later founded and named in his honor, using donations from the Boa family. I wonder: when will this happen in America? All the ingredients are already here. It doesn’t take an organized conspiracy, just a culture in which the enemy has already been defined.

I am more than willing to let him comment on my threads

which, since you have been the primary contributor to PT for a while now, explains why some of us don't spend much time here.

again, I really have to stress that letting the insane post here does nothing to argue against even creationists.

I tend to approve most of his 'arguments' as a warning of the cost if foolishness to faith, science and common sense.

IOW, I really think your premise is wrong here, Pim, and I highly doubt I'm the only one who thinks so.

William Wallace said:

Paul Burnett said: I wonder if the judge will watch the movie and give a "Judge Jones" opinion on it?

Maybe if the ACLU writes the review for him.

Ben Stein said: Scientists were telling Mao Tse-Tung it was fine to kill 50 million people in order to further the revolution.

Mao did his level best to eliminate the intellectual class in China, and he did a damned good job of it, too. If scientists had actually told him it was fine to kill 50 million people, he probably wouldn’t have done it.

David Stanton | May 9, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply It seems to me that Yoko could make more money by letting them continue to show the film and simply demanding a percentage of all of the profits. Now of course they are going to scream censorshop again. The vast Yoko conspiracy is against them!

I wonder if she can also prevent them from showing the movie for free. Also, what happens if they are caught defying the law? Will anyone ever go to jail?

FL said:

"The temporary restraining order issued April 30 does not affect existing screenings of the anti-evolution film."

Good news indeed. Cat's outta the bag anyway, lots -n- lots -n- lots -n- lots of American eyeballs exposed to Expelled already, and the screenings will continue for a bit longer at least, no matter what Ono (or desperate evolutionist reviewers) attempt to do at this stage. FL :)

IIRC, Stalin did the same thing in the 1930’s. He wasn’t a real fan of intellectuals and many of them disappeared into the Gulag. When WWII broke out, the USSR was significantly disadvantaged by a lack of scientists and engineers.

FL said:

"The temporary restraining order issued April 30 does not affect existing screenings of the anti-evolution film."

Good news indeed. Cat's outta the bag anyway, lots -n- lots -n- lots -n- lots of American eyeballs exposed to Expelled already, and the screenings will continue for a bit longer at least, no matter what Ono (or desperate evolutionist reviewers) attempt to do at this stage. FL :)

Sorry evobutts, but one way of measuring the strength of a suit is the prestige of the team of lawyers who volunteer to oppose it. In this case Stanford's law school group has stepped up.

I find it most interesting that three UCLA historians have more than a bit to say about the effects of Darwin's theory of evolution in their book "Telling the Truth ABout History".

Pages 135-136, 184-186, make it crystal clear that Darwin was a racist, a bigot, an atheist, and made possible the scientific case for race ranking, eugenics, and racial purity.

Appleby, Hunt, & Jacobs are surely not IDer's so please refrain from fire bombing their offices, writing nasty letters to the Chancellor, or hiring stalker's to intimidate them. I think they may already be tenured , so that attack mode is out.

Expelled...seven million in revenue and one million viewers, internet firestorm, articles galore, tv appearances....many, many evoatrocities revealed to the public......wonderful success.

Dear Keith,

Thanks for proving that you're as delusional as my "pal" Bill Dembski, of which more shall be spoken by yours truly shortly. Do you realize that the legal team representing Yoko Ono is regarded by many as the best law firm devoted to entertainment law? It would be rather interesting to see how the Stanford "Fair Use" group fares against them.

Meanwhile I trust you'll continue enjoying your membership in the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

keith said: Sorry evobutts...

Appleby, Hunt, & Jacobs are surely not IDer's so please refrain from fire bombing their offices, writing nasty letters to the Chancellor, or hiring stalker's to intimidate them. I think they may already be tenured , so that attack mode is out.

Expelled...seven million in revenue and one million viewers, internet firestorm, articles galore, tv appearances....many, many evoatrocities revealed to the public......wonderful success.

Hi all,

I sent this e-mail yesterday to the DI Jew, David Klinghoffer, which I am posting here in a slightly corrected version.

Cheers,

John

Dear David,

Since you're the DI Jew - and hence the expert in such matters - I thought I'd ask you if Bill Dembski is Meshuggeneh (My apologies for misspelling the Yiddish word, which I am most likely, so am writing it phonetically). I was just wondering since I've posted this at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/tag/science/forum/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdThread=Tx2G28XVQNOPOBD&displayType=tagsDetail

I honestly think Bill is Meshuggeneh since he's in dire need of some counseling, especially when he indulges in such frat boy antics of the kind he posts at his Uncommon Dissent website, as I've noted in my Amazon.com comment. You would think he'd have more time to devote towards disseminating his favorite mendacious intellectual pornography, Intelligent Design, than rant and rave about Ken Miller's wealth (or Francisco Ayala's) or strike such a low blow by asserting that eminent University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne resembles Herman Munster (BTW, I met Jerry last week and he remarked that he thought Bill had 'struck a low blow'. I also told him what transpired between Bill and noted University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka; he wasn't aware that Bill had sicced the Department of Homeland Security on Pianka and had also orchestrated a 'death threat' campaign against him and the Texas Academy of Sciences.)

It's rather bizarre for Bill, of all people, to assert that Intelligent Design is a 'middle class' idea, while evolution is an 'upper class' idea; it's like Bill Clinton asserting that he's a good ol' boy from Hope, Arkansas, when he's actually a spoiled brat Ivy Leaguer with a Rhodes Scholarship too. I am well aware that Bill graduated from the Catholic version of Philips Exeter or Stuyvesant, Portsmouth Abbey, and that his childhood was far more 'upper class' than either mine or Ken Miller's (we're both sons of the working class).

But I guess Bill is trying to deny that he's from the 'upper class', since he's probably busy singing the Horst Wessel Lied in his bathroom shower (or perhaps Deutschland Uber Alles, substituting Amerika for Deutschland) and doing his best to emulate his mentor Josef Goebbels (Now really, David. How can a good Jew like yourself want to associate himself with such crypto-Fascist trash like Bill D.?).

Since Bill has ample free time indulging in gratuitious insults against such notable scientists like Francisco J. Ayala, Jerry Coyne and Ken Miller, then he has time to honor my request for a used like new black Leica M7 camera body and a black Zeiss 25mm Biogon lens with lens hood, which he can purchase from..... It's ample compensation for his attempted crude effort at Amazon.com censorship against me and his rather ludicrous online 'hate campaign' which is still ongoing at Uncommon Dissent. If he doesn't honor this request, then I'm looking forward to contacting local Klingon bands around the country, asking them to serve as his 'official' honor guard during his public appearances (They'll also be busy 'explaining' to Bill why there is more truth to Klingon Cosmology than the mendacious intellectual pornography known as 'Intelligent Design' which he prefers.). At least Klingons are honest, practical, sensible people; they killed their deities when these deities proved to be too much trouble for them to worship (No, I'm not suggesting that they kill Bill, but I am suggesting that they try to talk some sense to him for once.).

Last, but not least, I have a great song suggestion for you and your fellow Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers. You should think seriously of adopting the Dire Straits song 'Money For Nothing' as the official DI anthem. It aptly describes the DI modus operandi. Who knows? Maybe you'll get lucky and get sued by Mark Knopfler too.

Ever True,

John

Pages 135-136, 184-186, make it crystal clear that Darwin was a racist, a bigot, an atheist, and made possible the scientific case for race ranking, eugenics, and racial purity.

Sorry evobutts, but one way of measuring the strength of a suit is the prestige of the team of lawyers who volunteer to oppose it. In this case Stanford’s law school group has stepped up.

A quick overview of some of the ill informed arguments linking Darwin and Hitler.

I enjoy debating evos because instead of proving ones opponent to be an ignorant dolt you just wait a little while and they do it for you.

Appeal to authority is perfectly logical and rational provided the authority is substantial in subject, experience, reputation, and experience. I suggest Stanford's reputation is sufficient.

I note the Avenger (a pitiful little nobody bean-counter from an obscure firm in Dallas) and Kroc, I mean Kwok, and PvM as uaual have managed content free posts, zero factual rebuttal, and instead cowered in the corner again.

How about giving me some calendar dates for a debate with Dembski on ID, face to face, on a local public campus, at my expense?

keith said: I enjoy debating evos because instead of proving ones opponent to be an ignorant dolt you just wait a little while and they do it for you.

Appeal to authority is perfectly logical and rational provided the authority is substantial in subject, experience, reputation, and experience. I suggest Stanford's reputation is sufficient.

I note the Avenger (a pitiful little nobody bean-counter from an obscure firm in Dallas) and Kroc, I mean Kwok, and PvM as uaual have managed content free posts, zero factual rebuttal, and instead cowered in the corner again. How about giving me some calendar dates for a debate with Dembski on ID, face to face, on a local public campus, at my expense?

Appleby and her colleagues are appalled at Darwin's description of "'the low morality of savages ... their insufficient powers of reasoning ... [their] weak power of self-command,'" and state that "Now many people are shocked by his racism." But there was no racism at all, as far as I can tell, in Darwin's comments. He was alluding to the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego, suffering from grinding scarcity in the most barren and Antarctic province of Argentina. When he described a South American woman of African origin who threw herself to her death rather than submit to slavery, he noted that it was only prejudice that kept us from seeing her defiance in the same heroic light as we would a similar act by the proud matron of a noble Roman family. He was himself almost thrown off the Beagle by Captain FitzRoy for his militant opposition to the Captain's racism. Darwin was head and shoulders above most of his contemporaries in this regard.

Appleby and her colleagues claim that "When Darwin formulated his theory of evolution, he was an atheist and a materialist," and suggest that evolution was a product of a purported atheist agenda. They have hopelessly confused cause and effect. Darwin was about to become a minister of the Church of England when the opportunity to sail on HMS Beagle presented itself. His religious ideas, as he himself described them, were at the time highly conventional. He found every one of the Anglican Articles of Faith entirely believable. Through his interrogation of Nature, through science, it slowly dawned on him that at least some of his religion was false. That's why he changed his religious views.

dhogaza said: Efforts to blame Stalin's psychopathic murdering of millions of citizens of the USSR on a belief in science is an incredibly ignorant thing to do, and among other things trivializes the murder of very large number of those who Stein and his ilk blame for the problem.

A much more balanced article by Denis Lamoureux can be found in Theological Insights from Charles Darwin

Lamoureux is probably best known for debunking most of Philip Johnson's ill founded assertions in "”Darwinism defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins”. and he has some in-depth articles on Charles Darwin & Intelligent Design and Behe's book A Black Box or a Black Hole?
A Response to Michael Behe

keith said: Pages 135-136, 184-186, make it crystal clear that Darwin was a racist, a bigot, an atheist, and made possible the scientific case for race ranking, eugenics, and racial purity.

keith said: Expelled...seven million in revenue and one million viewers, internet firestorm, articles galore, tv appearances....many, many evoatrocities revealed to the public......wonderful success.

keith said: How about giving me some calendar dates for a debate with Dembski on ID, face to face, on a local public campus, at my expense?

Keith Made Shit Up thusly: I note the Avenger (a pitiful little nobody bean-counter from an obscure firm in Dallas) and Kroc, I mean Kwok, and PvM as uaual have managed content free posts, zero factual rebuttal, and instead cowered in the corner again.

Bobby said: Blip, meet radar: http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22intelligent+design%22

Bobby said:

Bobby said: Blip, meet radar: http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22intelligent+design%22

Here's a better one, showing that 'expelled' actually got the same fifteen minutes of fame that 'intelligent design' did during the Dover case: http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22intelligent+design%22%2C+expelled Of course, you might want to consider how well they fare against the background noise of such mundane queries as 'frog' - http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22intelligent+design%22%2C+expelled%2C+frog At least they both briefly beat 'goat' - http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22intelligent+design%22%2C+expelled%2C+goat The comparison to 'jackass' is also informative - http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22intelligent+design%22%2C+expelled%2C+jackass

Do you mean that ”Expelled”, just like Flood Geology or Cold Fusion, is destined to fade into scientific oblivion?

Please note responses by the pitiful backbencher nobodies:

I don't debate one on one, face to face, it puts me at a disadvantage....agreed, its better to hide out on the net if you're a total incompetent.

Those ladies at UCLA are poor historians, bad writeres, and my ideas are better than theirs...I assert it to be so.

Avenger the bean counter nobody, thinks Expelled was a failure at about a 10% share, 3.5 MM$ profit to date, a million viewers, and making your heros look like turdheads.

I think I'll stick with Newton for my scientific hero, the greatest by most measures and a Creationist believer.

keith said: Please note responses by the pitiful backbencher nobodies:

I don't debate one on one, face to face, it puts me at a disadvantage....agreed, its better to hide out on the net if you're a total incompetent.

Those ladies at UCLA are poor historians, bad writeres, and my ideas are better than theirs...I assert it to be so.

Avenger the bean counter nobody, thinks Expelled was a failure at about a 10% share, 3.5 MM$ profit to date, a million viewers, and making your heros look like turdheads.

I think I'll stick with Newton for my scientific hero, the greatest by most measures and a Creationist believer.

Hi Keith,

"I think I'll stick with Newtown for my scientific hero....." Had to burst out laughing. I thought you were referring to your distinguished ancestors: the members of the Spanish Inquistion. Or perhaps some obscure tribesmen who were Visigoths or Vandals (or both)?

Thanks for demonstrating both traits in your recent posts:

1) Yours is an intellectually inane mind.

2) You are enjoying your membership in the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective

3) Since your mind is rather inane and your are a DI IDiot Borg drone, then, like the rest of your fellow DI IDiot Borg drones (including the entire staff of the Discovery Institute) are best suited as potential chow for hungry pythons (or Ken Ham's to-be-cloned Tyrannosaurus rex).

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

Hi Science Avenger,

Yeah, Keith sounds like a SNL parody alright. He's channeling Dana Carvey as the Church Lady. Now, now, isn't he special? Do I hear Satan.... Satan.... Bueller... Bueller....

On a more serious note, Keith isn't the only IDiot in dire need of some help in a psych ward. The number one candidate of course is my "pal" Bill Dembski. Poor Bill should have checked himself into the local Texan version of Bellevue a long time ago. Instead, he indulges in crypto-Fascist fantasy, pretending that he's the Josef Goebbels of the Intelligent Design movement.

Hopefully Keith will wise up and check himself into a psych ward sometime soon. He's really in dire need of such help.

Best wishes,

John

Schloss' review is indeed well worth reading.

keith said: Please note responses by the pitiful backbencher nobodies: I don't debate one on one, face to face, it puts me at a disadvantage....agreed, its better to hide out on the net if you're a total incompetent.

Those ladies at UCLA are poor historians, bad writeres, and my ideas are better than theirs...I assert it to be so.

Avenger the bean counter nobody, thinks Expelled was a failure at about a 10% share, 3.5 MM$ profit to date, a million viewers, and making your heros look like turdheads.

I think I'll stick with Newton for my scientific hero, the greatest by most measures and a Creationist believer.

Avenger the bean counter nobody, thinks Expelled was a failure at about a 10% share, 3.5 MM$ profit to date, a million viewers, and making your heros look like turdheads.

keith said: I think I'll stick with Newton for my scientific hero, the greatest by most measures and a Creationist believer.

Gary Hurd said: I never have understood the Hate Yoko cult. She was an artist who did some OK things.

PvM and Fellow Evolanders,

The standard for this case is pretty steep and triple damages are even more unlikely because they have to show, planned, malicious intent. Also, the damage model is non-existent because the revenue stream for that song is about one dollar per decade presently.

They also have to overcome the "common use " argument which is quite non-trivial.

Attacking Newton as a scientist because he was a believer is typical evo talk and tells us about the intellectual depth of your team....pitiful.

I see the debate proffer with Dembski has resulted in the usual game of evo dodgeball and stuttering.

Sort of like Dawkins retreat from ANY debate forum after WilderSmith kicked his ass in front of 150 people at Oxford twenty years ago.

I mean even Stein made RD look like a blind owl in a snowstorm.

I love it!!

Kwok, the 3rd rate backbencher nobody struggling for a bit of significance in the known universe. It must be very sad knowing your entire existence has had the impact of a snowball on a rock wall.

keith said: PvM and Fellow Evolanders, The standard for this case is pretty steep and triple damages are even more unlikely because they have to show, planned, malicious intent. Also, the damage model is non-existent because the revenue stream for that song is about one dollar per decade presently.

They also have to overcome the "common use " argument which is quite non-trivial.

Attacking Newton as a scientist because he was a believer is typical evo talk and tells us about the intellectual depth of your team....pitiful.

I see the debate proffer with Dembski has resulted in the usual game of evo dodgeball and stuttering.

We'll see.

keith said: Also, the damage model is non-existent because the revenue stream for that song is about one dollar per decade presently.

Attacking Newton as a scientist because he was a believer is typical evo talk and tells us about the intellectual depth of your team....pitiful. I see the debate proffer with Dembski has resulted in the usual game of evo dodgeball and stuttering.

It must be very sad knowing your entire existence has had the impact of a snowball on a rock wall.

keith said: We'll see.

Yes, we'll see.

BTW, do you by any chance know why judges issue injunctions?

It didn't take long to illustrate your ignorance and intellectual dishonesty in this issue. Of course moving it helped you save face with your adoring little band of sycophants. It's the same experience I have always had when destroying the arguments of your ilk on evolutionary dreamscapes.

Let's have about 5-6 weekend dates when you could debate Dembski preferably a Saturday afternoon this summer.

Could I have your CV, maybe we can perk it up a bit to attract attention, though I would imagine Dembski's rank among scholars in three fields of academics will be sufficient, even when facing a nobody like yours truly.

I promise to upgrade your usual accommodations to a Day's Inn.

Let’s have about 5-6 weekend dates when you could debate Dembski preferably a Saturday afternoon this summer.

Keith,

Given Dembski's rank among scholars in three fields of academics, why did he lack the balls to take the stand in Dover?

keith said: It didn't take long to illustrate your ignorance and intellectual dishonesty in this issue.

How about giving me some calendar dates for a debate with Dembski on ID, face to face, on a local public campus, at my expense?

PvM said:

William Wallace said:

Paul Burnett said: I wonder if the judge will watch the movie and give a "Judge Jones" opinion on it?

Maybe if the ACLU writes the review for him.

Still spreading that foolish story? Sigh, despite being provided with all the necessary background information, William insists on repeating this misrepresentation.

keith said: It didn't take long to illustrate your ignorance and intellectual dishonesty in this issue. Of course moving it helped you save face with your adoring little band of sycophants. It's the same experience I have always had when destroying the arguments of your ilk on evolutionary dreamscapes.

Let's have about 5-6 weekend dates when you could debate Dembski preferably a Saturday afternoon this summer. Could I have your CV, maybe we can perk it up a bit to attract attention, though I would imagine Dembski's rank among scholars in three fields of academics will be sufficient, even when facing a nobody like yours truly.

I promise to upgrade your usual accommodations to a Day's Inn.

Llanitedave said:

PvM said:

William Wallace said:

Paul Burnett said: I wonder if the judge will watch the movie and give a "Judge Jones" opinion on it?

Maybe if the ACLU writes the review for him.

Still spreading that foolish story? Sigh, despite being provided with all the necessary background information, William insists on repeating this misrepresentation.

Well of course. He's a creationist. Repeating misrepresentations is their only skill.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: "keith":

How about giving me some calendar dates for a debate with Dembski on ID, face to face, on a local public campus, at my expense?

Debate question as follows: Proposed: William Dembski's "design inference" is a valid technical device for detecting design with application to real-world problems. I will, of course, take the negative. Not much has changed since that 2001 critique. I seem to recall "keith" avoided taking notice of the evidence of my previous engagement of Dembski live and in person the last time I provided the link. Set it up for September; I've got nothing on the calendar then. Though, somehow, it doesn't seem to me that Dembski will be all that keen to repeat IDC's "Black Sunday", June 17th, 2001.

It should be fun to see what, if anything, Keith does in response to someone offering a chance to live up to his bluster. My guess is that he'll emulate his hero Dr. Dr. Bill at Dover and run off like a chickenshit.

You attribute some form of cowardice to Dembski when he and the DI made it clear that the Dover suit was not one that represented their interests. A moron with a bag of donuts has enough sense and nourishment to know you pick your test case carefully and be sure it's consistent with your goals.

When Dembski has consistently gone into the halls of major academic institutions across America and debated the subject of ID and subjected to the rude, arrogant, mannerless, ill informed, and discourteous hordes that make up the neo-nazi evolander hordes, I doubt fear and trepidation had anything to do with Dover.

As to the debate, I actually proffered to PvM who has of course refused to respond. However, I will attempt to correspond with Dembski through the people on campus who were instrumental in having him here last year and see if such is timely and appealing to him.

It seems that both parties should agree to the format, rules, and to the statement of resolution though I realize Wesley needs to load as much as possible in his favor to avoid embarrassment.

I will arrange security and have any rude and disruptive people from either side ejected, so I would advise ERV to stay in her trailer park in Midwest City and keep her slovenly mouth shut.

I will be pleased to review any material Wesley has on the previous debate but I assure you I will get both sides of the story as I trust the word of evos about as far as I can spit.

By the by, does anyone know how the Dembski-Shanks debate went?

How about this for the debate -

1). Name a contribution that ID has made to the scientific community

2). Name a contribution that ToE has made to the scientific community

"hmmm... where to begin..."

On a more serious note, Keith isn’t the only IDiot in dire need of some help in a psych ward. The number one candidate of course is my “pal” Bill Dembski. Poor Bill should have checked himself into the local Texan version of Bellevue a long time ago.

wikipedia Polanyi center: Sloan asked Dembski to retract this press release, feeling that it was an unnecessary escalation of the argument and not collegial, but Dembski refused. On October 19, Dembski was removed as director of the center, though he remained an associate professor. He was replaced by his deputy, Bruce L. Gordon.

eric pianka wikipedia: when Forrest Mims claimed that Pianka had advocated genocide.[12] Mims' affiliate at the Discovery Institute, William Dembski, then informed the Department of Homeland Security because he and Mims felt that Pianka's speech fomented bioterrorism.[13] This resulted in the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewing Pianka in Austin.[14]

You attribute some form of cowardice to Dembski when he and the DI made it clear that the Dover suit was not one that represented their interests.

Keith sez... You attribute some form of cowardice to Dembski when he and the DI made it clear that the Dover suit was not one that represented their interests.

I will be pleased to review any material Wesley has on the previous debate but I assure you I will get both sides of the story as I trust the word of evos about as far as I can spit.

It seems that both parties should agree to the format, rules, and to the statement of resolution though I realize Wesley needs to load as much as possible in his favor to avoid embarrassment.

Silly evos, I have been around several quite significant civil suits and when deposed I damn sure was paid for the effort whether they went to trial, whether I gave a damn about the outcome, or otherwise.

Only evos are stupid enough to perform such without compensation, though I doubt any have done so routinely.

The evos have a corner on demented, deranged, and disturbed psychos as evidenced by Pee Wee Myers and those who post their anger filled screeds on his blasphemous site.

Dear Keith,

I'll gladly debate my "pal" Bill Dembski on the relevance of the fossil record. He's absolutely clueless when it comes to "transitional" fossils, the "Cambrian Explosion" and the role of mass extinctions in altering Earth's biodiversity. But I will do so only in concert with Wes Elsberry.

As for Bill, if he's such a genius in statistics, then why hasn't he answered this basic statistics question, "How do you calculate confidence limits for your explanatory filter?", which I had asked him twice, in person, after the Spring 2002 AMNH ID debate, and then, last December, in an e-mail reply to an unsolicited e-mail I had received from him. Ken Miller and I have concluded that Bill doesn't know the answer to that question, despite his M. S. degree in Statistics from the University of Illinois, Chicago (Nor could he really answer that question since his explanatory filter is based on a uniform distribution; which is statistically unrealistic according to his claims for low probabilities demonstrating the "proof" of design. Instead, he would have to rely upon something like the Poisson Distribution, which he has yet to acknowledge. Of course his friend Behe suffers from the same problem in his "mathematical limits to Darwinism" as stated in his latest published example of mendacious intellectual pornography, "The Edge of Evolution", which should be obvious to anyone who read the fine print; it was Dembski, not Behe, who did the math.).

Instead of indulging in trying to do some real science (and mathematics), Bill is content to use frat boy antics against critics like Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne, or send the Department of Homeland Security to "persecute" Eric Pianka, or ask Amazon.com to delete my harsh, but accurate, one star review of his latest published example of mendacious intellectual pornography, "The Design of Life". He's also content to engage in the legal equivalent of "grand theft larceny" by charging the Dover Area School District $20,000 as a consultant on behalf of his defense, getting paid, and then skipping out of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial when he couldn't retain his own private attorney.

So is Bill really some hero of yours, Keith? He's no hero. He's just acting like his mentor, Josef Goebbels, by serving as the Josef Goebbels of the Intelligent Design movement. For Bill Dembski, anything is acceptable, as long as he is "doing it for Jesus". What a hypocrite. With any luck, Bill will be "recalled" by Christ, by assuming room temperature sometime soon (via natural means only).

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

keith said: Silly evos, I have been around several quite significant civil suits and when deposed I damn sure was paid for the effort whether they went to trial, whether I gave a damn about the outcome, or otherwise.

Only evos are stupid enough to perform such without compensation, though I doubt any have done so routinely.

The evos have a corner on demented, deranged, and disturbed psychos as evidenced by Pee Wee Myers and those who post their anger filled screeds on his blasphemous site.

Silly evos, I have been around several quite significant civil suits and when deposed I damn sure was paid for the effort whether they went to trial, whether I gave a damn about the outcome, or otherwise.

keith said: You attribute some form of cowardice to Dembski when he and the DI made it clear that the Dover suit was not one that represented their interests. A moron with a bag of donuts has enough sense and nourishment to know you pick your test case carefully and be sure it's consistent with your goals.

When Dembski has consistently gone into the halls of major academic institutions across America and debated the subject of ID and subjected to the rude, arrogant, mannerless, ill informed, and discourteous hordes that make up the neo-nazi evolander hordes, I doubt fear and trepidation had anything to do with Dover.

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

— Dembski

As to the debate, I actually proffered to PvM who has of course refused to respond. However, I will attempt to correspond with Dembski through the people on campus who were instrumental in having him here last year and see if such is timely and appealing to him.

It seems that both parties should agree to the format, rules, and to the statement of resolution though I realize Wesley needs to load as much as possible in his favor to avoid embarrassment.

I will arrange security and have any rude and disruptive people from either side ejected, so I would advise ERV to stay in her trailer park in Midwest City and keep her slovenly mouth shut.

I will be pleased to review any material Wesley has on the previous debate but I assure you I will get both sides of the story as I trust the word of evos about as far as I can spit.

keith said: Sorry evobutts, but one way of measuring the strength of a suit is the prestige of the team of lawyers who volunteer to oppose it. In this case Stanford's law school group has stepped up.

I find it most interesting that three UCLA historians have more than a bit to say about the effects of Darwin's theory of evolution in their book "Telling the Truth About History". Pages 135-136, 184-186, make it crystal clear that Darwin was a racist, a bigot, an atheist, and made possible the scientific case for race ranking, eugenics, and racial purity. Appleby, Hunt, & Jacobs are surely not IDer's so please refrain from fire bombing their offices, writing nasty letters to the Chancellor, or hiring stalker's to intimidate them. I think they may already be tenured , so that attack mode is out.

Expelled...seven million in revenue and one million viewers, Internet firestorm, articles galore, tv appearances....many, many evoatrocities revealed to the public......wonderful success.

When the demoniac hordes who post on these sites attempt to take a high road I simply refer for instance to the Pee Wee Myers blog and in particular his and other evos posts concerning National Prayer Day and the plethora of four-letter antecedents to the term.

In the twenty-five years I have posted on these sites and before that in personal encounters the evo community has illustrated a level of arrogance, biblical ignorance, illogic, sophistry, and scientific dishonesty unparalleled in the history of science.

I no more believe anyone posting here is a N.T Christian in any recognizable sense than I believe in the first replicator (common ancestor of all of biological life), the organism that cannot be described by its proponents.

I have met Dembski and he is a serious intellect, a practicing Christian, and it's a miracle he has been able to absorb the neo-Nazi hordes and their ad hominem attacks without responding in like terms. It makes so much sense for CHicago to confer PhD.s on an incompetent in math and philosophy, similarly Princeton Seminary, similarly post-doc with NSF awards... so much for the evo view of academic success.

As regards Dover, show me the contract Bill signed as agreeing to be an expert witness, show me the invoices for all payments, and many people are deposed that never appear at trial for a lot of reasons... you're ignorance is showing.

As for academics Dembski has a PhD. in Mathmatics and Philosophy as well as the requisite undergrad and grad degrees..to correct the record.

Kwok you are one sick puppy as evidenced by wishing someones death together with your unfounded accusations of larceny, etc. I can only assume that you are among those disturbed individuals whose entire life, career, and accomplishments amount to precisely zero, nada, and your anger over not being perceived as significant in any sense of the word is largely responsible for your outbursts of anger driven frenzy.

Of course transitional is a term that describes an intermediate state of being between two clearly identifiable states, otherwise it is not transitional, by definition.

I note that in every case the number of such transitional is so small that there is zero confidence, statistically speaking, no known error distribution of any kind is suggested, and for evos to talk about statistical confidence in the area of the fossil record is preposterous.

I will review the videos and other materials on Dembski and them attempt to contact him on his availability and interest.

Be patient.

keith said: When Dembski has consistently gone into the halls of major academic institutions across America and debated the subject of ID...

keith said: I no more believe anyone posting here is a N.T Christian in any recognizable sense...

keith said: Please note responses by the pitiful backbencher nobodies: I don't debate one on one, face to face, it puts me at a disadvantage....agreed, its better to hide out on the net if you're a total incompetent. Those ladies at UCLA are poor historians, bad writeres, and my ideas are better than theirs...I assert it to be so. Avenger the bean counter nobody, thinks Expelled was a failure at about a 10% share, 3.5 MM$ profit to date, a million viewers, and making your heros look like turdheads. I think I'll stick with Newton for my scientific hero, the greatest by most measures and a Creationist believer.

keith said: The evos have a corner on demented, deranged, and disturbed psychos as evidenced by Pee Wee Myers and those who post their anger filled screeds on his blasphemous site.

keith said: When the demoniac hordes who post on these sites

keith said: In the twenty-five years I have posted on these sites and before that in personal encounters the evo community has illustrated a level of arrogance, biblical ignorance, illogic, sophistry, and scientific dishonesty unparalleled in the history of science.

I no more believe anyone posting here is a N.T Christian in any recognizable sense than I believe in the first replicator (common ancestor of all of biological life), the organism that cannot be described by its proponents.

I have met Dembski and he is a serious intellect, a practicing Christian, and it's a miracle he has been able to absorb the neo-Nazi hordes and their ad hominem attacks without responding in like terms.

As regards Dover, show me the contract Bill signed as agreeing to be an expert witness, show me the invoices for all payments, and many people are deposed that never appear at trial for a lot of reasons... you're ignorance is showing.

Of course transitional is a term that describes an intermediate state of being between two clearly identifiable states, otherwise it is not transitional, by definition. I note that in every case the number of such transitional is so small that there is zero confidence, statistically speaking, no known error distribution of any kind is suggested, and for evos to talk about statistical confidence in the area of the fossil record is preposterous.

I will review the videos and other materials on Dembski and them attempt to contact him on his availability and interest. Be patient.

"Silly evos, I have been around several quite significant civil suits and when deposed I damn sure was paid for the effort whether they went to trial, whether I gave a damn about the outcome, or otherwise."

Yes, of course, Keith has been around many civil suits while watching daytime television. I can assure you he's seen enough episodes of "Judge Judy" to be considered an expert.

And I notice he's gotten, shall we say, somewhat more reserved about his debate offer all of a sudden. No idea why that could be.

I'm expecting a repeat of the January 3, 2006 debate between Ken Miller and Bill Dembski.

My dear delusional Keith:

"I have met Dembski and he is a serious intellect, a practicing Christian, and it's a miracle he has been able to absorb the neo-Nazi hordes and their ad hominem attacks without responding in like terms. It makes so much sense for CHicago to confer PhD.s on an incompetent in math and philosophy, similarly Princeton Seminary, similarly post-doc with NSF awards... so much for the evo view of academic success."

Keith, I've met Dembski too and he came across as an arrogant Fundamentalist Protestant blowhard. Moreover, given his alleged "expertise" in statistics, he couldn't answer my basic statistics question. Indeed, he's such a "brilliant" expert of statistics, that both Ken Miller and I have concluded that Dembski doesn't know how to answer my basic statistics question.

"Kwok you are one sick puppy as evidenced by wishing someones death together with your unfounded accusations of larceny, etc. I can only assume that you are among those disturbed individuals whose entire life, career, and accomplishments amount to precisely zero, nada, and your anger over not being perceived as significant in any sense of the word is largely responsible for your outbursts of anger driven frenzy."

I beg to differ with your "glowing" assessment of me. You can ask the folks at NCSE, Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, and several others who have been the victims of Dembski's attacks.

Let's see, what has my dear "pal" Bill done:

He had the U. S. Department of Homeland Security "investigate" eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka. He also orchestrated a "death threat" campaign against Pianka and the Texas Academy of Sciences. He's attacked his critics online at Amazon.com, Uncommon Descent and elsewhere in the least flattering terms possible, with the most egregious examples include "farting" at Judge John E. Jones III, and comparing eminent University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne with Herman Munster (Coyne told me in person that he thought that was a very "low blow" from Dembski.). He "stole" $20,000 from the Dover Area School District board while serving in absentia as a "consultant" for their defense before he pulled out as a prospective defense witness months before the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial. He stole from Harvard University and XVIVO their cell animation video which he used to illustrate his talks last year (Dembski demands and gets $5,000 per talk.). He had Amazon.com exercise a crude form of censorship by temporarily deleting my harsh, but accurate, one star review of his then most recent published example of mendacious intellectual pornography, "The Design of Life" (He also "orchestrated" an online hate campaign against me.). Just last week, he ranted and raved against "rich Darwinists" like Richard Dawkins, Francisco Ayala, and my friend Ken Miller at his Uncommon Dissent website.

So my dear delusional Keith, who is really the "sick puppy"? A far more rational observer would recognize that the "sick puppy" is none other than Bill Dembski, the "Josef Goebbels of the Intelligent Design movement". Wishing that Dembski would "assume room temperature" by natural means is a more polite way of saying that I hope he drops dead from a heart attack. Unfortunately, in Bill's case, that would be ample punishment for all the mischief he's been responsible for stirring up amongst his delusional band of sycophantic IDiot Borg drones such as yourself.

Enjoy your membership in the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

Not that I believe Keith has ever been near a deposition but … agreeing to accept payment as an expert witness, sitting through a deposition, then refusing to appear as an expert witness when the trial is held is UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR.

My most obnoxious critics have been Internet stalkers (e.g., Wesley Elsberry and Richard Wein), who seem to monitor my every move

— Dembski

Wesley R. Elsberry said: Pim, Dembski and I have been on stage together twice since 2001. I don't think that he has any general aversion to sharing a stage. I do think the particular, specific debate topic could be an issue in that regard, since our meetings since 2001 have had far broader topic statements.

“I have met Dembski and he is a serious intellect, a practicing Christian, and it’s a miracle he has been able to absorb the neo-Nazi hordes and their ad hominem attacks without responding in like terms.

absorb the neo-Nazi hordes and their ad hominem attacks without responding in like terms.

a practicing Xian

Dembski Wrote: My most obnoxious critics have been Internet stalkers (e.g., Wesley Elsberry and Richard Wein), who seem to monitor my every move.

I enjoy prima facia evidence that refutes the cartoonishly crude depictions of Dembski, the DI, and ID proponents generally.

One has only to review Uncommon Descent to see that Dembski welcomes, publishes, and respectfully critiques the writings and opinions who openly disagree with ID, are agnostics, opponents of creationism, yet are important players in the growing community of scientists who agree that darwinism, neo-darwinism, MOE, and its mechanisms are wholly inadequate to explain biological diversity.

It must seem strange to the neo-nazi hordes of true believers that a great intellect like Dembski can also be open minded, tolerant, and excepting of opposing views respectfully stated.

Perhaps someday academia will return to the open inquiry and unprejudiced search for truth that once characterized our great institutions, when multidisciplinary approaches to the search were the norm, not the exception.

I am not at all surprised that you would consider a job at SW Baptist Theological Seminary as not a real job or fail to understand that Dembski is able to conduct his ID, DI, teaching and research work, writing, speaking schedule, and such there comfortably.

The fact that his expertise in science, mathmatics, philosophy, and theology would be considered a good fit there may be a little difficult for you to follow but trust me its quite logical.

Now go bed Raven so you can get up and deliver those papers in a timely fashion.

"One has only to review Uncommon Descent to see that Dembski welcomes, publishes, and respectfully critiques the writings and opinions who openly disagree with ID, are agnostics, opponents of creationism, yet are important players in the growing community of scientists who agree that darwinism, neo-darwinism, MOE, and its mechanisms are wholly inadequate to explain biological diversity."

"It must seem strange to the neo-nazi hordes of true believers that a great intellect like Dembski can also be open minded, tolerant, and excepting of opposing views respectfully stated."

keith said: I enjoy prima facia evidence that refutes the cartoonishly crude depictions of Dembski, the DI, and ID proponents generally. One has only to review Uncommon Descent to see that Dembski welcomes, publishes, and respectfully critiques the writings and opinions who openly disagree with ID, are agnostics, opponents of creationism, yet are important players in the growing community of scientists who agree that darwinism, neo-darwinism, MOE, and its mechanisms are wholly inadequate to explain biological diversity.

keith said: One has only to review Uncommon Descent to see that Dembski welcomes, publishes, and respectfully critiques the writings and opinions who openly disagree with ID, are agnostics, opponents of creationism, yet are important players in the growing community of scientists who agree that darwinism, neo-darwinism, MOE, and its mechanisms are wholly inadequate to explain biological diversity.

It must seem strange to the neo-nazi hordes of true believers that a great intellect like Dembski can also be open minded, tolerant, and excepting of opposing views respectfully stated.

Perhaps someday academia will return to the open inquiry and unprejudiced search for truth that once characterized our great institutions, when multidisciplinary approaches to the search were the norm, not the exception.

What Moses the turdhead fails to say is that the difference between financial profit under FASB and its sisters are different from its tax book profits, actual cashflow and "success" as can be imagined.

After designing and managing Oil and Gas , Coal, mineral mining, and standard big-five accounting and financial systems in the Fortune 500 for 25 years I have a pretty good grasp of the subject. I did take a few courses in the accounting field but it was so much less difficult than my engineering and MIS susbjects that I just picked it up in my spare time.

Your sophomoric analysis based on some normative big studio model without even a peek at the books of a savy independent is meaningless and trivial. Best guess at their real out of pocket costs remains 3-4 million in total.

If you need a little class on ATDCFROR otherwise known as private industry real world economics I will be glad to teach you over the net by email for say $500 bucks. Let's use the Frank Stermole text out of Colorado School of Mines since I completed that class some 20 years ago before I ran the Planning and Economics division for a Fortune 5000 Coal company.

Wow I bet Moses even knows what DDB stands for ...it s real rocket science. Now back to your cubicle and ten key Mosie boy.

keith said: What Moses the turdhead fails to say is that the difference between financial profit under FASB and its sisters are different from its tax book profits, actual cashflow and "success" as can be imagined.

Personally, I think "expelled" will be a big flop for the ID camp just like the Dover trial was.

Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com said: Personally, I think "expelled" will be a big flop for the ID camp just like the Dover trial was.

Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com said: Personally, I think "expelled" will be a big flop for the ID camp just like the Dover trial was.

Where's my last comment?

keith said: Avenger is correct if he is referring to the UD policies that restrict indecent speech, lies, distortion, dishonesty, vulgarity, and all that describes his approach, vocabulary, and style. Pull you head out of your butt sometime and check where the top people are going and its surely not in your staid, anachronistic, direction.

Tyler DiPietro said: Where's my last comment?

Science Avenger said: And tell us again what a raging success Expelled was, and all about your degrees that failed to require a mastery of high school grammar and vocabulary, and your glory days at the Fortune 500 company. Invent the internet there as well? Spend hours coming up with "evobutts"?

"Bathroom wall, same for some other comments, including one of Keith comments. I am trying to clean up the thread. Name calling is bad enough."

And I notice the one where Keith calls me a "brownshirt" and claims I "adapted" my comment from Hitler, and another where he refers to the commenting body here as "neo-Nazis", are still up. You don't see anything screwed up about that?

If you really want to "clean up threads", I'd suggest simply banning Keith. He does nothing but slag other posters in the manner of the above and poison discussions.

But hey, your blog, your rules.

Tyler DiPietro said: "Bathroom wall, same for some other comments, including one of Keith comments. I am trying to clean up the thread. Name calling is bad enough." And I notice the one where Keith calls me a "brownshirt" and claims I "adapted" my comment from Hitler, and another where he refers to the commenting body here as "neo-Nazis", are still up. You don't see anything screwed up about that? If you really want to "clean up threads", I'd suggest simply banning Keith. He does nothing but slag other posters in the manner of the above and poison discussions. But hey, your blog, your rules.

raven | May 11, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply I am not at all surprised that you would consider a job at SW Baptist Theological Seminary as not a real job or fail to understand that Dembski is able to conduct his ID, DI, teaching and research work, writing, speaking schedule, and such there comfortably. The fact that his expertise in science, mathmatics, philosophy, and theology would be considered a good fit there may be a little difficult for you to follow but trust me its quite logical. Now go bed Raven so you can get up and deliver those papers in a timely fashion.

keith said: I no more believe anyone posting here is a N.T Christian in any recognizable sense than I believe in the first replicator (common ancestor of all of biological life), the organism that cannot be described by its proponents.

keith said: I have met Dembski and he is a serious intellect,

William Dembski said: Critics and enemies are useful. The point is to use them effectively. In our case, this is remarkably easy to do. The reason is that our critics are so assured of themselves and of the rightness of their cause. As a result, they rush into print their latest pronouncements against intelligent design when more careful thought, or perhaps even silence, is called for. The Internet, especially now with its blogs (web logs), provides our critics with numerous opportunities for intemperate, indiscreet, and ill-conceived attacks on intelligent design. These can be turned to advantage, and I’ve done so on numerous occasions. I’m not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics’ objections. An additional advantage with this approach is that I can cite the website on which the objections appear, which typically gives me the last word in the exchange. And even if the critics choose to revise the objections on their website, books are far more permanent and influential than webpages. [My emphasis.]

William Dembski said: You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering.[87] [My emphasis.]

William Dembski has been quoted as: "I've just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print", he says. "And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get royalty. And the material gets read more." [My emphasis.]

PvM said: For a former fortune 500 executive, Keith seems to be quite unfamiliar with logic and arguments. Why he insists on sharing this with the world is beyond me

People who debate on the basis of drawing and arbitrary, metaphysical line across their history to avoid explaining the origin of the first life form capable of beginning their theories processes have no basis for claiming to be logical in their argumentation.

People who are generously given the break of suspending the abiogenesis issue and again refuse to offer a scintilla of descriptive evidence for their first replicator , common ancestor have no basisi for claiming a scientific argument for their theory.

Dembski as a practicing Christian and a supremely gifted intellect is simply following the advice of Jesus in His ministry. "Be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves."

It seems reasonable that someone brilliant in the scientific arena would see (like the majority of bloggers, some media, some reporters, etc.) that adopting new and inventive ways of reaching an audience with your message, rather than being under the thumb of a hundred thousand entrenched haters who control the message to conform with the conventional wisdom, is unavoidable in the current connected world. I think Dembski's brilliance, approach, beliefs, faith, persistence, and socio-political common sense is what infuriates his opponents into states of irrationality that he exposes in them regularly.

You ever wonder if Keith’s neighbors know what a wack-job he is?

Uh, wow. Keith, you are a victim of True Believer syndrome. You suffer from severe delusions.

@ Torbjörn Larsson - Your whole post full of WD quotes was brilliant!
Thank you :-)

Hi all,

While we've been "amusing" ourselves with Keith and Bobby, something more important occurred at Baylor University. Seems like their IT department shut down the www.brites.org and inadvertently exposed Uncommon Dissent "humorist" Galpagos Finch as Baylor professor Robert Marks (Like his pal Bill Dembski, he's another delusional wacko has ample spare time on his hands, having written a real gem of a spoof which was posted at www.brites.org and fooled me.).

The ever vigilant Abbie Smith has reported all the gory details here:

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2008/05/anon_blogging.php#more

At least that's one more "martyr" for the intellectually inane, delusional creo crowd.

Regards,

John

Hi Keith,

If my "buddy" Bill Dembski is such a "serious intellect", then why did XVIVO's president, David Bolinsky, feel compelled to write this:

"To Mr. Dembski: The only reason I am involved in this discussion is because I do not want the reputation of my company, hard-earned as it is, to be sullied by even oblique affiliation to your sort of smarmy ethics, if only through works of ours, purloined to fit your agenda. Last year you were charging colleges thousands of dollars to give lectures showing a copy of The Inner Life of the Cell, you claimed you 'found somewhere', with Harvard's and XVIVO's credits stripped out and the copyright notice removed (which is in itself a felony) and a creationist voice-over pasted on over our music (yes, I have a recording of your lecture). Harvard slapped you down for that, and yes there is a paper trail. One can only assume that had we not taken notice then, we would be debating The Inner Life of the Cell being used in EXPELLED, instead of a copy. You have enough of a colorful history that Harvard, in its wisdom, decided to 'swat the gnat' with as little fuss as possible. Imagine our surprise earlier this month, to see our work copied in a movie trailer for EXPELLED! And you are in the movie too! Not quite a star, but brown dwarfs are cool. XVIVO has no intention of engaging alone, in asymmetrical fighting against an ideological entity with orders of magnitude more resources than we have. That might make great theater, but would resemble a hugely expensive game of whack-a-ID. Boring!"

"It makes me happy, though, that you decided to implicate your friends in print, on your blog (http://www.uncommondescent.com/legal/expelled-plagiarizing-harvard/#comment-229619), in what is legally, malignant infringement, since you no had doubt discussed with EXPELLED's producers, Harvard's previous legal infringement action against you, the Discovery Institute, where you are a fellow and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where you teach. Once we uncover the EXPELLED animation dollar trail, and bring it to light, we will have even more fun. The sublimely ridiculous claim that EXPELLED uses completely original animation, in light of copying our work so closely that a budget was reserved to pay for an infringement suit by Harvard, is delicious! Why should I try to take you guys down when you are doing such a splendid job yourselves? For free! So go ahead and release your movie. Just keep track of how many tickets you sell. We may just find that data valuable, too."

You may find the rest of Mr. Bolinsky's remarks quite insightful here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2460,Expelled-ripped-off-Harvards-Inner-Life-of-the-Cell-animation,David-Bolinsky

Seems to be that the real "sick puppy" is Bill Dembski, the Josef Goebbels of the Intelligent Design movement, not yours truly.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

In other news, the DI's Casey Luskin demonstrates the paranoid delusional nature of the ID crowd, completely forgetting that scientific ideas go through many years of experiments, peer review, and publication before they rise to the level of major scientific concepts and theories.

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/discovery-institute-delusional-in-seattle/

We're still waiting for the first data supporting ID in a peer-reviewed scientific research paper (hint: supernatural causation is not science).

I don't think Baylor had anything to do with "theBRITES.org" going away. That was on a third-party hosting service. It seems that a small sense of shame may actually be present as a vestige in an IDC advocate.

It is with great satisfaction that I note the usual content free and intellectually void response to my post concerning abiogenesis and the first replicator.

It's a wonder any science from the period preceeding 18oo was ever accomplished what without all those peer reviewed journals, non-existent in all practicality, no NCSE or Ms. Scott. LOL!

Poor little evos , their entire lives hung out to dry on skyhook premises.

keith said: What Moses the turdhead fails to say is that the difference between financial profit under FASB and its sisters are different from its tax book profits, actual cashflow and "success" as can be imagined. After designing and managing Oil and Gas , Coal, mineral mining, and standard big-five accounting and financial systems in the Fortune 500 for 25 years I have a pretty good grasp of the subject. I did take a few courses in the accounting field but it was so much less difficult than my engineering and MIS susbjects that I just picked it up in my spare time. Your sophomoric analysis based on some normative big studio model without even a peek at the books of a savy independent is meaningless and trivial. Best guess at their real out of pocket costs remains 3-4 million in total. If you need a little class on ATDCFROR otherwise known as private industry real world economics I will be glad to teach you over the net by email for say $500 bucks. Let's use the Frank Stermole text out of Colorado School of Mines since I completed that class some 20 years ago before I ran the Planning and Economics division for a Fortune 5000 Coal company. Wow I bet Moses even knows what DDB stands for ...it s real rocket science. Now back to your cubicle and ten key Mosie boy.

Moses said: Bottom line, this dog isn't going to make a profit. It's subject to the laws of diminishing returns and it will never maintain the distribution necessary to become profitable through THEATRE RELEASE. At this point in time, it's best hope is DVD distribution. The problem there is, who is going to buy it? The True Believers have seen it. It's a shitty movie with no artistic merit or social value. I think the entire project is a disaster.

PvM said: ROTFL, this is just too funny. Dembski and his lieutenants are quick to ban people for raising criticism. You're funny Keith but it would help to educate yourself on the facts, and spend less time on the fiction.

keith said: Dembski as a practicing Christian and a supremely gifted intellect is simply following the advice of Jesus in His ministry. "Be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves."

keith said: I think Dembski's brilliance, approach, beliefs, faith, persistence, and socio-political common sense is what infuriates his opponents into states of irrationality that he exposes in them regularly.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

PvM said: For a former fortune 500 executive, Keith seems to be quite unfamiliar with logic and arguments. Why he insists on sharing this with the world is beyond me

LOL!

In Keith's world Dembski is an intellectual giant and Expelled is a blockbuster movie. He can keep bulbbering about the first replicator all he wants to but nobody is going to be fooled by his nonsense.

Can you say court injunction Keith? Care to predict what the judge's decision will be? Who are you going to blame this time around?

As I have said the issue of the first replicator sticks in the gullet of your geek squad like a bag of duck feathers and to date no one has ever offered a logical, scientific response to me or anywhere else that can pass the laugh test.

The idea that a mathematical construct and set of "tests" combined with a chain of logic could and in fact does permit one to detect design by intelligent agents would have been perfectly acceptable to the evo hordes if it had been proposed and developed by one of their own or applied in a field nonthreatening to their little domain of operation.

And please don't spend any time worrying about my well being. I assure you as a comfortably retired, quite healthy senior I have a very satisfying life.

keith said: As I have said the issue of the first replicator sticks in the gullet of your geek squad like a bag of duck feathers and to date no one has ever offered a logical, scientific response to me or anywhere else that can pass the laugh test.

The idea that a mathematical construct and set of "tests" combined with a chain of logic could and in fact does permit one to detect design by intelligent agents would have been perfectly acceptable to the evo hordes if it had been proposed and developed by one of their own or applied in a field nonthreatening to their little domain of operation.

And please don't spend any time worrying about my well being. I assure you as a comfortably retired, quite healthy senior I have a very satisfying life.

Stacy, why, thank you!

keith said: In the twenty-five years I have posted on these sites...

Be patient.

keith said: As I have said the issue of the first replicator sticks in the gullet of your geek squad like a bag of duck feathers and to date no one has ever offered a logical, scientific response to me or anywhere else that can pass the laugh test.

keith said: People who debate on the basis of drawing and arbitrary, metaphysical line across their history to avoid explaining the origin of the first life form capable of beginning their theories processes have no basis for claiming to be logical in their argumentation.

I can see you think anyone with a crown on their head is a Tutor. My guess you wear one to bed.

See if there never was a first replicator...NADA ...then there is no evolutionary line of decent,it's a fairy tale.

So it is incumbent upon your team to demonstrate that life can be brought about by purely chemical and physical means from nonliving matter AND that such life is indeed capable of being the first replicator that evolved by RM and NS to enable by common descent all observable and extinct biology.

Since no can has or can furnish a primal condition, unaided, non-intelligent demonstration, forensic evidence for, or even a testable hypothesis subject to review and analysis ...then the entire theory has zero basis in fact.

And PvM should save his post unless he can cite actual experimental results or at the least better the results from Shapiro, Crick, Yockey, and many others more qualified and believable. Rest assured whatever you submit will be analyzed by several people.

On the other hand, maybe PvM is revealing his Nobel prize winning research and not just another silly just so story.

Oh, and I forgot to point out that it is obvious that you now avoid explaining the non-professional behavior of your claimed "serious intellect". It was your fallacious argument from authority, we expect you to at least back your silliness up before you Gish gallop back to abiogenesis instead of explaining why "Expelled" does so badly.

[Hint: It is because it too is using fallacious arguments and Gish gallop of non-science "facts". You are, with the usual absurd irony of the creationist phenomena, showing why creationism is failing by arguing that it is successful.]

keith said: there is no evolutionary line of decent

Dembski is by all accounts not a YEC and has expressed differences with ICR of a substantial nature.

All sane people are creationists only mentally deranged people hold the atheist, evolander views expressed here. Creationists have quite nuanced views from YEC to OEC, to progressive evolution, to theistic evolution, etc. Even the term Deist, as in Einstein, and others is a creationist stance.

I never let morons define the terms of the debate, it leads to dead end stupidity.

If you look up in a Black's legal dictionary sometime the terms "probable cause", preponderance of the evidence", DNA evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt...you might conclude the use of "probability" has been around for some time both implicitly and explicitly.

Of course Larsen is a liar because I believe in a line of decent from a set of original life forms created by fiat. A narrow, clear, direct line of decent as distinguished from one requiring abiogenesis, a first replicator and etc. all that BS you hold to without evidence.

keith said: I can see you think anyone with a crown on their head is a Tutor. My guess you wear one to bed.

See if there never was a first replicator...NADA ...then there is no evolutionary line of decent,it's a fairy tale.

So it is incumbent upon your team to demonstrate that life can be brought about by purely chemical and physical means from nonliving matter AND that such life is indeed capable of being the first replicator that evolved by RM and NS to enable by common descent all observable and extinct biology.

Since no can has or can furnish a primal condition, unaided, non-intelligent demonstration, forensic evidence for, or even a testable hypothesis subject to review and analysis ...then the entire theory has zero basis in fact.

And PvM should save his post unless he can cite actual experimental results or at the least better the results from Shapiro, Crick, Yockey, and many others more qualified and believable. Rest assured whatever you submit will be analyzed by several people.

On the other hand, maybe PvM is revealing his Nobel prize winning research and not just another silly just so story.

keith said: Dembski is by all accounts not a YEC and has expressed differences with ICR of a substantial nature. All sane people are creationists only mentally deranged people hold the atheist, evolander views expressed here. Creationists have quite nuanced views from YEC to OEC, to progressive evolution, to theistic evolution, etc. Even the term Deist, as in Einstein, and others is a creationist stance. I never let morons define the terms of the debate, it leads to dead end stupidity. If you look up in a Black's legal dictionary sometime the terms "probable cause", preponderance of the evidence", DNA evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt...you might conclude the use of "probability" has been around for some time both implicitly and explicitly.

keith said: Of course Larsen is a liar because I believe in a line of decent from a set of original life forms created by fiat. A narrow, clear, direct line of decent as distinguished from one requiring abiogenesis, a first replicator and etc. all that BS you hold to without evidence.

PvM said: As a Christian and a scientist, I find your [Keith's] comments highly illogical, and worse, insulting and in the end it only serves to make religious people look foolish.

Keith wrote:

"Of course Larsen is a liar because I believe in a line of decent from a set of original life forms created by fiat."

OK Keith, now we are getting somewhere. I suppose you have some evidence about this mysterious creator? Who was she? What did she create? When and where did she create? How did she create? What was the set that was created?

How many lineages exactly were created? Why this many and no more? How long ago did this happen? How much evolution has occurred in each lineage since? Why do all of the independent creation events share the exact same genetic code? Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similairties between all of the supposedly independent lineages?

What about the insects? Were they all derived from one initial creation event? Did all of the other insects evolve since the creation event? Did this occur in 6,000 years ago, 10,000, 600,000, 4 billion? Why do the insects share the same mitochondsrial gene order as that found in crustaceans? Could Arthropods all came from one creation event?

What about dinosaurs? Were they a separate creation event? What happened to them? Were they just poorly made?

What about cetaceans? Were they one creation event, two, twelve, one hundred? Why are they genetically similar to artiodactyls? Why do they share the same SINE insertions as those found in artiodactyls? Could the Artiodactyls and the Cetaceans all have come from one creation event? If they were created separately, why are there intermediate forms in the fossil record between artiodactlys and cetaceans?

What about human beings? All of the above questions apply to humans as well.

Come on Keith. You demand molecular details of the first replicator in order to even consider the possibility of evolution. You must provide at least a description of each separate creation event if you want to be taken seriously. Until you answer these questions, I'm sure that no one will ever feel compelled to respond to your first replicator nonsense again.

Scientists publish, real scientists publish in refereed journals.

Why is there even a disussion of Keith organizing a debate series? He obviously can't organize his sock drawer. Not that I see a valid point to having public debates at all, when the superstitious side is so dishonest. Science is communicated among scientists by conferences and refereed publications, and to the public in textbooks, magazine articles and web pages.

keith said: People who debate on the basis of drawing and arbitrary, metaphysical line across their history to avoid explaining the origin of the first life form capable of beginning their theories [sic] processes have no basis for claiming to be logical in their argumentation.

People who are generously given the break of suspending the abiogenesis issue and again refuse to offer a scintilla of descriptive evidence for their first replicator , common ancestor have no basisi [sic] for claiming a scientific argument for their theory.

Dembski as a practicing Christian and a supremely gifted intellect is simply following the advice of Jesus in His ministry. "Be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves."

Of course Larsen is a liar because I believe in a line of decent from a set of original life forms created by fiat. A narrow, clear, direct line of decent as distinguished from one requiring abiogenesis, a first replicator and etc.

keith said: Of course Larsen is a liar because I believe in a line of decent from a set of original life forms created by fiat. A narrow, clear, direct line of decent as distinguished from one requiring abiogenesis, a first replicator and etc. all that BS you hold to without evidence.

keith said: All sane people are creationists only mentally deranged people hold the atheist, evolander views expressed here.

keith said: Of course Larsen is a liar because I believe in a line of decent from a set of original life forms created by fiat. A narrow, clear, direct line of decent as distinguished from one requiring abiogenesis, a first replicator and etc. all that BS you hold to without evidence.

Nice diversionary effort, but no bananas.

The evolutionary paradigm writ large is the theory of everything biological.

I and many thousands of people (scientific, philosophical, theological,academic, and John Doe American) don't buy your theory or your world view of atheism (85%,I recall).

It seems to me your problem is not me, but the mass of people who simply don't buy it.

What I point out is that the reason they don't includes the lack of a believable scientifically reasonable abiogenesis explanation, similarly the first replicator, and explanations of diversity beyond RM and NS, et al which fall pitifully short.

As for fiat creation the last time I looked it is the consensus view that the origin of the universe was a one-time event from which emerged all matter/mass, energy,time itself, and the laws governing same.

I can promise you one thing there are a lot more doubters in America than supporters of your theory and you will never get their support displaying the attitudes revealed here of elitism, arrogance, contempt, ridicule, personal attacks, character assassination, and attacking their religious beliefs.

I personally don't give a hoot what you true believers hold to and have no illusions that anything anyone can present will cause you pause...your position is your problem, not mine.

So let's stick to what you call real science, predominant scientific community views, and see if your team can meet the basic level of believability. Check a few national polls and you'll see I am 100% correct and you have precisely the work I have outlined to accomplish.

I would like the option of getting Dembski to participate in a new blog based debate I will set up if he can't or won't agree to a face to face.

Keith wrote:

"Nice diversionary effort, but no bananas."

Actually, you were the one who brought this up. So now you're saying that it's just a diversionary tactic? OK then, obviously all your first replicator crap is just a diversionary tactic as well. Glad we cleared that up. Now no one will ever have to respond to that nonsense again.

keith wrote: I never let morons define the terms of the debate, it leads to dead end stupidity.

keith wrote: I can see you think anyone with a crown on their head is a Tutor.

keith wrote: See if there never was a first replicator...NADA ...then there is no evolutionary line of decent,it's a fairy tale.

keith wrote: Of course Larsen is a liar because I believe in a line of decent from a set of original life forms created by fiat. A narrow, clear, direct line of decent as distinguished from one requiring abiogenesis, a first replicator and etc. all that BS you hold to without evidence.

Science Avenger wrote: And it is curious to see the blatant double standard here: one abiogenetic ancestor requires volumes of detailed evidence, whereas multiple ancestors created by fiat (ie magic) require naught but assertions.

keith said: Nice diversionary effort, but no bananas.

keith said: It seems to me your problem is not me, but the mass of people who simply don't buy it.

Uups, I misquoted myself. "The evolutionary paradigm writ large is the theory of everything biological" is keith's blather.

Evolution is a basic theory in biology, but it can for example not explain abiogenesis, nor keith's behavior.

Hi fellow ID bashers,

I've written a couple of Amazon.com reviews which are parodies of popular tunes. You can find them at Amazon.com, with the most recent one a review of Berlinski's "The Devil Delusion". Please vote yea since the IDiots have already started voting nay.

Thanks,

John

keith said: Nice diversionary effort, but no bananas. The evolutionary paradigm writ large is the theory of everything biological. I and many thousands of people (scientific, philosophical, theological,academic, and John Doe American) don't buy your theory or your world view of atheism (85%,I recall). It seems to me your problem is not me, but the mass of people who simply don't buy it.

Since keith is a creationist and keeps bringing up bananas, I feel it is the appropriate time to post this link...

Kirk Cameron and his Banana Debunked

The fact that those clowns think they're being serious with such a ludicrous argument makes me laugh so hard that I cry. Very funny - enjoy! :)

Stanton is of course like all evos seeking a way out, desperately, from the challenge of abiogenesis and beyond that, the critical first replicator. Like all good little evos he seeks diversionary tactics, red herrings, change of subject, tired arguments of wait and see, it's in the works, etc.

Walk into any university library and search the shelves for abiogenesis and evolution subjects and guess what they are on the same shelf, often have common authors, most frequently appear in the same books; but of course they have no logical scientific relationship. LOL!

Look at the formal classes in origins and abiogenesis at any major school and guess what, it's in the biological sciences catalog, not astronomy or some such.

I regret that the entire American student population is not informed that the evos straight faced can cling to an ever receding deep time evolutionary tree of commmon ancestors that converges on a first replicator and yet proclaim that if the first replicator never existed still the tree, the procession, the logic of descent remains undisturbed.

Most college students and certainly educated adults are quite familiar with the legal systems logical dependence on the concept of "chain of evidence". They know that the burden of proof in say a murder case requires, if not mandates, a murder weapon in the most general sense and a chain of custody, forensic evidence, finger print evidence, etc. to gain a proof beyond a reasonable doubt conviction of the indicted person.

They see that if there is no case is made for the existence of the murder weapon then there can be no murder. It will not depend on the fact the indicted lived on the same planet as the victim, even country, even town, that the two were proximate on the day of the crime.... if there is no murder weapon and no case for any such weapon's ever having existing ... the law and the jury will very likely never convince or convict.

Here's one of my most recent Amazon.com reviews, which is a rather succinct summary of Keith's modus operandi:

I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy.

I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy.

Look at them yo-yos, that's the way you do it. You put fat Mike Behe on the Christian TV. Nah, that ain't working - that's the way you do it. You get your money for nothing like those books from Dembski!

That ain't working - that's the way you do it. Them DI guys ain't dumb. Maybe buy this book at Amazon.com; maybe buy this book at Barnes and Noble.com.

We gotta brainwash American high school children, custom Creo deliveries. We gotta move these IDiot books. Gotta move these ID videos....

That ain't working... that's the way you do it. You put old Ben Stein on the Fox TV. Nah, that ain't working - that's the way you do it . You get your money for nothing like those books from Behe!

I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy.

I want my..... I want my..... I want my IDiot-cy.

(With apologies to Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler. With profound thanks to Stephen Marley for writing the last stanza.)

Should somebody point out that there's a difference between knowing exactly how abiogenesis happened, and knowing that it did happen? (i.e., if it hadn't happened at least once there wouldn't be life today.)

Still no answers Keith? Your diversionary tactics won't work. You are here on a thread supposedly discussing the failed movie Expelled and yet you keep bringing up first replicators. Why is that Keith? Everyone can see that you have no answers, just go away.

Kwok, Don't quit your day job ...even if it's some taxpayer supported gig cleaning test tubes.

I do feel a little guilty at times feeding these hordes of geeky nobodies in all likelihood sweating out their innocuous lives on the welfare dole made available by accomplished taxpayers like yours truly. Here they are contributing next to nothing to the world society and I feed them on their lunch break, coffee break, or water cooler time when they need to be attempting to do something productive.

Why, I'll bet Kwok even has an old guitar or a keyboard stuck somewhere in the back of his pop top VW camper.

I'll be honest, your lyrics and prose are right up there with your logic and analytics...on par with J. Fred Muggs.

keith wrote: They see that if there is no case is made for the existence of the murder weapon then there can be no murder. It will not depend on the fact the indicted lived on the same planet as the victim, even country, even town, that the two were proximate on the day of the crime.... if there is no murder weapon and no case for any such weapon's ever having existing ... the law and the jury will very likely never convince or convict.

First it's Keith, not Kieth, after about 200 posts one would expect you might have the lights to get it correct. Also the word is Mustard and the word is whether not weather. Now after restoring a sense of literacy, let's examine the content.

Only the tortured logic that permeates the evolander mindset could state that a dead person was murdered despite the absence of a murder weapon, a believable scenario for the existence of a weapon, or the chain of custody tying the accused to the weapon.

First convicting someone of murder requires the satisfaction of a list of items including all the aforementioned and the successful presentation of the case to a judge and jury according to the rules of criminal procedure, etc. In other words following a body of well reasoned procedures, strict rules of evidence, a body of precedent, and is of course subject to judicial review,appeals, etc.

It would seem that the evolanders would see clearly the parallel with the historical standards of critical thinking, logical debate, experimental methods, protocols of scientific investigation, repeatability, and falsifiability.

Alas those standards haven't applied to evolutionary theory from the beginning and apparently their absence disturbs this minuscule sliver of science, not at all.

Remember we're not lowering the standards of science to the O.J. situation where murder is murder regardless of the failure of the legal system to obtain a conviction...ever find that knife?

After that kangaroo court in Dover, I thought following the rules were paramount for evos...guess not.

See http://curricublog.org/2008/05/13/expelled-approaching-extinction/
for maps showing disappearance of Expelled from theaters across the U.S. Is Expelled facing immanent extinction?

Hi Keith,

You ought to stick to your day job too, whatever that might be. I personally know several of the participants in the Dover trial, starting with Ken Miller, the lead witness for the plaintiffs, and none have told me that the trial (which was "Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District board" not, "the kangaroo court in Dover", as you claim, since it was held in Harrisburg.) was as biased as you assert so inanely.

But I'm dealing with an intellectually-challenged DI IDiot Borg drone here, not someone in full possession of his intellect.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

Only the tortured logic that permeates the evolander mindset could state that a dead person was murdered despite the absence of a murder weapon, a believable scenario for the existence of a weapon, or the chain of custody tying the accused to the weapon.

Yes, I assume troglodytes like you won't be able to follow the logic.

keith said: Yes, I assume troglodytes like you won't be able to follow the logic.

First it’s Keith, not Kieth, after about 200 posts one would expect you might have the lights to get it correct.

Well the great abiogenesis and first replicator post has arrived...yawn! I missed the part about the first replicator description and the integration of the several disparate concepts illustrated by experiments having no more to do with abiogenesis and first replicators than Calvin Coolidge is related to the Metro Goldwyn Mayor Lion.

It's a ridiculous just so story and rehash of discredited gibberish dating from the fifties forward.

I am aghast that anyone with the IQ of a turnip would dare to trot out Stanley Miller in 2008 after decades of critical comment on the absolute meaningless results of his experiments on origin theory.

None of the experiments have zip to do with the spontaneous formation of the twenty or so amino acids of life in stereospecificity of 99.999% as is required for the molecules of life to cooperate as they do.

Rocks, water, and air...heck, I thought it was rocks, scissors, and paper. LOL!!

Here's a real logical phrase... emerging complexity as in sand dunes and ant colonies. Anyone who makes this sort of statement needs to be on a couch swallowing zanex.

I have asked a few others to review and comment, but one thing is certain, such a conference is prima facia evidence of the intellectual dishonesty of evolanders when they seek to distance evolution from abiogenesis and yet hold such conferences where the speakers are evolutionary superstars.

This conference and post must be a joke ...right?

In case it's not read read Shapiro's Origins and Wilder Smith's Time Dimension chapters 1-2, among many who debunk each of these fairy tales.

keith said: Well the great abiogenesis and first replicator post has arrived...yawn! I missed the part about the first replicator description and the integration of the several disparate concepts illustrated by experiments having no more to do with abiogenesis and first replicators than Calvin Coolidge is related to the Metro Goldwyn Mayor Lion. It's a ridiculous just so story and rehash of discredited gibberish dating from the fifties forward.

I am aghast that anyone with the IQ of a turnip would dare to trot out Stanley Miller in 2008 after decades of critical comment on the absolute meaningless results of his experiments on origin theory.

None of the experiments have zip to do with the spontaneous formation of the twenty or so amino acids of life in stereospecificity of 99.999% as is required for the molecules of life to cooperate as they do.

Here's a real logical phrase... emerging complexity as in sand dunes and ant colonies. Anyone who makes this sort of statement needs to be on a couch swallowing zanex.

I have asked a few others to review and comment, but one thing is certain, such a conference is prima facia evidence of the intellectual dishonesty of evolanders when they seek to distance evolution from abiogenesis and yet hold such conferences where the speakers are evolutionary superstars. This conference and post must be a joke ...right?

A cool article on Robert Hazen can be found in Salon

I doubt that Keith has the capability to do so, which explains his name calling and ridicule.

CJO said:

I doubt that Keith has the capability to do so, which explains his name calling and ridicule.

Let's see. Keith, without name-calling or false bravado, can you explain for us what it is that you want? Can you elucidate what in your view is likely to be a more fruitful approach to origin-of-life research? Or is it that you believe the research program should be abandoned entirely?

Richard Simons said:

Only the tortured logic that permeates the evolander mindset could state that a dead person was murdered despite the absence of a murder weapon, a believable scenario for the existence of a weapon, or the chain of custody tying the accused to the weapon.

Keith, Keith, Keith, It seems your ability to investigate a crime would be no better than your ability to discuss the theory of evolution. You are guilty of an enormous assumption here. Can you spot it?

I would like to see any taxpayer funded research on abiogenesis abandoned and the funds invested in research directly related to the prevention and non-invasive treatment of breast cancer. What private funds are spent are equally wasteful in an opportunity cost sense, but that's the system we have.

Miller's work is no more supportive of abiogenesis today than in the past when even evo scientists agreed to its fatal flaws.

No one has demonstrated the formation of the twenty or so amino acids spontaneously in a prebiotic environment that were stereo-chemically pure and not racemates.

What was the cold trap or product removal mechanism in the primal earth environment. Was there water present in large quantities, how about long-wave UV light, any oxygen in abundance because all of the above have the rather unsupportive tendency to render any such molecules and by extension polymerization of same back to their constituents and equilibrium post haste. What scintilla of evidence can be demonstrated for a strongly reducing atmosphere without which the entire Miller construct is without merit. Answer zippo..it's all against such conditions.

I wish every young student could be made aware that evos consider the random patterns of sand dunes and the "wavy " surfaces thereof to be equal in complexity to the living, thriving, communicating, non-random organizational aspects of self sustaining populations of ant colonies.

This BS is old hat,regurgitated gibberish and there is no mandate to rehearse its flaws other than to refer to WIlderSmith's Origin of Life, or Myer's, http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm or Shapiro's Origins or Yockey, certainly no friend of ID.

Come back when you can experimentally demonstrate the formation of a unicellular self sustaining, self replicating organism with RNA, DNA, and all the necessary enzymes from a population of organic molecules exhibiting the informational capacities of the genetic code.

What precisely is holding you back from such a demonstration?

Go ask the hyper-complex sand dune genome.

I fear for the sciences if this sort of idiocy is truly representative of its results.

I would like to see any taxpayer funded research on abiogenesis abandoned and the funds invested in research directly related to the prevention and non-invasive treatment of breast cancer. What private funds are spent are equally wasteful in an opportunity cost sense, but that’s the system we have.

What precisely is holding you back from such a demonstration?

I wish every young student could be made aware that evos consider the random patterns of sand dunes and the “wavy “ surfaces thereof to be equal in complexity to the living, thriving, communicating, non-random organizational aspects of self sustaining populations of ant colonies.

keith said: I would like to see any taxpayer funded research on abiogenesis abandoned and the funds invested in research directly related to the prevention and non-invasive treatment of breast cancer. What private funds are spent are equally wasteful in an opportunity cost sense, but that's the system we have.

Miller's work is no more supportive of abiogenesis today than in the past when even evo scientists agreed to its fatal flaws.

No one has demonstrated the formation of the twenty or so amino acids spontaneously in a prebiotic environment that were stereo-chemically pure and not racemates.

Come back when you can experimentally demonstrate the formation of a unicellular self sustaining, self replicating organism with RNA, DNA, and all the necessary enzymes from a population of organic molecules exhibiting the informational capacities of the genetic code.

CJO said: More keith:

I wish every young student could be made aware that evos consider the random patterns of sand dunes and the “wavy “ surfaces thereof to be equal in complexity to the living, thriving, communicating, non-random organizational aspects of self sustaining populations of ant colonies.

Nobody said anything about "equal complexity." The connection is that both are examples of how dynamic systems comprised of "simple" rule-bound elements can give rise to quite a bit of complex behavior. That's it. I for one wish that every young student could be made aware that creationists of all kinds engage exclusively in dishonest argumentation: straw man, quote-mine, bullying, name-calling, unreasonable challenges, false bravado, and swiftly moving goal-posts. It all smells like fear to me, keith. Nowhere better emphasized than by your desire to actively squelch research into this area. What are you afraid of?

Eatonics to English translation:

Nuh UH!

"Muller didn't do everything perfect the first time, therefore everything he does is worthless." Yeah, great science there. Its right up there with "Haeckel doctored his photos so there is no resemblance between embryos" and "the moths in the illustration were glued to the trees, therefore they didn't evolve different colors due to the different environment". Denialism at its finest.

keith said: seeking a way out, desperately, from the challenge of abiogenesis

keith said: Well the great abiogenesis and first replicator post has arrived...yawn! I missed the part about the first replicator description and the integration of the several disparate concepts

keith said: I would like to see any taxpayer funded research on abiogenesis abandoned

What a band of dishonest illogical sophists you are.

Ants, together with their metabolic biology, DNA, genome, and cellular chemistry, that no one in the universe has a handle on in terms of its information content and cooperative group behavior, compared in terms of complexity with crushed rocks arranged in random patterns at the whim of wind,water and gravity....preposterous.

Your's is a stupid attempt to equate in some pseudo-scientific language the worlds of inorganic non-living matter and vital living organisms. There is no gap in the universe wider than the separation of living and nonliving matter and such has been recognized for the entire history of civilization.

If you had read your own all star evos analyses of all abiogenesis arguments and proposals you wouldn't even raise these silly arguments with a straight face.

Your assertions are backed by zero facts and evidence and your unconnected little chemistry set experiments carefully crafted by teams of evos assisted by laboratory settings, controlled environments, and detailed plans have zero to do with primordial conditions.

What is there to fear if some life form were to be developed in the distant future. To me it simply illustrates that intelligent agents acting with cognitive thought, plans, resources, equipment, and time can impose such on matter to achieve a result that, absent such, would never spontaneously occur.

That is precisely the outcome predicted by ID theory.

Final question. Can you cite a paper in a peer reviewed journal documenting a repeatable experiment where in primal environments, unaided by any information bearing genetic material, organic molecules have spontaneously formed a viable first replicator that is carbon based and relies on biological universals for its replicative operations including RNA, DNA, and enzymes?

Answer you can't, won't, and have not even a scintilla of evidence that you have demonstrated the requisite chemistry and information development precursors.

Heck you can't even get all the chiral amino acids, can't get their polymers, can't get an enzyme, can't get DNA, let alone the information and codes required for their integrated operations.

I hold you in intellectual contempt.

I hold you in intellectual contempt.

Your assertions are backed by zero facts and evidence and your unconnected little chemistry set experiments carefully crafted by teams of evos assisted by laboratory settings, controlled environments, and detailed plans have zero to do with primordial conditions.

As for Expelled, more than a million viewers have seen the material and it has realized some 7.3 MM$ in revenues.

Of course if one has a brain and measures its performance against documentaries, their theatre count, aging losses in revenue, and theatres over the first month of showing then the babbling evospeak is properly understood as BS and ignorant ranting.

Analysis of the aqueous solution showed that the following had also been synthesised:- * *25 amino acids* (the main ones being glycine, alanine and aspartic acid) * Several fatty acids * Hydroxy acids * Amide products

During recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of "old" areas in "old" genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller-Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids -- only those available in prebiotic nature -- than the current one. [16]

Abstract The action of an electric discharge on reduced gas mixtures such as H2O, CH4 and NH3 (or N2) results in the production of several biologically important organic compounds including amino acids. However, it is now generally held that the early Earth’s atmosphere was likely not reducing, but was dominated by N2 and CO2. The synthesis of organic compounds by the action of electric discharges on neutral gas mixtures has been shown to be much less efficient. We show here that contrary to previous reports, significant amounts of amino acids are produced from neutral gas mixtures. The low yields previously reported appear to be the outcome of oxidation of the organic compounds during hydrolytic workup by nitrite and nitrate produced in the reactions. The yield of amino acids is greatly increased when oxidation inhibitors, such as ferrous iron, are added prior to hydrolysis. Organic synthesis from neutral atmospheres may have depended on the oceanic availability of oxidation inhibitors as well as on the nature of the primitive atmosphere itself. The results reported here suggest that endogenous synthesis from neutral atmospheres may be more important than previously thought.

The amino acids tabulated consist of aspartic and glutamic acids, serine, glycine, alanine, β-Alanine, γ-aminobutyric acid, and α-aminoisobutyric acid.

Cool videos on Miller experiments can be found here courtesy UCSD TV

Keith wrote:

"I hold you in intellectual contempt."

I'm absolutely crushed. A guy with no evidence whatsoever, who can't even guess the number of "fiats" demands more and more evidence from real scientists. He is never convinced and will never be convinced, so who cares? Where is your evidence Keith? Just because no one can explain abiogenesis to your satisfaction doesn't mean that your made up nonsense is correct you know. Maybe it wasn't a fiat, maybe it was a gremlin you were thinking of.

Then he has the audacity to say that he doesn't want any funding for abiogenesis research, even though he considers it the ultimate goal of all evolutionary studies. Now we can all see exactly the value this guy places on scientific knowledge. How much money are you spending to research your fiat idea Keith?

As far as Expelled is concerned, the last Hollywood release grossed 50 million the first weekend. Expelled is up to 7 million after one month. Yea, a real blockbuster. Besides, no matter how many people are fooled into seeing it, no one will be fooled by the fallacious argument presented. I wonder how many theaters will be showing the movie after they lose the first lawsuit.

David Stanton's science,

After 75 years of abject failure in origins research and not a single description of the first replicator to date, as of Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 7:20 A.M., the Quido brothers announce that under the assumptions of essentially no free oxygen in the atmosphere, molecules that don't disassociate in boiling saltwater, precise ratios of atmospheric gases of their choice, all LW UV blocked by the magic wiki filter from Ork, and Maxwell's chirality filter in full bore operation you can get several useful organic molecules.

Mind you nothing resembling an enzyme, no RNA, no DNA, no alpha linked molecules and for sure no genetic code.

I know you have a one letter genetic code that means whatever you wish. Problem solved!

Now if Vegas will just permit you to bring in you own dice, the ones that are round on all the corners with the six and one faces.

keith said: What a band of dishonest illogical sophists you are.

Keith's "science":

After 2000 years of hand waving, no clue as to where life came from, how many separate creation events were required, how they were accomplished, who is responsible, how, when or why life was created, how much evolution occurred in each lineage since creation, or anything else. Still demanding every little detail form real science, but not willing to allow funding for the effort.

I'll stick with real science Keith, you can stick with fairy tales. Science might not have all of the answers yet, but where do you think those answers will eventually come from? I guess you would rather waste millions on propaganda films illegally produced by liars. For the cost of that so called movie they could have done some real research, or at least tried to. For that kind of maoney they could have built a fiat from scratch.

Oh well, at least Keith doesn't seem to have a problem with evolutionary theory.

keith said: Mind you nothing resembling an enzyme, no RNA, no DNA, no alpha linked molecules and for sure no genetic code. I know you have a one letter genetic code that means whatever you wish. Problem solved!

During recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of “old” areas in “old” genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller-Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids – only those available in prebiotic nature – than the current one. [16]

To the Sand Dune People,

One triune Creator, the God of the bible.

One origin event for the universe.

A series of creative acts regarding biology.

For His own pleasure.

By injecting cognitive thought and intellect into matter.

Apparently both Einstein and Hawking are deists in their physics and cosmology since they expressed the belief that a unified theory would equate to understanding the mind of God.

I have no idea how many types or kinds were created and no definite views on when. I remain open to the reconciliation of good science and biblical interpretation by qualified scholars.

God is the ultimate scientist and thus properly deciding what are His direct creative acts and His creation's derivative acts by scientific methods is a legitimate pursuit.

keith said: To the Sand Dune People, One triune Creator, the God of the bible. One origin event for the universe. A series of creative acts regarding biology. For His own pleasure. By injecting cognitive thought and intellect into matter. Apparently both Einstein and Hawking are deists in their physics and cosmology since they expressed the belief that a unified theory would equate to understanding the mind of God. I have no idea how many types or kinds were created and no definite views on when. I remain open to the reconciliation of good science and biblical interpretation by qualified scholars. God is the ultimate scientist and thus properly deciding what are His direct creative acts and His creation's derivative acts by scientific methods is a legitimate pursuit.

Since PvM can't read for content let's be clear.

I reject any and all claims that the molecules of life from amino acids, to their polymers, to RNA, to DNA to sugars, to enzymes have been spontaneously created under conditions that comport with any evidence based primal set of conditions.

My point is that quoting disparate experiments on some isolated aspect of the chemistry by unrelated teams under inconsistent assumptions achieving some fractional measure of the chemical components found in extant organisms has no more linkage to abiogenesis in full than the random distribution of sand grains has to the organization of an ant colony.

Let's see according to your theory if each evo is given a different wood working tool, one perhaps a trowel, another a plumbline,and they independently perform some act resulting in a construction element then we are justified in assuming they are responsible for the Taj Mahal, or the pyramid of Cheops, perhaps both.

Keith wrote:

"I have no idea how many types or kinds were created and no definite views on when."

Fine. I have no idea how the first replicator came to be and no definite views on when. There, now that nonsense is settled once and for all. Don't bring it up again.

keith said: Since PvM can't read for content let's be clear. I reject any and all claims that the molecules of life from amino acids, to their polymers, to RNA, to DNA to sugars, to enzymes have been spontaneously created under conditions that comport with any evidence based primal set of conditions.

My point is that quoting disparate experiments on some isolated aspect of the chemistry by unrelated teams under inconsistent assumptions achieving some fractional measure of the chemical components found in extant organisms has no more linkage to abiogenesis in full than the random distribution of sand grains has to the organization of an ant colony.

keith said: To the Sand Dune People, One triune Creator, the God of the bible. One origin event for the universe. A series of creative acts regarding biology. For His own pleasure. By injecting cognitive thought and intellect into matter. Apparently both Einstein and Hawking are deists in their physics and cosmology since they expressed the belief that a unified theory would equate to understanding the mind of God. I have no idea how many types or kinds were created and no definite views on when. I remain open to the reconciliation of good science and biblical interpretation by qualified scholars. God is the ultimate scientist and thus properly deciding what are His direct creative acts and His creation's derivative acts by scientific methods is a legitimate pursuit.

PvM,

A scatter diagram of data points indicating zero correlation to any cogent objective is not particularly useful.

As Christian I assume you accept the deity of Christ, His recorded miracles, and His bodily resurrection.

Is the healing of blindness by touch and word, restoration of a withered hand, raising dead people to life equally miraculous and evidenced only by eye witness accounts as recorded in the same book as the creation account?

Perhaps you deny this aspect of Christianity as non-scientific, don't accept it as factual history. If so you have a very unorthodox Christian faith.

It would seem to me that if you accept these events as truth you would conclude that they are quite serious scientific achievements, by any measure.

The fact that one does not know how to repeat them, analyze them, or reduce them to a flow-sheet is insufficient to overturn a historical eye witness narrative.

Why should I not conclude a quite irreconcilable set of views on your part, assuming your orthodox faith?

Your constant references to your Christian faith I believe permit this mild excursion into the subject.

Stanton, don't lecture me on any subject you sniveling little arrogant nobody. If you don't wish to respond to my posts please don't bother, the world would greatly benefit from your silence.

Robin,

I am so pleased that I won't have to skip through your vapid posts any longer. There... I just turned off my BS filter.

Now after restoring a sense of literacy, let’s examine the content.

By the way, Keith, do you think your Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is smiling on your behaviour?
viz: Matt. 7:12, Luke 6:27 ff.

Hey keith,

Are you sure you're not the infamous Amazon.com YEC "Bent" Brent Mortimer? You certainly sound a lot like him. Maybe you're his long-lost twin, separated at birth. Right?

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

The double standard has been revealed, now I guess all that is left for Keith is personal insults.

Minus the insults, Keith's contributions would be invisible - and a lot less instructive.

You can get a loopy Bible Bopper out of any creationist if you just squeeze hard enough.

As a frequent lurker, I just have to say: So that's it? After wading through, what, two million posts of keith's unsupported arrogance, insults, hand waving, goal-post moving and running away it turns out that he's just a garden-variety creationist? His evidence for ID is the Bible? Wow! Color me shocked. Yeah, "darwinism" is in real trouble.

Gary,

For 2,000 years less 200 the most productive science was performed by people of faith. Only in the last 200 have scientists in appreciable numbers chosen to exclude biblical faith, deism, and religious faith from consideration in scientific activity in principal, although many of the very best hold quite securely to their faith today.

Your team's silly ad hominem attacks mean nothing, score no points, add no gravitas to your position and are nothing less than pitiful and humorous.

keith said: Gary, For 2,000 years less 200 the most productive science was performed by people of faith. Only in the last 200 have scientists in appreciable numbers chosen to exclude biblical faith, deism, and religious faith from consideration in scientific activity in principal, although many of the very best hold quite securely to their faith today. Your team's silly ad hominem attacks mean nothing, score no points, add no gravitas to your position and are nothing less than pitiful and humorous.

keith said: Gary, For 2,000 years less 200 the most productive science was performed by people of faith. Only in the last 200 have scientists in appreciable numbers chosen to exclude biblical faith, deism, and religious faith from consideration in scientific activity in principal, although many of the very best hold quite securely to their faith today.

Your team's silly ad hominem attacks mean nothing, score no points, add no gravitas to your position and are nothing less than pitiful and humorous.

It's so useful to have Keith posting here.

wait, why is that again?

Ichthyic said: It's so useful to have Keith posting here. wait, why is that again?

By his very existence, he demonstrates the complete worthlessness and dishonesty of creationist thought, and shows what pathetic hollow shells of humanity creationists are.

There lies the character of the militant evo community in deep relief.

No one can say that I believe that science can be performed equally well by people of all persuasions and has been.

To attribute breakthrough science in the last 200 years to not having religious faith or not being impeded by religious faith is a logical fallacy without merit.

Similarly, people who may not be 100% "value free", have some social drivers, be deeply spiritual, attribute origins to God's creative acts can and do perform equally good science.

Why do millions believe that the scientific community is hostile to the former and not necessarily the latter?

Why is ID singled out for such hatred (like wishing its supporters were all dead, like KWOK)instead of permitting it full voice and then demonstrating scientifically its falsification.

I surely don't recall people expressing such attitudes about Wilberforce or Agassiz in the historical record.

The hate thing is what amazes and disturbs me.

Sorry, my apologies, I meant to say I believe science can be performed well by any qualified person regardless of their belief system.

keith said: By his very existence, he demonstrates the complete worthlessness and dishonesty of creationist thought, and shows what pathetic hollow shells of humanity creationists are. There lies the character of the militant evo community in deep relief. No one can say that I believe that science can be performed equally well by people of all persuasions and has been. To attribute breakthrough science in the last 200 years to not having religious faith or not being impeded by religious faith is a logical fallacy without merit. Similarly, people who may not be 100% "value free", have some social drivers, be deeply spiritual, attribute origins to God's creative acts can and do perform equally good science. Why do millions believe that the scientific community is hostile to the former and not necessarily the latter? Why is ID singled out for such hatred (like wishing its supporters were all dead, like KWOK)instead of permitting it full voice and then demonstrating scientifically its falsification. I surely don't recall people expressing such attitudes about Wilberforce or Agassiz in the historical record. The hate thing is what amazes and disturbs me.

bobby said:

keith said: By his very existence, he demonstrates the complete worthlessness and dishonesty of creationist thought, and shows what pathetic hollow shells of humanity creationists are. There lies the character of the militant evo community in deep relief. No one can say that I believe that science can be performed equally well by people of all persuasions and has been. To attribute breakthrough science in the last 200 years to not having religious faith or not being impeded by religious faith is a logical fallacy without merit. Similarly, people who may not be 100% "value free", have some social drivers, be deeply spiritual, attribute origins to God's creative acts can and do perform equally good science. Why do millions believe that the scientific community is hostile to the former and not necessarily the latter? Why is ID singled out for such hatred (like wishing its supporters were all dead, like KWOK)instead of permitting it full voice and then demonstrating scientifically its falsification. I surely don't recall people expressing such attitudes about Wilberforce or Agassiz in the historical record. The hate thing is what amazes and disturbs me.

Yes Keith, it is amazing to me that people who put themselves out as 'scientists' are so hateful. A real scientist is objective. To ram atheism down peoples throats it unethcial. To be so intolerant of others is unethical

Dear keith,

Thanks once more for proving my point that you - and the Disco Tute's merry band of mendacious intellectual pornographers - would improve the overall intellectual fitness of humanity by offering yourselves as potential python or crocodile (or T. rex - if Ken Ham ever succeeds in cloning one) chow. I don't wish that all ID supporters ought to "assume room temperature via natural means". Only the worst cases like your moronic self.

For nearly two decades, mainstream science has given ID every opportunity to demonstrate "scientifically its falsification". However, where are ID's testable hypotheses, valid scientific predictions, and published peer-reviewed research? The short answer is a resounding NONE.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

keith wrote: First it's Keith, not Kieth, after about 200 posts one would expect you might have the lights to get it correct. Also the word is Mustard and the word is whether not weather. Now after restoring a sense of literacy, let's examine the content.

keith wrote: See if there never was a first replicator…NADA…then there is no evolutionary line of decent,it’s a fairy tale.

keith wrote: People who debate on the basis of drawing and arbitrary, metaphysical line across their history to avoid explaining the origin of the first life form capable of beginning their theories processes have no basis for claiming to be logical in their argumentation

keith wrote: Only the tortured logic that permeates the evolander mindset could state that a dead person was murdered despite the absence of a murder weapon, a believable scenario for the existence of a weapon, or the chain of custody tying the accused to the weapon. First convicting someone of murder requires the satisfaction of a list of items including all the aforementioned and the successful presentation of the case to a judge and jury according to the rules of criminal procedure, etc. In other words following a body of well reasoned procedures, strict rules of evidence, a body of precedent, and is of course subject to judicial review,appeals, etc.

keith wrote: How about giving me some calendar dates for a debate with Dembski on ID, face to face, on a local public campus, at my expense?

Keith wrote:

"Stanton, don’t lecture me on any subject you sniveling little arrogant nobody."

A little later Keith also wrote:

"Your team’s silly ad hominem attacks mean nothing, score no points, add no gravitas to your position and are nothing less than pitiful and humorous."

Another double standard, what a shock.

The fact remains that Keith's ideas are flatly contradicted by the facts, that is why he cannot answer any questions. He is of course still free to believe anything he wants, but he is hardly in any position to demand anything from anyone else. Demanding that others accept your views without any evidence is definately the epitome of arrogance.

bobby said: Yes Keith, it is amazing to me that people who put themselves out as 'scientists' are so hateful. A real scientist is objective. To ram atheism down peoples throats it unethcial. To be so intolerant of others is unethical

keith said: Gary, For 2,000 years less 200 the most productive science was performed by people of faith. Only in the last 200 have scientists in appreciable numbers chosen to exclude biblical faith, deism, and religious faith from consideration in scientific activity in principal, although many of the very best hold quite securely to their faith today.

Your team's silly ad hominem attacks mean nothing, score no points, add no gravitas to your position and are nothing less than pitiful and humorous.

keith said: Gary, For 2,000 years less 200 the most productive science was performed by people of faith. Only in the last 200 have scientists in appreciable numbers chosen to exclude biblical faith, deism, and religious faith from consideration in scientific activity in principal, although many of the very best hold quite securely to their faith today.

Your team's silly ad hominem attacks mean nothing, score no points, add no gravitas to your position and are nothing less than pitiful and humorous.

Point where I indicated that any good science was approached by other than rational methods. Methodological naturalism has hardly been around as a term or concept for 2,000 years.

Can you prove that faith and prayer had no impact on the many successes of scientists who were people of faith. No you can't, it's a private matter. And I'm not suggesting any miraculous intervention in any case.

Methodological naturalism is no problem to me. In fact as far as I know every scientist approaches their work from that perspective. Rather it is the promulgation of the philosophical naturalism (atheism and militant anti-religion) that permeates the evo community that is the problem. There is little doubt that all your efforts to squash ID or any other criticism of evo orthodoxy represents an enormous waste of resource and serves only the pocket book of those who head the effort. Ever check up on Genies salary, perks, outside related income...please wake up and smell the roses.

Point where I indicated that any good science was approached by other than rational methods. Methodological naturalism has hardly been around as a term or concept for 2,000 years.

Can you prove that faith and prayer had no impact on the many successes of scientists who were people of faith. No you can't, it's a private matter. And I'm not suggesting any miraculous intervention in any case.

Methodological naturalism is no problem to me. In fact as far as I know every scientist approaches their work from that perspective. Rather it is the promulgation of the philosophical naturalism (atheism and militant anti-religion) that permeates the evo community that is the problem. There is little doubt that all your efforts to squash ID or any other criticism of evo orthodoxy represents an enormous waste of resource and serves only the pocket book of those who head the effort. Ever check up on Genies salary, perks, outside related income...please wake up and smell the roses.

PvM said: the origin of biomolecules, amino acids, chirality

keith said: Point where I indicated that any good science was approached by other than rational methods. Methodological naturalism has hardly been around as a term or concept for 2,000 years.

Can you prove that faith and prayer had no impact on the many successes of scientists who were people of faith. No you can't, it's a private matter. And I'm not suggesting any miraculous intervention in any case.

Methodological naturalism is no problem to me. In fact as far as I know every scientist approaches their work from that perspective. Rather it is the promulgation of the philosophical naturalism (atheism and militant anti-religion) that permeates the evo community that is the problem. There is little doubt that all your efforts to squash ID or any other criticism of evo orthodoxy represents an enormous waste of resource and serves only the pocket book of those who head the effort. Ever check up on Genies salary, perks, outside related income...please wake up and smell the roses.

Oh, and I forgot to add that the observed chemical chirality in our local space environment, such as

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 16 May 2008