Zombies in Texas!

Posted 30 October 2008 by Richard B. Hoppe

Day 5 of the Freshwater hearing was today, but my post on it won't be up until tomorrow night at the earliest. Tonight my seminar on the history of the controversies surrounding the theory of evolution is going to a Chautauqua performance about Clarence Darrow, and then I'm going to bed. As a consolation prize read Glenn Branch's Zombie Jamboree in Texas in the Beacon Broadside. Texas is heading for a potential disaster in science education.

32 Comments

notedscholar · 30 October 2008

"my seminar on the history of the controversies surrounding the theory of evolution"

Let me guess, it makes evolution always look good.

Not saying evolution is false, just....

PvM · 30 October 2008

that you don't like the looks of it...

notedscholar said: "my seminar on the history of the controversies surrounding the theory of evolution" Let me guess, it makes evolution always look good. Not saying evolution is false, just....

RBH · 30 October 2008

notedscholar said: "my seminar on the history of the controversies surrounding the theory of evolution" Let me guess, it makes evolution always look good. Not saying evolution is false, just....

You guessed wrong. It's about the history. It's not an evaluative course, but a seminar on how the history played out over the two centuries since Paley.

James F · 30 October 2008

RBH said:
notedscholar said: "my seminar on the history of the controversies surrounding the theory of evolution" Let me guess, it makes evolution always look good. Not saying evolution is false, just....
You guessed wrong. It's about the history. It's not an evaluative course, but a seminar on how the history played out over the two centuries since Paley.

To be fair, from Paley onward, the proponents of creation pseudoscience have made themselves look bad. Failure to produce a body of research and so forth....

Stanton · 30 October 2008

notedscholar said: "my seminar on the history of the controversies surrounding the theory of evolution" Let me guess, it makes evolution always look good. Not saying evolution is false, just....

So, do you plan on ever producing any example where Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents or any other assorted evolution-denier groups, were able use the Scientific Method to put forth alternative scientific hypotheses that could explain biological, paleontological and or geological phenomena better than current scientific theories, or are you just going to continue on with your useless, yet snide babbling?

Stanton · 30 October 2008

James F said:
RBH said:
notedscholar said: "my seminar on the history of the controversies surrounding the theory of evolution" Let me guess, it makes evolution always look good. Not saying evolution is false, just....
You guessed wrong. It's about the history. It's not an evaluative course, but a seminar on how the history played out over the two centuries since Paley.
To be fair, from Paley onward, the proponents of creation pseudoscience have made themselves look bad. Failure to produce a body of research and so forth....

Of course, evolution-deniers such as notedscholar don't care that Creationists have not only been unable to produce a body, or even a corpse of research for the past century and a half, but, they don't even care that Creationists are also extremely unwilling to produce any research, living or dead.

Joshua Zelinsky · 30 October 2008

"Notedscholar" has made claims such as "Using an imaginary number in an equation is like intentionally using a false premise in an argument, which is of course totally inappropriate in scholarship." This isn't an individual worth paying much attention to.

Wolfhound · 30 October 2008

I looked at "Notedscholar's" blog and, I swear, I called Poe. I'd say that nobody can really be that wacky but, then, there IS Timecube...

DS · 30 October 2008

Maybe we should ask this supposed scholar the value of pi.

notedscholar · 30 October 2008

Stanton said: So, do you plan on ever producing any example where Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents or any other assorted evolution-denier groups, were able use the Scientific Method to put forth alternative scientific hypotheses that could explain biological, paleontological and or geological phenomena better than current scientific theories, or are you just going to continue on with your useless, yet snide babbling?

Real mature. Anyway back to the real world: Cambridge University Press published a volume on these topics, edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse. It's called "Debating Design." Maybe not strictly Creationist, but they are in the same family, as you know.

PvM · 30 October 2008

Well, at least you have the part about ID proponents correct but now there remains the part of using the Scientific Method to put forth alternative scientific hypotheses. Just a minor detail. At least to the 'hard core' ID proponents

notedscholar said:
Stanton said: So, do you plan on ever producing any example where Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents or any other assorted evolution-denier groups, were able use the Scientific Method to put forth alternative scientific hypotheses that could explain biological, paleontological and or geological phenomena better than current scientific theories, or are you just going to continue on with your useless, yet snide babbling?
Real mature. Anyway back to the real world: Cambridge University Press published a volume on these topics, edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse. It's called "Debating Design." Maybe not strictly Creationist, but they are in the same family, as you know.

Stanton · 30 October 2008

notedscholar said: Real mature. Anyway back to the real world: Cambridge University Press published a volume on these topics, edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse. It's called "Debating Design." Maybe not strictly Creationist, but they are in the same family, as you know.

Please explain how Debating Design is an example of Creationism and or Intelligent Design putting forth a hypothesis that explains a biological, paleontological and or geological phenomenon better than the explanations that current scientific theories offer. After all, you're the one making unsubtle and snide inferences that evolutionary biology provides unsatisfactory results and explanations, and it is up to you to provide actual evidence to support your own outrageous claims. So, until you actually provide us with evidence that saying "Glory Hallelujah" while reading the King James' translation of the Bible is a superior method of studying the Universe than, say, actually going out and studying the evidence that the Universe provides us, we will continue to regard you as how you have presented yourself to us: as a pompous, anti-intellectual blowhard.

Paul Burnett · 30 October 2008

notedscholar bloviated: Cambridge University Press published a volume on these topics, edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse. It's called "Debating Design."

Ah, yes, we will always remember the bravery of William Dembski and his spirited testimony which helped convince the Dover trial judge that intelligent design creationism is actually science. Bill must be one of your personal heros, "notedscholar."

Wesley R. Elsberry · 31 October 2008

notedscholar said:
Stanton said: So, do you plan on ever producing any example where Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents or any other assorted evolution-denier groups, were able use the Scientific Method to put forth alternative scientific hypotheses that could explain biological, paleontological and or geological phenomena better than current scientific theories, or are you just going to continue on with your useless, yet snide babbling?
Real mature. Anyway back to the real world: Cambridge University Press published a volume on these topics, edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse. It's called "Debating Design." Maybe not strictly Creationist, but they are in the same family, as you know.

Huh? I was one of the participants in the conference that led to that volume, and I certainly was not treated to the IDC advocates ponying up any alternative scientific hypotheses there. Even Bill Dembski says that ID does not get a pass.

Larry Boy · 31 October 2008

notedscholar said: Anyway back to the real world: Cambridge University Press published a volume on these topics, edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse. It's called "Debating Design." Maybe not strictly Creationist, but they are in the same family, as you know.

Having read "Debating Design" cover to cover I can garentee you that there's no good science on the ID side of the issue. Dembski and Behe* may represent the apogee of Christian apologetics, I mean creation science, ehrm . . . intelligent design philosophers, but they fail to make a single prediction which is validated by evidence, in fact they hardly even mention the physical world in their essays. Dembski trots out his tired old CSI in regards to the flagellum, but fails to do a single real world calculation or explain how he differentiates between CSI generated by natural selection and CSI created by a designing mind. He does some rigged calculations which could easily demonstrate that divine intervention won me last nights poker game (an error which has been pointed out to him for many years I believe). On the up side, Dembski does directly state that a supernatural intelligence is necessary to account for life. It is always nice when the creationist admit that they really are trying to convince you that God created life by . . . divine fiat I suppose. . . . However, if you wish to read cover to cover, you do have to read through Behe discussing the irreducible complexity of the flagellum and blood clotting systems. *yawn* Overall, there isn't much in the book from the ID side that you haven't heard a hundred times before, and seen throughly debunked a few thousand. On a lighter note one of my favorite essays was from the theologian Michael Roberts who looked at the theology of intelligent design and concluded that it introduces an unacceptable schism in divine providence: "Haemoglobin is not designed, thus my good aerobic condition is not God-given.” I then realised that if I had slipped off the loose rock on to the glacier headwall below, I would have been shredded on the descent. And as I lay bleeding at the foot of the slope, design would come into action as my bleeding wounds began to clot! However, I did not slip, and at the summit I continued to think of design as I considered the panoramic view, with Mont Blanc to the west and the Great Saint Bernard Pass below me. The beauty was breathtaking, but to identify design in such a complex and chaotic landscape was impossible. Awesome and wonderful, yes! But designed? Also Ruse does a wonderful job looking at the logical structure of all design arguments (not just those used by creationists). *(If you enjoy reading the rantings of a syphilis-addled mind, read the worst essay in Debating Design written by James Barham. James had some stiff competition, but Kauffman was more humble, Davis was more lucid, and Dembski more original and honest. My thesis advisor favors Richard Swineburne for last place because Richard bases his argument on subjective Bayesian statistics, which, as we know, are Satan.)

James F · 31 October 2008

notedscholar said:
Stanton said: So, do you plan on ever producing any example where Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents or any other assorted evolution-denier groups, were able use the Scientific Method to put forth alternative scientific hypotheses that could explain biological, paleontological and or geological phenomena better than current scientific theories, or are you just going to continue on with your useless, yet snide babbling?
Real mature. Anyway back to the real world: Cambridge University Press published a volume on these topics, edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse. It's called "Debating Design." Maybe not strictly Creationist, but they are in the same family, as you know.

The Discovery Institute thrives off of the misconception that independently-published books count as peer-reviewed scientific research. There's no law against publishing books independently: at best, such books can influence scientific research (e.g., Dawkins' The Selfish Gene); at worst, they can be exercises in fraud (e.g., Jonathan Wells' execrable Icons of Evolution). Regardless of quality, however, such books are not scientific research in and of themselves.

Kevin B · 31 October 2008

Larry Boy said: Dembski trots out his tired old CSI in regards to the flagellum, but fails to do a single real world calculation or explain how he differentiates between CSI generated by natural selection and CSI created by a designing mind. He does some rigged calculations which could easily demonstrate that divine intervention won me last nights poker game (an error which has been pointed out to him for many years I believe).

Of course, Dembski is not dealing with the sort of imaginary numbers that 'notedscholar' was referring to...

Wheels · 31 October 2008

Don McLeroy is certainly living up to expectations. From breaking procedures and back-room conspiracies to stuffing the panel with sectarian cranks, he seems absolutely determined to undermine the legitimacy of public education in Texas, facts-based science, and the right of the people to practice their freedoms of religion and conscience.

Paul Burnett said:
notedscholar bloviated: Cambridge University Press published a volume on these topics, edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse. It's called "Debating Design."
Ah, yes, we will always remember the bravery of William Dembski and his spirited testimony which helped convince the Dover trial judge that intelligent design creationism is actually science. Bill must be one of your personal heros, "notedscholar."

Actually, I think that was Behe. Dembski refused to participate in the trial, but he did bravely put on a show beforehand about how the trial would put the Darwinists in a vise and squeeze the truth out of them. William Dembski: The Sir Robin of Information Theory.

Richard Simons · 31 October 2008

notedscholar said:
Stanton said: So, do you plan on ever producing any example where Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents or any other assorted evolution-denier groups, were able use the Scientific Method to put forth alternative scientific hypotheses that could explain biological, paleontological and or geological phenomena better than current scientific theories, or are you just going to continue on with your useless, yet snide babbling?
Real mature. Anyway back to the real world: Cambridge University Press published a volume on these topics, edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse. It's called "Debating Design." Maybe not strictly Creationist, but they are in the same family, as you know.

Are you suggesting that hidden away in here is a scientific hypothesis? If so, please could you identify it for us.

David Hudson · 31 October 2008

Given what may readily happen in Texas, the scientfic community needs not just to react, but to take the offensive. My suggestion is that the major priate universities and colleges, plus state univesrities where this is politically possible unite to insist that all high school biology courses submitted for admission contain a clear evolutionary element. Otherwise such students, if admitted, must take a remedial biology course to remedy their deficiencies. This could create an interesting stir in Texas, if the state adopts the proposed standards.

Paul Burnett · 31 October 2008

Wheels said:
Paul Burnett said:
notedscholar bloviated: Cambridge University Press published a volume on these topics, edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse. It's called "Debating Design."
Ah, yes, we will always remember the bravery of William Dembski and his spirited testimony which helped convince the Dover trial judge that intelligent design creationism is actually science. Bill must be one of your personal heros, "notedscholar."
Actually, I think that was Behe. Dembski refused to participate in the trial

No, I meant Dembski. He was such a strong supporter of intelligent design creationism and then he didn't testify.

Stanton · 31 October 2008

Paul Burnett said: No, I meant Dembski. He was such a strong supporter of intelligent design creationism and then he didn't testify.

Yeah, one would get the impression that Mr Dembski does not support Intelligent Design/Creationism for scientific reasons, and knows that.

Wheels · 1 November 2008

Ah, whoops. I misread that and completely missed the sarcasm.

PvM · 1 November 2008

No Dembski is working with other 'imaginary' numbers of his own such as his probabilities of proteins forming under processes of chance.

Kevin B said:
Larry Boy said: Dembski trots out his tired old CSI in regards to the flagellum, but fails to do a single real world calculation or explain how he differentiates between CSI generated by natural selection and CSI created by a designing mind. He does some rigged calculations which could easily demonstrate that divine intervention won me last nights poker game (an error which has been pointed out to him for many years I believe).
Of course, Dembski is not dealing with the sort of imaginary numbers that 'notedscholar' was referring to...

notedscholar · 2 November 2008

Stanton said: Of course, evolution-deniers such as notedscholar don't care that Creationists have not only been unable to produce a body, or even a corpse of research for the past century and a half, but, they don't even care that Creationists are also extremely unwilling to produce any research, living or dead.

I have not denied evolution, so nice try.

Wheels · 2 November 2008

notedscholar said:
I have not denied evolution, so nice try.

Not explicitly, yet. You do seem sympathetic to anti-evolution claims, though. But then why does your blog have this information in the bio?

I am a student of science and math from the Detroit area. This blog is dedicated to the critical exploration of contemporary science and mathematics. It is also for truth-telling where scholarship has been lacking. While the views expressed here are not always representative of academia at large, the views are nevertheless correct. If you want to know my influences, you can see in the links on the main page. But in terms of mathematicians an scientists, I would say that my biggest influences and heroes are Richard Dawkins, Aristotle, Kent Hovind, Renes Descartes, and definitely Buckminster Fuller. That gives a pretty good and broad span I think.

That seems pretty schizophrenic on the face of it. Dawkins and Hovind? And in the links of the front page, you list Uncommon Descent (under "Dembski O'Leary") as a math/science blog? I think this sort of thing, your initial comment, your hand-waving non-response when asked how IDists use the scientific method, warrant suspicion of you and your motivations. If you could explain yourself a bit so that your conduct doesn't resemble the usual disingenuous trolling we get so frequently, that would be a big help.

Paul Burnett · 2 November 2008

Wheels said:
notedscholar said:
I would say that my biggest influences and heroes are Richard Dawkins, Aristotle, Kent Hovind
That seems pretty schizophrenic on the face of it. Dawkins and Hovind?

Notedscholar, are you aware that Kent Hovind is serving ten years in Federal prison? Are you aware that Kent Hovind's Young Earth Creationist claims are so bogus that Answers In Genesis has criticized him? Are you aware of Kent Hovind's totally bogus academic credentials? Are you aware that Kent Hovind is a complete and utter whacko conspiracy theorist? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Please explain precisely how and in what mannner Kent Hovind has influenced you and why you perceive him as a "hero."

DS · 2 November 2008

Noscholar wrote:

"I have not denied evolution, so nice try."

Let me take a wild guess here. This is probably just another one of those "sure microevolution is proven but macroevolution is unsupported" nut jobs. Those guys always try to talk out of both sides of their mouth, paying lip service to science but completely unfamiliar with the evidence.

Seriously, if Kent Hovind is one of your heroes you have major problems, probably including problems with citizenship and tax evasion. It would be interesting to see Dawkins in the same room with Hovind, but then I guess that would have to happen in a jail cell.

Any ideas on that ID scientific hypothesis yet? Any guess as to the value of pi?

Paul Burnett · 2 November 2008

DS said: Any guess as to the value of pi?

That's easy - it's 3.000... "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. - I Kings 7:23 The ratio of the circumference of this circular object to its diameter was 30 / 10, or 3.000... It's in The Book.

Stanton · 2 November 2008

Then how come you constantly drop hints that you do, in fact, deny evolution? What do you want us to presume about you when you constantly say things like "Not saying evolution is false, just.…"? That you want us to give you a cookie for having your pseudo-erudite head under a rock for the last 150+ years thinking that the jury is still out on Darwin's idea?

notedscholar said: I have not denied evolution, so nice try.

master c · 29 January 2009

hey want free ad placement to promote your blog,website well join this link and place the link and banner on your site and in search engines,watch your site get millions of hits in no time others will see it and join its huge and new look now so simple to place a ad,well lok on youtube and the stuff on life on mars and god eye seen in the universe also a galaxy seen with colors some scientist think its where god lives its nothing they every seen its all on youtube also a man or woman statue seen on mars also signs of water and other strange things its all on youtube,its also proof on mars something going on there seem pipes lines exist also seen like people are up there with helmets walking also more.

Henry J · 29 January 2009

You'd think advertisers would at least know how to write.