Iowa Gives The Thumbs Down to the Discovery Institute

Go science!

I wonder if this is as much a victory for science as it is a product of the fact that legislators don't have much time for/interest in legislating on science or education. In other words, if we did a study on all the bills that died in committee, would the probablility of advancing to the next step be primarily a function of how profitable the bill might be to the members' chances of having big-issue talking points in the next election?

I have no legislative experience, so I am just speculating...

I heard the Luskin v. Avalos tape, and I was disappointed. Avalos totally botched the key question asked to him: If the legislature shouldn't define science, why is he quoting the judge from the Dover trial regarding the scientific status of ID? Frankly, I don't think people in the pro-evolution side have a good handle on this problem. When the NIH gets a budgeted mandate to fund scientific research, does the Congress really mean anything that so-called scientists want to do with the money or does it have a more specific understanding?

So long as scientists are going to be reliant on public funding for their work, this tension between accounting to the public and public education is going to exist. If science is the consensus view of the scientists, then is this view subject to review by the public sponsors who fund them? Therein lies the notion of academic freedom. History has taught us that permitting sponsors to screen scientists inhibits the progress of science. This history of sponsor-tampering has been well documented regardless of the nature of the sponsor.

The DI bill is the exact opposite of academic freedom, precisely because it reintroduces more tampering into science. It implicitly suggests that all scientific views are held to be equal so long as the patrons of science deem them so, regardless of the evidentiary support for each view. Why do the anti-evolutionary views so deserve such protection above all other scientific theories?

On the other hand, the Dover trial was explicitly about 1st amendment issues. The key finding of Dover wasn't that ID was not science. It was that ID was religion. Pro-evolution supporters should rejoice even if Judge Jones found ID was partially scientific in nature. Avalos botched this point. We should teach ID scientifically, if only to point all the scientific problems with ID. ID is after all scientifically bankrupt. Teachers teach about bankrupt ideas all the time. Remember the theory of spontaneous generation? Remember phlogiston?

The reason Judge Jones' decision has anything to do with the DI templated bill is that we cannot trust all teachers as honest reviewers of science. As such, Judge Jones was completely right to explore the motivations of the DI in his judicial ruling. ID supporters want to insert religion, not science. Avalos got it right when he rebuked Casey for calling non-science scientific. We can't take the DI at their word. The Dover trial was explicit about that point. But yet, it was not discussed.

So, overall I think this showing was a total disappointment for the pro-evolution side despite the outcome.

Great news, Hector! I can't find anything about the bill's demise in the press yet, so it looks like this blog gets the scoop.

Avalos totally botched the key question asked to him: If the legislature shouldn’t define science, why is he quoting the judge from the Dover trial regarding the scientific status of ID?

Possibly because that judge heard 6 weeks of sworn testimony, much of it on that very question, and was specifically asked by both sides to rule on that question.

wad of id said:The key finding of Dover wasn't that ID was not science. It was that ID was religion.

[quote]“Teachers teach about bankrupt ideas all the time. Remember the theory of spontaneous generation?” ah good point however they are teaching historical content.[/quote]

That's an arbitrary delineation. And in no way, saves ID from public scrutiny that it deserves, since IDiots like to claim that ID goes all the way back to ancient Greeks. Bankrupt theories deserve to be discredited. Why is that so difficult?

If ID is creationism, then it cannot be taught in public schools for its religious point of view. But, that does not mean that it cannot be discredited as a science in public schools.

[quote]Possibly because that judge heard 6 weeks of sworn testimony, much of it on that very question, and was specifically asked by both sides to rule on that question.[/quote] What does that have to do with Avalos' rejection of legislature defining science? He outright contradicted himself. And fuck the troll labeling.

the timeline of belief in supernatural causation is not the issue, its the fact that ID is a re-packaged contemporary and going-strong PR campaign

i remeber spontanous generation, some hypothosis says that maggots appear on meat (insert link to the old test about it)

and let me make the point again it
ID CANT be discredited because there is no testible hypothosis..
it construeds, it infers...design and purpose

SCIENCE CANNOT MEASURE PURPOSE! please think on that.
we have NO way to discredit it bc it is NOT theory

sorry to see people refere to you as troll but im thinking maybe it is deserved.

irreducible complexity on the other hand,

hmmm that could work.. infact maybe that would be nice, it could be put into the text book; stating something like.

"In the xx's a hypothesis suggested that certain biological systems are too complex to statistically occur because without the large amounts of parts assembled to begin with there is no function for natural selection to favor it. It was quickly discredited by science because Evolution clearly shows many complex biological systems have simplified version that are capable of doing other functions. In essence the randomness that leads to evolution also sets up functional changes of an existing biological system that alters an organisms behavior or routine. (insert the mouse trap tie clip and then bacteria flegellum references)

hmm that seems in order from my perspective.. am i missing anything?
that was fun

If ID is creationism, then it cannot be taught in public schools for its religious point of view. But, that does not mean that it cannot be discredited as a science in public schools.

nope.. it again makes no testable prediction, it only assumes.. sorry about that guys i let science down :(

wad of id said: We should teach ID scientifically, if only to point all the scientific problems with ID. ID is after all scientifically bankrupt. Teachers teach about bankrupt ideas all the time. Remember the theory of spontaneous generation? Remember phlogiston?

wad of id said: What does that have to do with Avalos' rejection of legislature defining science? He outright contradicted himself.

Oops, should have updated. Now I look just as another Curmudgeon. :-)

Oops, should have updated. Now I look just as another Curmudgeon. :-)

The problem here is that ID is empty by construction, “someone did something somewhere and somethen, and the result is, dunno, but all what we happen to see must be it”, no theory despite your claim, so there is nothing to teach. We can as well teach astrology as explaining the stars and tarot cards as explaining the economy - and we don’t do that.

What has a definition of science to do with his or others use of Dover as an excellent analysis of the ID scam, an analysis based on direct scientist participation moreover?

What does that have to do with Avalos’ rejection of legislature defining science? He outright contradicted himself.

Because he rejected governmental interference in science on the one hand, and then outright appealed to it in the other. Can’t have it both ways.

The only recourse is to stick with the 1st amendment issues regarding religion.

From the Jan Mickelson show:

Luskin @37:00 "This bill expressly prohibits the teaching of evolution."

It sounds as if Luskin was spinning so fast that he forgot which way was up.

It was already stated in the media (this was in a previous PT thread, I believe), that the Iowa bill appeared very likely to die in committee. So it's hardly surprising to read that it did in fact die therein. No surprises there.

***

Texas and Louisiana continue to be where the action is. If the proposed Texas improvements pass the final vote in March, as all pro-science people pray they will, then THAT will be the real news, along with the Louisiana Science Education Act.

We'll have more science and less censorship, more education and less indoctrination. The only way to restore science to its rightful place in society, is to restore critical thinking to its rightful place in science.

FL

Behe admitted that his definition of science would include astrology...

Behe was asked (at his Dec. 7, 2006 lecture at Kansas University), if he believed astrology was science because he had been quoted all over the media as saying astrology would fit in with his definition of science. Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science. Source: "FtK", Reasonable Kansans weblog, 12-08-2006 http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2006/12/behe-lecture_07.html

RE: (wad of id)-- “Avalos totally botched the key question asked to him: If the legislature shouldn’t define science, why is he quoting the judge from the Dover trial regarding the scientific status of ID?... [2nd post] He outright contradicted himself.”

I disagree. As stated previously by Anton Mates, Jones simply determined that ID did not meet the scientific community’s definitions. Jones neither changed the definition of science nor issued a new one.

I also did point out on the radio show that Jones became involved because he was asked to rule on a first amendment issue relating to the separation of church and state, and this was germane because scientists define ID as religion, and not science.

Another reason I cited the Dover decision is to establish what the legal status quo of ID creationism is in America. Whether or not you agree with Jones’ decision, his decision establishes the first federal precedent in which ID was declared to be religion and
not science. Legislators should work with that fact, whether you think the judiciary should be defining science or not.

The Dover decision also explains the surreptitious language these academic freedom bills are using. Any pro-ID legislator worth his salt knows better than to put “Intelligent Design” explicitly in the bill because of the Dover decision. I tried to explain that this is the reason that pro-ID legislators are now just using “scientific viewpoint” and “religion” in a vague way in order to hide the fact that intelligent design is included.

As even Casey Luskin noted, we both prefer that government not be in the business of defining science. But that does not eliminate the fact that a legal precedent is in place in regard to the status of ID as religion.

On the other hand, Rod Roberts is a legislator who is trying to redefine science. He is trying to force the academic community to violate its own standards and definitions. This violates a whole idea of academic freedom that reaches at least as far back as the Supreme Court case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) in which Justice Felix Frankfurter declared that academic freedom means that universities, in particular, have a right to determine for themselves (1) who may teach; (2) what may be taught; (3) how it shall be taught; (4) and
who may be admitted to study.

Therefore, my answer was neither botched nor contradictory. I pointed out the very items (e.g., Jones was asked to rule on a first amendment issue) you said should have been pointed out, and I did give specific reasons, even if brief, why Jones’ actions were different from that of the legislator. Lack of time on the radio program also meant that I could not elaborate as much as I have here.

RE: (FL) “the Iowa bill appeared very likely to die in committee. So it’s hardly surprising to read that it did in fact die therein. No surprises there.”

That is not quite how Rod Roberts, the legislator who introduced his bill, portrayed the situation on his appearance on WHO-Radio on Monday, March 2. He thought that faculty speaking against the bill actually would now make it more likely that it would go forward. Casey Luskin was not sent to speak on its behalf if the DI did not think he could
help the cause. I think the DI was surprised again by the extent and depth of organized resistance by Iowa faculty.

RE: (KP) "I wonder if this is as much a victory for science as it is a product of the fact that legislators don’t have much time for/interest in legislating on science or education."

A legislator who communicated with me explicitly said that a member of the relevant subocommittee cared about science education and gave that as one reason that this bill would not succeed. So, it looks as if the bill did not succeed precisely because at least some legislators do have an interest in good science education. That subcommittee member
also asked for our petition, which made it even clearer why that bill was trying to
introduce creationism.

RE: (FL) On Behe and Astrology

Why is FL citing Reasonable Kansans as a source for Behe's statements on astrology? A better source is Judge Jones' decision and the transcripts of the Dover trial. This is what Judge Jones' decision says on p. 68: "Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology."

This conclusion is based directly on the testimony Behe gave, and the trial transcripts make it clear that Behe was referring to current times and not just the past.

Behe apart from getting the time line wrong - astronomy is way older than astrology - believes in really kooky stuff - astrology is the least of his problems. By the evidentiary standards of organized religion, astrology is rocket science. But that is a v.low bar.

FL said: We'll have more science and less censorship, more education and less indoctrination. The only way to restore science to its rightful place in society, is to restore critical thinking to its rightful place in science. FL

On the contrary, you have to have it both ways. Scientists are not lawmakers, but laws must be based on science. It’s not just research funding, it’s public health initiatives and public education and environmental regulations and all that stuff. The scientific community has to be able to come to the legislature with their best understanding of the relevant issues; the legislature has to be willing to accept their expertise on those issues.

All Jones had to do was accept the characterization of science provided by the scientific community itself; ironically, both sides’ witnesses agreed on that.

Another reason I cited the Dover decision is to establish what the legal status quo of ID creationism is in America. Whether or not you agree with Jones’ decision, his decision establishes the first federal precedent in which ID was declared to be religion and not science. Legislators should work with that fact, whether you think the judiciary should be defining science or not.

Therefore, my answer was neither botched nor contradictory. I pointed out the very items (e.g., Jones was asked to rule on a first amendment issue) you said should have been pointed out, and I did give specific reasons, even if brief, why Jones’ actions were different from that of the legislator. Lack of time on the radio program also meant that I could not elaborate as much as I have here.

FL lied: Well, no, that is not true Anton. Here is the truth on that issue:

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct? A Yes, that's correct. [...]

Short "wad of id"

I am totally on your side. Oh my I didn't mean to hit you I support you, oh I really didn't mean to kick your legs out from under you.

Shorter:
concern troll

"Those who say a thing can't be done should get out of the way of those that are doing it"

On the other hand, what people like tsig want is an echo chamber to hear their own praises and ignore their own flaws.

And what then if the legislature does not accept the expertise on certain issues? You all keep dancing around this key issue. You can't simply bite off the f***ing hand that feeds you.

RE: (wad of id): "There were other gaffes, too, I thought. For instance, when you complained that the Iowa bill was a copy of the DI template, they retorted that the ACLU wrote Judge Jones decision. You totally let Casey run all over you, speaking nearly 2-3x longer on every exchange and spilling his talking points. This is ineffective PR."

I disagree again. First, I prepared a written opening statement, which was rehearsed and timed for about three and one half minutes. I was allotted that entire time by the host. Luskin, according to my phone conversation with the host just prior to the show, was stuck in traffic and running late for the show. So it was Luskin who seemed desperate to make up for lost time, and so he kept interrupting me.

Second, I am not sure how many radio shows you have done. In a radio show you don’t always know what the other person is going to say. It is unlike a blog where you know the opposing claim, and then have time to compose a response.

In a radio format, one also has to try to avoid shouting over the opponent while ensuring that one receives equal time. I tried not to interrupt Mr. Luskin though that occurred. But it was Luskin who was told not to interrupt me by the host, and it was Luskin who also apologized for interrupting me. So how is that a “gaffe” on my part?
Or how is that ineffective PR on my part?

If anything, it was Luskin who lost the PR battle because he did not accomplish the purpose of his PR battle, which was precisely to galvanize enough support to pass the bill.

Third, it was Jan Mickelson, the host of the show, who brought up the claim that the that the Dover decision was copied from the ACLU. I pointed out that this was Mickelson’s opinion, and nothing more. How is that a “gaffe”?

Finally, I think you partly misheard the questions about Dover. Jan Mickelson also asked me why I would trust a judge over the legislator. I responded that, unlike the legislator, Judge Jones heard both sides of the argument. Jones correctly represented the scientific community’s opinion, whereas the legislator did not seem to have done any research or consulting of both sides. Thus, I directly addressed the question of why I trusted the judge over the legislator. Your criticism did not take that question of trust into account.

Although Iowa is not under the jurisdiction of the Dover decision, that decision does set a legal precedent that may be useful if a federal court case involving intelligent design is ever litigated in Iowa or anywhere else in the USA. The DI knows this, and that is why it phrases its academic freedom bills the way it does.

Why is FL citing Reasonable Kansans as a source for Behe’s statements on astrology?

Q. "Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?" A. "Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth."

"Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world."

"I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense."

This is not about science, or even science education. This is about Creationists who don't want evolutionary theory taught in public schools as something resembling established science.

Better science education isn't going to fix this. Unfortunately, I don't have any easy answers, and I am skeptical of this problem's resolution within the next century.

Slang, you moron, read the whole transcript...don't quote mine. Jesus, you people are idiots sometimes. What I wrote is exactly what Behe was saying in the transcript.

AND THANKS FL FOR POINTING THAT OUT....

FL said:

Why is FL citing Reasonable Kansans as a source for Behe’s statements on astrology?

Why? Because Reasonable Kansans offers an eyewitness report of the answer Behe gave in direct response to a questioner's inquiry in 2006 of whether he believed astrology is a science based on his Dover statements.

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well. Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct? A That is correct. Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct? A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories. Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe? A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth. Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster. MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there? A Yes. Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects." That's the scientific theory of astrology? A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community. Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world. And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

Third, it was Jan Mickelson, the host of the show, who brought up the claim that the that the Dover decision was copied from the ACLU. I pointed out that this was Mickelson’s opinion, and nothing more. How is that a “gaffe”?

I responded that, unlike the legislator, Judge Jones heard both sides of the argument. Jones correctly represented the scientific community’s opinion, whereas the legislator did not seem to have done any research or consulting of both sides. Thus, I directly addressed the question of why I trusted the judge over the legislator. Your criticism did not take that question of trust into account.

If anything, it was Luskin who lost the PR battle because he did not accomplish the purpose of his PR battle, which was precisely to galvanize enough support to pass the bill.

Behe was asked (at his Dec. 7, 2006 lecture at Kansas University), if he believed astrology was science because he had been quoted all over the media as saying astrology would fit in with his definition of science. Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science. Source: “FtK”, Reasonable Kansans weblog, 12-08-2006

Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that – which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other – many other theories as well.

"That’s what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community...."

AND THANKS FL FOR POINTING THAT OUT.…

Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that – which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other – many other theories as well.

Again, you can see it right there, not only wrt astrology but also the old ether theory of light---Behe was referring to earlier historical times within the history of science, not current times.

Dear wad of id -

Intelligent Design creationism has had more than twenty years to present itself as a viable alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory - which, inspite of its flaws, is still the best, most comprehensive scientific explanation for the origin, structure and history of Planet Earth's biodiversity. Intelligent Design advocates who profess to be "scientists" such as Behe, Dembski, Minnich and Wells, among others, have yet to produce testable hypotheses or designed experiments or collected data showing that Intelligent Design is indeed scientific. Instead, they persist in whining and moaning about how they have been "EXPELLED" from the mainstream scientific theory or have been unable to have their research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (However, in fairness to them, they have been able to publish work on independently verifiable scientific research on the rare occasions that they have pursued such research. Ironically, however, none of this research has had any direct bearing on the scientific validity of Intelligent Design.). They persist in distorting or ignoring ample contrary scientific evidence which demonstrates how and why Intelligent Design creationism is not scientific. And finally, last but not least, they persist in character assassination of their critics, which have ranged recently from Behe referring to University of Oklahoma graduate student Abbie Smith as a vicious "mean girl" at his Amazon.com blog to Dembski sarcastically referring to eminent evolutionary biologists Jerry Coyne and Kevin Padian as, respectively, the "Herman Munster of evolutionary biology" and the "Archie Bunker of paleontology" at his Uncommon Dissent website, and finally, having one of his intellectually-challenged acolytes at Uncommon Dissent, DaveScot Springer, dubbing me the "Jekyll and Hyde of Paleobiology".

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Hector,

Congratulations on a hard fought, but well-earned, victory against the Dishonesty Institute's pathetic band of mendacious intellectual pornographers. I hope their acolytes in LA, OK, TX and elsewhere take ample note of their latest drubbing.

With warmest regards,

John

FL said: We'll have more science and less censorship, more education and less indoctrination. The only way to restore science to its rightful place in society, is to restore critical thinking to its rightful place in science. FL

RE: (FL) "He was referring to historical times, not current times."

FL cannot seem to do simple English exegesis of this question/answer:
"Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that’s correct."

This refers to the present because "is" (as in "IS also a scientific theory" NOT "WAS a scientific theory [in the Middle Ages]") is in the present tense grammatically and contextually, and so it contradicts the idea that Behe is speaking ONLY of historical times, not current times. Judge Jones also understood Behe to be speaking of the present, and so it is FL and cohorts who seem to have trouble understanding plain English here.

And since Astrology and Intelligent Design were included in the same set of "scientific"
theories mentioned by the question, then is FL saying that Behe was only referring to ID being scientific in the Middle Ages, but not in current times?

Behe can change his mind in Kansas,but it does not change what he said in Dover.

"Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that – which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other – many other theories as well."

Well then, if astrology was (or is) a "theory", then exactly what explanation does it provide? Exactly what is it trying to explain? Exactly what predictions did it make that have been confirmed by exprerimental evidence? Exactly what naturalistic mechanism does it propose?

You see a "theory" is not the same as a "hypothesis", so showing that something can theoretically be tested by scientific methods does not automatically make it a "theory". If Behe is trying to claim this, then he is dead wrong, period.

Oh and by the way, there is not such thing as a "wrong theory". There are theories and there are modified theories. Discredited theories and no longer theories because they have most likely been superceded by superior explanations. It is extremely unlikely that a theory will be completely discarded without a superior explanation. A "theory" that no longer explains anything is at best worthless and at least no longer deserving of the title "theory".

Hector Avalos said: RE: (FL) "He was referring to historical times, not current times." FL cannot seem to do simple English exegesis of this question/answer: "Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct? A Yes, that’s correct." This refers to the present because "is" (as in "IS also a scientific theory" NOT "WAS a scientific theory [in the Middle Ages]") is in the present tense grammatically and contextually, and so it contradicts the idea that Behe is speaking ONLY of historical times, not current times. Judge Jones also understood Behe to be speaking of the present, and so it is FL and cohorts who seem to have trouble understanding plain English here. And since Astrology and Intelligent Design were included in the same set of "scientific" theories mentioned by the question, then is FL saying that Behe was only referring to ID being scientific in the Middle Ages, but not in current times? Behe can change his mind in Kansas,but it does not change what he said in Dover.

FL said: Well, David, the statements I quoted blah blah blah FL

FL said: We'll have more science and less censorship, more education and less indoctrination. The only way to restore science to its rightful place in society, is to restore critical thinking to its rightful place in science. FL

RE: (wad of id) "To play it “fair” and give Luskin all the talking time from the beginning was ineffective,"

Again, this is just plain incorrect. Luskin did not get "ALL the talking time." You must
have overlooked the part about receiving the full time allotted to me for my
opening statement.

I don't know how long you have listened to Mickelson's show. But if you know the history of Mickelson's show, you will also realize that prior to last year (when I debated Weikart on his show) he usually ONLY had the ID side when ID was discussed.

So, the fact that Mickelson even included our side is in itself a PR advance. Never was Luskin challenged on his show before, unless you can find an example. And Luskin has been on before.

So how is it ineffective PR if I managed to convince someone who formerly excluded TOTALLY the anti-ID side to include the anti-ID side? And after that Mickelson show, another show also invited me (e.g., Chris Bradshaw's show on WOW FM 98.3 on Tuesday, March 10) to give the anti-ID side UNOPPOSED. I was there from 1:30pm to right after
3pm discussing academic freedom and other issues. The show also offered me a chance to go on whenever I had an issue to discuss.

How is that for "ineffective" PR?

I am a former creationist, and I have been fighting creationism for over 30 years.
I don't intend to stop in the next 30.

And the PR battle, whatever you may think, has to have results. Clearly, in Iowa, Luskin's
PR battle did not. So whatever points he might have managed to repeat about academic freedom, the bottom line is that IT DID NOT HELP HIM. Period.

Stanton said:

FL said: We'll have more science and less censorship, more education and less indoctrination. The only way to restore science to its rightful place in society, is to restore critical thinking to its rightful place in science. FL

Please explain to us again how Intelligent Design is scientific, and why it should be taught in science classrooms.

FtK said: Slang, you moron, read the whole transcript...don't quote mine. Jesus, you people are idiots sometimes. What I wrote is exactly what Behe was saying in the transcript.

FL said to FtK: I have learned that one of the biggest compliments that can be given is simply, "You have made a difference." And indeed, you and your weblog continue to do just that. FL

DS said: "Under my ......many other theories as well." Discredited theories are no longer theories

I'm not sure that it is a good idea to rely on Behe for the definition of anything. After all, he has produced at least three definitions for 'irreducible complexity'.

Hi, FtK.

Don't forget that there are questions awaiting your attention over at AtBC?

ooh ooh Rich can i answer one here? is that allowed?

these are fun; "36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV?"

all of the above!
HIV was designed by God for the purpose of killing the gays.. so when someone makes the choice to be gay the HIV virus activates as Gods will.
and straight people got it bc they are sinners

see, so easy [to make this stuff up] i am so smart, s-m-r-t!

fnxtr said:

FL said: We'll have more science and less censorship, more education and less indoctrination. The only way to restore science to its rightful place in society, is to restore critical thinking to its rightful place in science. FL

A call for critical thinking from a biblical literalist. *SPROING!!!!* Hmm. Clearly we need the military-grade irony meters here.

wad of id said:

his decision establishes the first federal precedent...

Your strategy was to pin Casey to a position on ID as science, then to demonstrate that it would therefore be permissible under the Iowa bill, and then to point out that it contradicts a federal ruling that establishes a "precedent." First of all, the precedent did not make it to the Supreme Court. Secondly, is Iowa under the jurisdiction of that federal court? I don't think so. So, there is no ground rule to enforce legislatures to follow this "fact".

RE: (“wad of id”): “It is permissible judicial practice for the judge to incorporate the findings with which he agrees.”

I think you are missing a lot of historical context with Mickelson here. I have been listening to him for over 11 years, and I have been on his show a few times.

If you listen to Mickelson’s show long enough, you will learn that he thinks almost every judicial decision with which he disagrees is copied from the ACLU (whether it is or not), and so it is not a reflection of his “preparation” that he repeated that claim for the Dover decision.

In terms of preparation, perhaps you missed the fact that, in his introduction, Mr. Mickelson identified one of my articles (“Heavenly Conflicts: The Bible and Astronomy”) as a “book” despite the fact that I had clearly indicated to him that it was a journal article. In the past, he has identified me as chair of a department of which I was never chair

More importantly, Mickelson was suggesting that Jones cut-and-pasted the ACLU opinions in the same way as Roberts had cut-and-pasted the DI model language. It really had nothing to do with whether Mickelson or I know that judicial opinions sometimes incorporate the language of the side that won.

The EQUIVALENCE Mickelson made between the PROCEDURES of Jones and Roberts was my problem. I was suggesting that it was simply Mickelson’s opinion that Jones was only copying any ACLU opinions uncritically or without due hearing of both sides.

My conclusions about Mr. Roberts, the legislator, are not pure opinion. I am familiar with the background and past statements of this legislator. He has made a number of allegations about the Guillermo Gonzalez case that could only be made by someone not familiar with the case, with which I have been very familiar from the beginning. Mr. Roberts has also made other statements that tell me that he is not familiar with science, and so takes what the DI template says uncritically.

Thus, Judge Jones cannot be considered to have done the same thing as Legislator Roberts has done. Let me put it more simply:

Jones: Delivered a judicial opinion based on extensive hearings from
both sides of the ID issue.

Roberts: Cut-and-pasted a bill at least partly from the DI website without thorough or critical consultation from both sides of the ID issue.

And that is just for starters when we compare the procedures of these two persons. Comprende?

Avalos, it isn't what you or I know that matters. I agree in general principles what you are saying. I am also familiar with the tactics and the details of various DI dealings. Your lecturing me on this stuff is quite frankly preaching to the choir.

The question is why wasn't this brought out in force on the radio show in an effective manner? So, ok you say that being on a radio show doesn't afford you the time to compose a solid response. But, that's exactly what I mean when the DI reps do it so much better. They're ready, much more ready with the sound bites than we are.

Your explanations are frankly too wordy and too nuanced. So much so that your only retort that it was the moderator's opinion was sorta lame. Comprende?

RE: (wad of id): The question is why wasn’t this brought out in force on the radio show in an effective manner?

Perhaps I have not been clear enough. I do not accept your premise that this
was not brought out in force in an effective manner. And I don't accept the premise
that the DI folks do it better all the time. If they do it better, then they have not been
very effective at getting their agenda passed here in Iowa. I have received many other
messages that contradict your premises, as well. You should be celebrating
(at least for now :-)

Read the entire transcript, and you’ll see why IDiots are so eager to try to marginalise Behe’s testimony, or to lie about it. Behe’s testimony was a disaster for them.

Thanks for the spirited discussion.

The most effective part of the Avalos / Luskin debate was where Avalos repeatedly asked Luskin if the bill would allow the teaching of ID. Luskin refused to give a straight answer to this question and this exposed the deceit behind the bill.

There is really no point trying to follow Luskin as he does the Gish gallop. Just stick to the main theme that the so-called academic freedom bills are stealth creationist bills.

The most effective part of the Avalos / Luskin debate was where Avalos repeatedly asked Luskin if the bill would allow the teaching of ID. Luskin refused to give a straight answer to this question and this exposed the deceit behind the bill.

stevaroni said:

Read the entire transcript, and you’ll see why IDiots are so eager to try to marginalise Behe’s testimony, or to lie about it. Behe’s testimony was a disaster for them.

Maybe that's the seed of a good strategy - Insist that wherever the IDiots want to Teach the Controversy, we first find the controversy in an open hearing. A real hearing - under oath - under penalty of perjury - and under cross examination - not another Kansas Kangaroo Kourt. Oddly, I suspect that the science side would be fine with that, and show up with boxes of slides. The Creobots, not so much. Actually enforcing all that "thou shall not lie" stuff seems to have truly magical powers to dissolve the ID case into dust. As long as I'm fantasizing, let's make the Discovery Institute go first.

stevaroni said: Maybe that's the seed of a good strategy - Insist that wherever the IDiots want to Teach the Controversy, we first find the controversy in an open hearing. A real hearing - under oath - under penalty of perjury - and under cross examination - not another Kansas Kangaroo Kourt.

Oddly, I suspect that the science side would be fine with that, and show up with boxes of slides. The Creobots, not so much. Actually enforcing all that "thou shall not lie" stuff seems to have truly magical powers to dissolve the ID case into dust. As long as I'm fantasizing, let's make the Discovery Institute go first.

stevaroni said: Insist that wherever the IDiots want to Teach the Controversy, we first find the controversy in an open hearing. A real hearing - under oath - under penalty of perjury - and under cross examination - not another Kansas Kangaroo Kourt.

_Arthur said:

stevaroni said: Insist that wherever the IDiots want to Teach the Controversy, we first find the controversy in an open hearing. A real hearing - under oath - under penalty of perjury - and under cross examination - not another Kansas Kangaroo Kourt.

Why not do it entirely at the scientific level, with, say, peer-reviewed scientific papers, and an actual scientific theory that can stand up on its own ?

Why not do it entirely at the scientific level, with, say, peer-reviewed scientific papers, and an actual scientific theory that can stand up on its own ?

Behe can change his mind in Kansas,but it does not change what he said in Dover.

The IDiots are seriously backed into a corner.

Pedro Irigonegaray did well there (at the 2005 Kansas State Science Standards hearings).

When scientists and science teachers boycotted the discussion of biology standards at a Kansas school board meeting last May (2005), they left the floor wide open to critics of evolution, who won the day. ---Claudia Wallis, Time magazine, 08-15-2005

While (Irigonegaray) spoke, I took notes to prepare to cross-examine him. And then Irigonegaray revealed just which side was best described, to use KCFS’s words, as “breakers of rules.” The procedural rules clearly stated that anyone who spoke would be subject to cross-examination. Indeed, he had used the rule to question our lead counsel after his presentation. But when he concluded his speech, he announced that he was a lawyer giving an argument, not a witness, and thus he would refuse to undergo cross-examination—even though he had himself taken advantage of the right of cross-examination the day before, when he questioned our side’s lead lawyer, who was also a lawyer giving a legal argument. Indeed, as part of his presentation, he read a lengthy statement from a KCFS executive who was in the room at that very moment. Obviously, the author could have read his own statement in person at that time, but then he would have been subject to cross-examination. Irigonegaray’s tactic effectively allowed the author to testify, yet escape cross-examination. --- Edward Sisson, "Darwin Takes The Fifth", Touchstone Archives

No need to repeat them again, btw, they were clear enough the first time. (But I might quote ‘em again though, if too many evolutionists try to sidestep ‘em or try to pretend they don’t exist. Non-Darwinists know how you folks do things, y’know.)

No need to repeat them again, btw, they were clear enough the first time. (But I might quote ‘em again though, if too many evolutionists try to sidestep ‘em or try to pretend they don’t exist. Non-Darwinists know how you folks do things, y’know.)

_Arthur said:

stevaroni said: Insist that wherever the IDiots want to Teach the Controversy, we first find the controversy in an open hearing. A real hearing - under oath - under penalty of perjury - and under cross examination - not another Kansas Kangaroo Kourt.

Why not do it entirely at the scientific level, with, say, peer-reviewed scientific papers, and an actual scientific theory that can stand up on its own ?

How very unfortunate for evolutionists, then, that multiple direct statements straight from Dr. Behe’s Dover testimony can be (and have already been) quoted to directly corroborate and confirm Behe’s KU 2006 statements.

Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right? A That's correct. Q Not, it used to be, right? A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.

FL trumpets.... I also don’t have to remind you that when the Texas State Board held its own Science Standards Hearing not long ago, you evolutionists DIDN’T DARE try that boycott crap again.

And what then if the legislature does not accept the expertise on certain issues?

If Judge Jones accepted a viewpoint from the scientific community, what force does it have for law? According to Avalos, it shouldn’t. We should not appeal to the legislature for guidance on scientific issues.

Judge Jones could not have settled whether ID was science. We the scientists did. He “accepted” it. He did not “decide” it.

Except in Texas and Louisiana, of course. In those two states, evolutionists are the ones spending time in the corner.

— FL

Luskin is a piece of work. All this junk is going to get archived somewhere, but who in the future is going to care enough to search through all the bull pucky. Luskin's ancestors (if he has any) can look back through and see just what kind of bogus loser the guy was. Who would go to work for a bogus institution that was known to be running con games on their own creationist support base? Not only that, but he is just another designated liar for the institute. Who was the main propagandist before Luskin? Wasn't it Witt or something like that? Some English PhD that was so out of it, that you suspected that they gave him the mushroom treatment of feeding him shit and keeping him in the dark. He seemed to have no idea of how bogus the junk he was spouting was. The problem is that you really can't tell if the guys are just that lost or if they know they are lying all the time. Witt or who ever it was seems to have had his limits and he isn't out on the front line defending the bait and switch.

What happened to the teach ID scam? ID used to be the Discovery Institute's business, but what scam are they running today and why doesn't it even mention that ID ever existed? Who would still support ID when even the ID perps are onto a new scam? Any one that looks into the issue just has to see that they might still use ID as the bait, but what is the scam that they push onto the creationist rubes? That is the classic bait and switch scam, but for most cases it is "you can't con an honest man." Where are the honest people taking the switch scam after learning that they were lied to about the ID scam?

Any Legislator that wants to back this junk, should be made to look into what is actually happening. Look at the actions of the ID perps and not what they say and write. Anyone that can do that and still support the creationist switch scam has a problem. They might be doing it to get votes or because they truly believe that religion should be taught in the science class, but if they really believed, why lie? Why not confront the issue head on and attempt to institute change in an honest and straight forward manner? If the lie wins all you get stuck with is the lie, and then more dishonesty has to happen before you get what you want. This is their religion that they are lying about. How sad is that?

If anyone claims that ID is real science, why are the ID perps running the bait and switch? Why did they work up the switch scam as far back as 1999 if they really believed in their ID science? Why did they run the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes back in 2002-2003, years before Dover, if ID was really what they claimed? Why not demonstrate that ID is real science before making that argument? Why isn't ID part of the "controversy" that they want to teach?

http://www.discovery.org/a/58
http://www.discovery.org/a/589
http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/lesson-plans.html

If there was any ID science worth teaching we would already be teaching it by now. Every school board and legislator that has wanted to teach the science of ID since Ohio has had the bait and switch run on them. They even tried to get the Dover rubes to take the switch, but the board members in Dover had their own agenda and didn't have the brains to understand what it meant when the ID perps were running in a switch scam. The latest example was that Florida State Senator that claimed that he was going to support teaching intelligent design, but what did he end up doing? Anyone that doesn't believe this, just get your local school board to teach the wonderful science of intelligent design and watch how fast the switch scam comes in. The same guys are running the creationist switch scam that ran the ID scam. What should that tell you?

Luskin’s ancestors (if he has any) can look back through and see just what kind of bogus loser the guy was.

— Ron Okimoto

Frank J said:

Luskin’s ancestors (if he has any) can look back through and see just what kind of bogus loser the guy was.

— Ron Okimoto

I think you meant "descendants," not "ancestors." What's it worth to you for me not to tell Ray? ;-)

Hector Avalos said: A legislator who communicated with me explicitly said that a member of the relevant subocommittee cared about science education and gave that as one reason that this bill would not succeed. So, it looks as if the bill did not succeed precisely because at least some legislators do have an interest in good science education. That subcommittee member also asked for our petition, which made it even clearer why that bill was trying to introduce creationism.

I didn't have time to read every post in the comment thread, but I am not sure why FL thinks it matters in the least what Behe said in Kansas vs. what he said in Dover. For all I know, Behe intentionally uses the horoscope section of his daily newspaper to light the wood stove. It doesn't change the fact that ID has produced no discoveries that give any support to the involvement of a designer. Nor can the cdesign proponentsists explain the GIANT MOUNTAIN of facts from molecular genetics to paleontology that are consistently explained as descent with modification.

Furthermore, although the involvement of a "designer" is not a directly testable hypothesis, you need look no further than your own body, FL, to come to the realization that it is a flawed idea and, really quite blasphemous if you hold any sort of diety in high regard.

I wasn't aware that Pedro Irigonegaray had performed so well in Kansas that a Christian publication had found it necessary to misrepresent his efforts (in the process of misrepresenting the structure and purpose of the entire proceedings). How very Christian of them! Perhaps FL really does have good reason to fear and lie about his efforts.

I wonder if FL ever ponders what it means, that he must cite a creationist apologetics source in order to lie about what was nominally a scientific hearing. All he does is re-emphasize that his objections are purely religious, and reality really need not apply.

Ron Okimoto said: Luskin's ancestors (if he has any) can look back through and see just what kind of bogus loser the guy was.

KP said: Furthermore, although the involvement of a “designer” is not a directly testable hypothesis, you need look no further than your own body, FL, to come to the realization that it is a flawed idea and, really quite blasphemous if you hold any sort of diety in high regard.

KP said: I didn't have time to read every post in the comment thread, but I am not sure why FL thinks it matters in the least what Behe said in Kansas vs. what he said in Dover.

Just skimming through, but it's strange how FL relies on FtK's reporting of Behe's backtracking rather than the actual court record itself. How typical that hearsay trumps evidence for FL, or that he avoids discussing what "is" is.

As for FL's complaints that Irigonegaray was ineffective, or that creationists in Kansas have scored significant victories . . . isn't it amazing how the Kansas science standards *don't* include FL's pet anti-science statements, and how the state school board is now 7-3 against creationists?

Sure, FL, keep telling yourself "it's only a flesh wound." It's just sad that your blinkers won't allow you to experience the glorious reality.

Because FL is a BTI

BTI?

Just skimming through, but it's strange how FL relies on FtK's reporting of Behe's backtracking rather than the actual court record itself. How typical that hearsay trumps evidence for FL, or that he avoids discussing what "is" is.

MaThistle said: " . . . if you hold any sort of diet in high regard." There, fixed that for ya.

Some of you may want to do more than just skimming on this particular discussion.

As previously documented (no need to repeat it all, anyone seriously interested can just review the previous posts without "skimming"), Behe's Dover transcript statements confirm and corroborate Behe's KU 2006 statement. They fit. There ya go!

***

Hey, nobody wants to say anything about what Time Magazine (and/or Niall Shanks) said about that 2005 evo-boycott?

Nobody wants to comment on Irigonegaray's very public breach of ethics, breaking a KBOE hearing rule that he held other witnesses to (even the opposing attorney)? Cat got your tongues there, hmmmm?

***

I'm still thinking about that one stunt you guys pulled, Cheryl. Gotta ask about it.

Imagine: A KCFS executive sitting right there in the hearing room during the science standard hearing, having ole Irigonegaray to read that same exec's statement out loud, because if the KCFS exec reads his own statement out loud in that hearing room, that KCFS exec then would be subject to cross-ex according to the KBOE rules which Irigon agreed to abide by.

And even at that point, Irigonegaray openly breaks the KBOE rule and won't even submit to cross-ex himself on the material he just read out loud to the Board!

Briefly set aside the other issues Cheryl -- do you see any ethical problem with that move? Any at all?

Honestly. Talk to me here.

FL

FL said: Some of you may want to do more than just skimming on this particular discussion. As previously documented (no need to repeat it all, anyone seriously interested can just review the previous posts without "skimming"), Behe's Dover transcript statements confirm and corroborate Behe's KU 2006 statement. They fit. There ya go!

FL said: Some of you may want to do more than just skimming on this particular discussion. ... FL

FL said: Some of you may want to do more than just skimming on this particular discussion. As previously documented (no need to repeat it all, anyone seriously interested can just review the previous posts without "skimming"), Behe's Dover transcript statements confirm and corroborate Behe's KU 2006 statement. They fit. There ya go!

Hey, nobody wants to say anything about what Time Magazine (and/or Niall Shanks) said about that 2005 evo-boycott?

Nobody wants to comment on Irigonegaray's very public breach of ethics, breaking a KBOE hearing rule that he held other witnesses to (even the opposing attorney)? Cat got your tongues there, hmmmm?

FL said:

--- Edward Sisson, "Darwin Takes The Fifth", Touchstone Archives

Guys, that kind of crap is three shades past ridiculous.

The Institute for Creation Research couldn't get its proposal to offer an online master's degree in science education approved by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board last year. Now, an East Texas lawmaker has come up with an alternative: Exempt the institute from the coordinating board's rules. http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/03/16/0316creationinstitute.html

FL said: Some of you may want to do more than just skimming on this particular discussion. As previously documented (no need to repeat it all, anyone seriously interested can just review the previous posts without "skimming"), Behe's Dover transcript statements confirm and corroborate Behe's KU 2006 statement. They fit. There ya go! *** Hey, nobody wants to say anything about what Time Magazine (and/or Niall Shanks) said about that 2005 evo-boycott? Nobody wants to comment on Irigonegaray's very public breach of ethics, breaking a KBOE hearing rule that he held other witnesses to (even the opposing attorney)? Cat got your tongues there, hmmmm? *** I'm still thinking about that one stunt you guys pulled, Cheryl. Gotta ask about it. Imagine: A KCFS executive sitting right there in the hearing room during the science standard hearing, having ole Irigonegaray to read that same exec's statement out loud, because if the KCFS exec reads his own statement out loud in that hearing room, that KCFS exec then would be subject to cross-ex according to the KBOE rules which Irigon agreed to abide by. And even at that point, Irigonegaray openly breaks the KBOE rule and won't even submit to cross-ex himself on the material he just read out loud to the Board! Briefly set aside the other issues Cheryl -- do you see any ethical problem with that move? Any at all? Honestly. Talk to me here. FL

mplavcan said: Well, I'm having a tea break here FL, and just got my mail. Let's see....hmmmm...interesting articles by actual scientists containing actual data that they actually analyzed and actually had peer-reviewed.

KP said:

mplavcan said: Well, I'm having a tea break here FL, and just got my mail. Let's see....hmmmm...interesting articles by actual scientists containing actual data that they actually analyzed and actually had peer-reviewed.

Factual data quickly establish that there aren't really "two sides" to the scientific basis of the Theory of Evolution. These facts won't just go away, FL, even if you were right about Behe being unfairly judged about his "astrology" opinions.

KP said:

mplavcan said: Well, I'm having a tea break here FL, and just got my mail. Let's see....hmmmm...interesting articles by actual scientists containing actual data that they actually analyzed and actually had peer-reviewed.

Factual data quickly establish that there aren't really "two sides" to the scientific basis of the Theory of Evolution. These facts won't just go away, FL, even if you were right about Behe being unfairly judged about his "astrology" opinions.

mplavcan said: FL's case against evolution is approximately the same as someone standing in front of a burning house and claiming that it really isn't on fire because the neighbor who told him it was burning said that a friend claimed that he saw the neighbor's kids playing with matches nearby, when in fact another neighbor said that those kids were at her house at the time. Irrelevancies, hearsay, rumor, and outright fiction kicked around while the facts that are published all over the place are completely ignored.

Then, of course, there’s the little, itty-bitty problem of how Behe has never even tried to experimentally test, let alone verify, any of his assertions about his perceived shortcomings of Evolution, or claims about Intelligent Design for the past couple of decades, as well.

— Stanton

Of course Behe’s opinions about astrology are ridiculously irrelevant.…Similarly, Irigonegaray’s statements and the precise circumstances under which he made them don’t matter a hoot.

— Dave Luckett

FL said: Some of you may want to do more than just skimming on this particular discussion. As previously documented (no need to repeat it all, anyone seriously interested can just review the previous posts without "skimming"), Behe's Dover transcript statements confirm and corroborate Behe's KU 2006 statement. They fit. There ya go! *** Hey, nobody wants to say anything about what Time Magazine (and/or Niall Shanks) said about that 2005 evo-boycott? Nobody wants to comment on Irigonegaray's very public breach of ethics, breaking a KBOE hearing rule that he held other witnesses to (even the opposing attorney)? Cat got your tongues there, hmmmm? *** I'm still thinking about that one stunt you guys pulled, Cheryl. Gotta ask about it. Imagine: A KCFS executive sitting right there in the hearing room during the science standard hearing, having ole Irigonegaray to read that same exec's statement out loud, because if the KCFS exec reads his own statement out loud in that hearing room, that KCFS exec then would be subject to cross-ex according to the KBOE rules which Irigon agreed to abide by. And even at that point, Irigonegaray openly breaks the KBOE rule and won't even submit to cross-ex himself on the material he just read out loud to the Board! Briefly set aside the other issues Cheryl -- do you see any ethical problem with that move? Any at all? Honestly. Talk to me here. FL

Nobody wants to comment on Irigonegaray’s very public breach of ethics, breaking a KBOE hearing rule that he held other witnesses to (even the opposing attorney)? Cat got your tongues there, hmmmm? *** I’m still thinking about that one stunt you guys pulled, Cheryl. Gotta ask about it. Imagine: A KCFS executive sitting right there in the hearing room during the science standard hearing, having ole Irigonegaray to read that same exec’s statement out loud, because if the KCFS exec reads his own statement out loud in that hearing room, that KCFS exec then would be subject to cross-ex according to the KBOE rules which Irigon agreed to abide by. And even at that point, Irigonegaray openly breaks the KBOE rule and won’t even submit to cross-ex himself on the material he just read out loud to the Board! Briefly set aside the other issues Cheryl – do you see any ethical problem with that move? Any at all? Honestly. Talk to me here. FL

Jack Krebs said: I am the “KCFS executive” FL is talking about. I was Pedro Irigonegaray’s assistant at the Kansas “science hearings.” I was also on the state science standards committee, so I brought that perspective to my role of assistant as well as my perspective as a KCFS Board member.

Someone with more power over this board, please post this link immediately: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512?utm_source=facebook_1

Finest.Article.on.Intelligent Design.Ever!!!

While (Irigonegaray) spoke, I took notes to prepare to cross-examine him. And then Irigonegaray revealed just which side was best described, to use KCFS’s words, as “breakers of rules.” The procedural rules clearly stated that anyone who spoke would be subject to cross-examination. Indeed, he had used the rule to question our lead counsel after his presentation. But when he concluded his speech, he announced that he was a lawyer giving an argument, not a witness, and thus he would refuse to undergo cross-examination—even though he had himself taken advantage of the right of cross-examination the day before, when he questioned our side’s lead lawyer, who was also a lawyer giving a legal argument. Indeed, as part of his presentation, he read a lengthy statement from a KCFS executive who was in the room at that very moment. Obviously, the author could have read his own statement in person at that time, but then he would have been subject to cross-examination. Irigonegaray’s tactic effectively allowed the author to testify, yet escape cross-examination.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: I stand here as counsel for Draft 2. I am not a witness, and, therefore, I will not stand for questioning. If you want answers I urge you to do what you have not yet done, read Draft 2. Thank you very much. I am done. MR. ABRAMS: Thank you-- thank you for your presentation, Mr. Irigonegaray. I find it disheartening that you will not stand for questions. That was the agreement at the beginning. I'm sorry that you're unwilling to do that.

MR. ABRAMS: I'd like to reconvene these hearings, please. Mr. Irigonegaray, is your answer still the same as what you were 15 minutes ago? MR. IRIGONEGARAY: It is. MR. ABRAMS: These hearings are being held for the State Board Science Subcommittee. They are not a legal forum. They're not court proceedings, that's very obvious. Thus the agreed upon process and procedures that was agreed to by both counsels, by this Subcommittee, as recorded by Department of Education staff, was that any speaker, presenter would be followed by half of that speaker's amount of time to ask questions and half of that time given to the Science Subcommittee for questions.

This process has been followed rigorously throughout the hearings. And we the Subcommittee have not deviated from it. However, counsel for the Majority has now deviated has now breached that agreement. As such, counsel for the Minority will be given an opportunity to speak as if he were asking questions for a period of 54 minutes. That would be half of the time that was given to Mr. Irigonegaray and then the State Board will have 27 minutes. Mr. Calvert.

Well, Jack, sincere thanks for responding. Quite honestly, I figured it was only a matter of time, (and not a long time either, under the circumstances) before you might reply. (In fact, I wouldn’t have been surprised if Irigonegaray himself had received an email or something.) Now, your explanation there is clear and understandable. I ask all readers to look at it again just briefly. Now, let’s compare your post to Sisson’s Touchstone article.

— FL

May 2, 2005 Mr. Steve Abrams, Chairperson Ms. Connie Morris, Board member Ms. Kathy Martin, Board member Scientific Standards Subcommittee of the Kansas State Board of Education 120 S.E. Tenth Avenue Topeka, Kansas 66612-1182 Dear Mr. Chairperson and members of the Subcommittee: I will not call witnesses to testify in the hearings you have scheduled in Topeka, Kansas from May 5 to May 7, and from May 12 to May 14. I will cross-examine the Minority witnesses, submit exhibits for the record and provide a closing argument. Please reserve only May 12, 2005, for my presentation. Cordialmente, IRIGONEGARAY & ASSOCIATES [signed] Pedro L. Irigonegary PLI:dkf

Thus the agreed upon process and procedures that was agreed to by both counsels, by this Subcommittee, as recorded by Department of Education staff, was that any speaker, presenter would be followed by half of that speaker’s amount of time to ask questions and half of that time given to the Science Subcommittee for questions.,

We have more than 20 experts appearing before the subcommittee within the next three days, ... Each experts' testimony has been given an allotted amount of time as determined by the presenters. Following the expert's presentation the legal counsel for the opposing viewpoint will be given half that amount of time to ask questions. Before we begin I'd like to make some introductions. Right here to my immediate right is Mr. Pedro Irigonegaray and Mr. Evan Kreider, they're legal counsel for the mainstream viewpoint. On the other side just facing me is Mr. John Calvert, legal counsel for the members who wrote the Minority Report, and assisting him is Doctor Bill Harris, and also Mr. Edward Sisson.... Thank you. Mr. Calvert, attorney for the first witness.

MR. CALVERT: (Pause.) Dr. Abrams, members of the Committee, my friend Mr. Irigonegaray, members of the public, I present my next witness, and guess who. Yours truly.

Hector - congrats on your efforts to get the bill killed in comitee

I see FL has taken the discussion off on a tagent - also looks like he's already been dealt with

I would like make a pointg about Behe's dover testimony and following backpedal (I apologize for being off topic myself)

Behe said "under MY definition of scientific" and "under MY definition of theory" bla bla.... astrology....etc.

it is clear that Behe held the opinion at the time that ID was a valid scientific theory IF you change the definitions of what is "science" and what is a "theory".

clearly this demonstrates that Behe KNEW that HIS definition of those terms were different that those of the rest of the scientific community.

I can't figure out what his point was. Was he saying that because things in history that at the time were believed to be true and now are known to be false that somehow ID will someday be shown to be true BECAUSE it is today known to be false? or that the definition of science changes over time and that ID is a new vangaurd of "new" science? I can't see anyway of looking at his testimony that doesn't show him to be a crackpot

So, FL, please tell us again why Intelligent Design is science, and please explain why we should teach it in schools.

...Pedro’s presentation (it was much more than a statement) was not mine. I helped prepare it just as Sisson and Harris helped prepare Calvert. That’s all.

Mr. Irigonegaray has requested a set amount of time for his presentation. Following his presentation the legal counsel for the opposing viewpoint will be given half that amount of time to ask questions. Following that we, the subcommittee members, will be given half that amount of time to ask questions. For example, if Mr. Irigonegaray takes two hours for his presentation, the opposing counsel will be give one hour for questions and the subcommittee will be given 30 minutes for questioning.

Dear Mr. Chairperson and members of the Subcommittee: I will not call witnesses to testify in the hearings you have scheduled in Topeka, Kansas from May 5 to May 7, and from May 12 to May 14. I will cross-examine the Minority witnesses, submit exhibits for the record and provide a closing argument. Please reserve only May 12, 2005, for my presentation.

I hope he retracts his charge of "ethical breach" first, as the evidence is right there in official black-and-white documents that he is wrong.

But I'm not holding my breath.

I posted my last comment before I saw FL's reply, and of course FL soldiers on.

I'll remind FL of the quote from the start of the hearings by Abrams: "Each experts’ testimony has been given an allotted amount of time as determined by the presenters. Following the expert’s presentation the legal counsel for the opposing viewpoint will be given half that amount of time to ask questions." The fact that Abrams decided the rules of the hearing would be different right before Pedro started to speak is irrelevant. Pedro didn't assent to this sudden change in the rules: he stuck with what he had said in his fax:

"I will not call witnesses to testify in the hearings you have scheduled in Topeka, Kansas from May 5 to May 7, and from May 12 to May 14. I will cross-examine the Minority witnesses, submit exhibits for the record and provide a closing argument."

If Abrams had thoughts about that, he should have dealt with it then. I will also note that in Pedro's fax he said he would submit exhibits for the record, which he also did.

At this point I'll let the readers decide where things stand. I have presented my evidence and my analysis of it.

Look at the length of FL’s post. What the hell is the point? What science has FL learned in spending all his time with his gossip journalism.

Just watching FL babble endlessly over the last few years he has been posting on PT is like watching a mind deteriorate in real time; and there wasn’t much of a mind there to begin with. His arguments appear to be getting more and more bizarre.

I think it was Mark Hausam who deteriorated in much the same way; and at that time, I thought it looked like watching someone giving himself a lobotomy up through his nose.

Only a desperate narcissist could keep throwing himself into the meat grinder repeatedly.

Mike Elzinga said: Look at the length of FL’s post. What the hell is the point? What science has FL learned in spending all his time with his gossip journalism.

If FL thinks that any of his sour grapes complainiing about judicial impropriety have any meaning at all, he should recall that at Dover the witnesses for the creationist side committed actual perjury under oath. Of course if you are incapable of discussing the evidence, I guess this is all you got left.

NOTICE what is important to FL.

He likes to look at texts and minutely go into the ins and outs of what this phrase might mean, what that clause could signify. In recent memory, he's written several pages concerning a single paragraph in *Origin of Species*, he's written long posts concerning two brief Biblical genealogies, he's tried to psych out the Pope by reading meaning into short and unrelated Papal statements, he's even written extensively about disclaimers that weren't present in a Biology textbook (even though they were). Most recently he's gone over statements made at the Kansas Kangaroo Court with a fine-toothed comb, even though it doesn't deserve so much as a broad brush.

What FL doesn't care about is evidence or reasoning. When asked to supply scientific evidence, he evades by going into "minute examination of texts" mode.

FL likes words concerning words. He doesn't care about evidence concerning nature.

At this point I’ll let the readers decide where things stand. I have presented my evidence and my analysis of it.

Another thing about FL that's beginning to bother me, in the sense of actual concern, as opposed to mere irritation: his expression.

He's always used odd phrases, peculiar constructions that are a poor fit to his discourse. Formal argument, which he is attempting, (with conspicuous lack of success, but still) should be conventionally and sparsely phrased, for clarity. But FL continually uses tropes and slogans taken from popular culture, often of little utility. "The real meal deal"; "bizness"; "cat got your tongues"; "there ya go"; "mm-mmm"; "mondo" and so on. Anybody reading his posts would be struck by this.

I'm enough of a writer to recognise a false tone in another. FL isn't using these prefabricated expressions because they illuminate his thought. They don't. Generally, they only obscure it. He might be trying to sound trendy and connected, decorating his threadbare arguments and trying to veil them with what he thinks are modernisms. If so, he fails. The affect is slightly addled, a little fractured, indefinably but unmistakeably odd.

It's that which bothers me. It reminded me of Captain Queeg in the witness box, retreating into stock phrases and cliches that eventually come close to gibberish. And with it FL shows the same insistence on irrelevancies, the same drawing of conclusions that don't follow, the same ideational rigidity, the same fixation on minutiae from years - decades - ago. The details he seizes on are disputable and dubious at the very least, and his interpretation of them is strained to a ludicrous degree, but what is more important is that they don't matter, and are utterly irrelevant to his own purpose. Queeg could not command a ship; he could not lead men in battle. He was reduced to making them tuck in their shirt-tails and searching for non-existent keys to the wardroom pantry. FL can't dent evolution; he can't find a single fact. He is reduced to quibbles about courtroom behaviour and untruths about high school biology textbooks. And to garbled non-sequiturs larded with that reliance on prefabricated (and obscuring) phrases.

It was only when Mike remarked that it's watching a mind deteriorate in real time that this struck me, though. Because that was what was happening to Queeg. He was losing it. A mind that never had been adequate for command was failing under stress.

I really do wonder.

FL said: Restoring critical-thinking to its proper place in science education, and protecting the right of science teachers to do just that, often takes much time and multiple attempts. Can't git all flustered on things. Just gotta be patient about it and let the cake bake. Besides, the fact remains that if Texas goes through, Iowa can wait. Texas and Louisana are the big enchiladas at this time and their influence will spread, and spread, over time.

Stanton, you are being unfair to Kansas. We voted out the bad standards two years ago, and voted for a pro-science state Board again last summer. I don't believe that we rank among the lowest scoring states, and I don't think that being a science teacher here is an odious job. Of course we have our fair share of science teachers afraid to fully teach evolution, but that's common and is not a result of bad science standards.

As with lots of news, people remember the bad news when we are fighting the creationists but the good news that we won doesn't get the press, so people are left with false negative impressions.

Dave Luckett said: He might be trying to sound trendy and connected, decorating his threadbare arguments and trying to veil them with what he thinks are modernisms. If so, he fails. The affect is slightly addled, a little fractured, indefinably but unmistakeably odd. It's that which bothers me. It reminded me of Captain Queeg...

If I were to make some guesses from what I have observed of FL’s shtick, I would say from his “hipster language” that he is in charge of some of the youth in his church. He likes to try to impress the teenage girls, and seem macho to the teenage males.

.....I know just such an individual from one of these churches. He is starting to go bald, and he talks almost exactly like FL. The young girls under his tutelage find him extremely creepy and are uncomfortable with the way he talks to them and looks at them.

Jack Krebs said: Stanton, you are being unfair to Kansas. We voted out the bad standards two years ago, and voted for a pro-science state Board again last summer. I don't believe that we rank among the lowest scoring states, and I don't think that being a science teacher here is an odious job. Of course we have our fair share of science teachers afraid to fully teach evolution, but that's common and is not a result of bad science standards. As with lots of news, people remember the bad news when we are fighting the creationists but the good news that we won doesn't get the press, so people are left with false negative impressions.

FL said:

If I were to make some guesses from what I have observed of FL’s shtick, I would say from his “hipster language” that he is in charge of some of the youth in his church. He likes to try to impress the teenage girls, and seem macho to the teenage males.

Now THIS was an unexpected response. Is this one of those "Profiler" episodes or something? Gotta quietly chuckle on this one.

You go out of your way to sound smarmy, pompous and insufferably condescending, and this isn’t even counting the fact that you take pains to dodge our questions with your annoying word-lawyering.

Now THIS was an unexpected response.

— FL

... and of course he will go back to his handlers with all these negative comments and say "See? I've got them on the run!"

Just to sum it up: Krebs wins, FL loses - no surprise there...

Wow, some more armchair profiler posts. Needless to say, I have no psychic abilities like you fellas do, so I'm unable to return the favor. My apologies.

But honestly? I think this Iowa thread is exhausted.

Essentially you're just talking about me instead of talking about Iowa, (or Texas, or Louisiana, or Kansas, all states in which significant science-education events have occurred or are occurring.) Didn't even have any responses about the actual text of the Iowa bill when I offered it and commented a littleon it.

I think I've made some of you upset, perhaps. (If not, I'll just keep working on it!!) But in the meantime, the significant trend is clear enough.

Simply stated, there's going to be MORE Texas's and Louisiana's, not less. Maybe more Kansas's as well, hopefully.

How many more? Don't know. How long will it take? Don't know. Will Iowa be among them in the short term? Don't know.

But I think you'll have to get used to it sooner or later.
Better make it sooner, yes?

FL :)

gregwrld said: Just to sum it up: Krebs wins, FL loses - no surprise there...

FL said: Simply stated, there's going to be MORE Texas's and Louisiana's, not less. Maybe more Kansas's as well, hopefully.

In English, plurals are formed by adding "s" or "es". Possessives are formed by adding "'s".

fnxtr said: ... and of course he will go back to his handlers with all these negative comments and say "See? I've got them on the run!"

I think I’ve made some of you upset, perhaps. (If not, I’ll just keep working on it!!)

— FL

Not really. Doesn't take a Kreskin to figure this guy out.

Looks like I done hit rock bottom, and it only took me one thread to git there.

Just to sum it up: Krebs wins, FL loses...

FL said: The important thing is that the Talk-Origins transcript (and the Access Research Network videotape) will be around for a very, very long time.

FL said:

Just to sum it up: Krebs wins, FL loses...

Pick your own winner, of course.

FL said: Simply stated, there's going to be MORE Texas's and Louisiana's, not less. Maybe more Kansas's as well, hopefully. How many more? Don't know. How long will it take? Don't know. Will Iowa be among them in the short term? Don't know.

Morton's Demon lives deep in FL. He could be a case study...

Well, this is really late to the show but I'd like to respond to something wad of id said.

Phlogiston and spontaneous generation are used in science classes because they were, at the time, the prevailing explanations of observed phenomena until they were disproven by properly designed experiments.

ID has NEVER been an explanation of anything.

Don Smith, FCD said: Well, this is really late to the show but I'd like to respond to something wad of id said. Phlogiston and spontaneous generation are used in science classes because they were, at the time, the prevailing explanations of observed phenomena until they were disproven by properly designed experiments. ID has NEVER been an explanation of anything.

bang on, Ron.

Jeez, how many nails does this coffin need, anyway?!?!

fnxtr said: Jeez, how many nails does this coffin need, anyway?!?!

Maybe ID is the old guy on John Cleese's shoulder....

Dan said:

fnxtr said: Jeez, how many nails does this coffin need, anyway?!?!

"The internet is a strange place where you see people flogging a piece of mud where, eight years ago, a dead horse lay."

FL asserted By the way, it was a pretty good bill. Enjoyed reading it. If you’ve never read it for yourself, take time to do so now.

Since I have a vested interest in this bill, and to bring everything back on topic…and to continue flogging the lifeless equine – Here is what I vehemently take objection.

“5 2 Students shall not be penalized for subscribing

5 3 to a particular position or view regarding biological or

5 4 chemical evolution.”

The final question on a biology exam reads: “How does evolution work?”

If a student wrote that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics and does not, therefore, work, and that was the student’s steadfast position, I would provide the student with my particular position of an “F” for said question.

If a student wrote that evolution doesn’t agree with his/her particular position, religious or otherwise – that student would still receive an “F”.

What some people fail to understand, FL and some Iowa Legislators included, is that science is not an opinion poll. Science is not subject to a democratic vote. Science is merely a process that collects knowledge about the physical universe. This misguided (discovery institute authored) bill treats science as if it was a popularity contest. The worst part is that the bill focuses on only chemical and biological evolution. There is no mention of the controversies of the Holocaust, the source of the AIDS epidemic, or the true value of pi. The bill fails.

Exactly what would ID add to the school curriculum?

Curiously, this section is added to the bill –

"2 28 6. This section shall not be construed to promote any

2 29 religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a

2 30 particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination

2 31 for or against religion or nonreligion."

I can understand the motivation of the DI, politicians, and other religious peoples to put this section in the bill. But, this clearly frames the debate as being science vs. religion. In the end, if this bill passes in any state in the Union and someone pursues litigation, the law (nee bill) will fail and the taxpaying people of the affected school district will foot the bill (as in dead presidents).

Besides which, the authors of the original Academic Freedom Act clearly don’t know what they are talking about with regards to chemical evolution. Shoot, this origins of life stuff isn’t hardly covered in college, let alone a little ol’ high school curriculum.

In short, this is a bad bill.

-jim (a professor in Iowa)