More DI Word Games

I suspect the DI, the ICR, and AiG are all headed for the same shtick; flood the market with bullshit and call it “peer-reviewed” research.

But they are just digging themselves in deeper and deeper. They have so much crap out there in public now that they can’t take it back.

And most satisfying about this easily available crap is that, if any state ever passes a law requiring equal treatment of ID along with real science, it would be easy to make up a comparison chart that shows the misconceptions promulgated by ID/creationism for over 40 years against the real concepts in science.

I could even make up a lesson plan showing how specific concepts in science work in the lab and field, and how the ID/creationist distortions of those concepts blow up and go nowhere.

Then I would add the comparisons between scientific activity and pseudo-scientific activity.

And since a little history of science is useful to show how ideas came about, we can add the court history (there is no research history) of ID/creationism all the way up through Dover as well. This would show how ID/creationist ideas morphed to get around defeats in court.

This could be quite fun. I suspect by the time the teaching community polished their lesson plans and the national scientific and teaching organizations got done with it, the ID/creationists would be screaming for laws protecting them from exposure of their pseudo-science.

Wouldn’t that be a nice court battle?

Unless this country gets to the point where it starts implementing the equivalent of Deutsche Physik or Lycenkoism, ID/creationist pseudo-science doesn’t stand a chance.

As far as I can tell, the definitions are the same. A "scientific theory" should also refer to a research program to back it up.

They probably took some heat for calling evolution a "chance-based" process; hence the term "undirected" to say they support teleology over the real world.

Intelligent Design is a research program??

First of all, that makes no grammatical or logical sense. It's like saying "Love is warm cookie."

Second, where exactly is this 'research program'? To quote the great swordsman, "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

I agree with Mike, let's set up those lesson plans and mail them to every science department head of a high school in the country... heck, if the creationists can mail out crap to every, then we can at least mail out the truth to them.

GuessWho said: As far as I can tell, the definitions are the same. A "scientific theory" should also refer to a research program to back it up. They probably took some heat for calling evolution a "chance-based" process; hence the term "undirected" to say they support teleology over the real world.

I don't think that the DI would ever correct anything that was wrong. My feeling is that they are seeing the success of the Biologos group.
I think that they want to widen the tent to try and attract TEs by not saying that they are against evolution, they just think it was directed.

I guess they must have thought "Darwinian evolution" sounded too stupid. But I presume they still can't help from being stupid since they left the "undirected" part in there. If they replace the "undirected" part with something more intelligent, then they wouldn't look so stupid anymore. But then it would be even a bigger lie if they did that though.

It's an inverse relationship. The more stupid is in there, the less lies are in there. But the less stupid is in there, then the more lies are in there. They have to walk a fine line, I guess. It's a fine line between lies and stupid.

MichaelJ, they may be trying to widen the tent to include TE, but their own schisim is having none of it; as if a new religion would tolerate blasphemers.

JohnnyB (whoever the hell that moniker covers) has a rant over at UD, "A Convergence Between Biologos and the Intellijunt Design Movement"7th July 2010, (duly attacked by ID'ers, and Xians in the replies.)It is about how ID and Biologos are becoming reconciled. Again, he is torn a new one by his hoped for 'big tent' theory; ha ha:)

robert van bakel said: JohnnyB (whoever the hell that moniker covers) has a rant over at UD, "A Convergence Between Biologos and the Intellijunt Design Movement"7th July 2010, (duly attacked by ID'ers, and Xians in the replies.)It is about how ID and Biologos are becoming reconciled. Again, he is torn a new one by his hoped for 'big tent' theory; ha ha:)

Next step: "ID is a metaphysical research programme ... but that's okay, because that what Popper said evolution is!"

So "undirected process" is the DI's latest attempt to smuggle the idea that evolution is "just random" into the public eye.

It still doesn't work. Co-evolution, which produces so many of the most exquisite adaptations, isn't undirected. Each partner in the co-evolution is driving the other in a consistent direction. Supposedly there's an Inuit saying, "the wolf makes the caribou swift and the caribou makes the wolf strong." There's even "intelligent designers" involved, in the sense that both wolves and caribou have working brains.

For intelligent design to work, it isn't enough to say that things seem "designed" or "directed." Cdesign proponentsists also have to prove that the design and direction are *different from* the design and direction that result from living creatures interacting in observable ways. They haven't even recognized this is a problem for their theory, let alone making a start on solving it.

The changes are really stupid... so I naturally want to pin them on Casey Luskin.

1. Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.

If evolutionists were to follow suit, they would call themselves "evolution."

2. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Even some of the rank-and-file UDers would cringe at this. Natural selection is the largely deterministic direction of evolution. Variation in reproduction is predominantly undirected, to the best of our knowledge.

That’s an interesting observation.

It is?

The changes are really stupid… so I naturally want to pin them on Casey Luskin.

Now THAT is an interesting observation.

I wonder whether those brainiacs at the DI realise that the word "program" (or "programme" to us Brits) refers to a plan of actions, not to the actions themselves. So they are only claiming to have some research planned. My response to them would be:

1. Please publish your program.
2. Please tell us when you're going to start putting it into effect.

Mark,

Caling the ongoing "evolutionary" history of Intelligent Design cretinism a version of "punctuated equilibria" does a grave disservice to the mendacious proponents of ID, and especially, to invertebrate paleobiologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, whose 1972 paper in which they offered punctuated equilibrium as an alternative to phyletic gradualism still remains an important classic in the scientific literature of evolutionary biology. Instead, ID really resembles more some bizarre twist on Goldschmidtian "hopeful monster" saltationism, given that there have been unexpected "leaps" in expressing what ID cretinism is from its proponents, starting of course with Philip Johnson's belated realization (in 2006) that we don't yet have a scientific theory of ID. Maybe the Dishonesty Institute ought to head the words of DEAR LEADER JOHNSON and offer yet another spin on its pernicious mendacious intellectual pornography.

robert van bakel said: MichaelJ, they may be trying to widen the tent to include TE, but their own schisim is having none of it; as if a new religion would tolerate blasphemers. JohnnyB (whoever the hell that moniker covers) has a rant over at UD, "A Convergence Between Biologos and the Intellijunt Design Movement"7th July 2010, (duly attacked by ID'ers, and Xians in the replies.)It is about how ID and Biologos are becoming reconciled. Again, he is torn a new one by his hoped for 'big tent' theory; ha ha:)

Richard Wein said: I wonder whether those brainiacs at the DI realise that the word "program" (or "programme" to us Brits) refers to a plan of actions, not to the actions themselves. So they are only claiming to have some research planned. My response to them would be: 1. Please publish your program. 2. Please tell us when you're going to start putting it into effect.

Well, in a wonderful irony to the often stated (and always misinterpreted) claim 'evolution is only a theory, we can now state (with a certain level of smugness) that intelligent design isn't even a theory.

Evaluating ID as a research program doesn't help them much. I wonder if this is an attempt to move away from claiming to be a theory because that fails under Popperian demarcation criteria and trying to move to a system more like that of Lakatos. Lakatos suggested that demarcation doesn't occur at the level of theories and falsifiability but rather at the level of research programs and whether or not they are fruitful. So one looks at whether a theory spawns interesting experiments or just defensive hypotheses to preserve the theory. I'm pretty sure that ID fails under the Lakatos framework also.

Joshua Zelinsky said: Evaluating ID as a research program doesn't help them much. I wonder if this is an attempt to move away from claiming to be a theory because that fails under Popperian demarcation criteria and trying to move to a system more like that of Lakatos. Lakatos suggested that demarcation doesn't occur at the level of theories and falsifiability but rather at the level of research programs and whether or not they are fruitful. So one looks at whether a theory spawns interesting experiments or just defensive hypotheses to preserve the theory. I'm pretty sure that ID fails under the Lakatos framework also.

Somehow I can't think of this as much more than rearranging the deck chairs on the SS NUTANNICA.

Joshua Zelinsky said: Evaluating ID as a research program doesn't help them much. I wonder if this is an attempt to move away from claiming to be a theory because that fails under Popperian demarcation criteria and trying to move to a system more like that of Lakatos. Lakatos suggested that demarcation doesn't occur at the level of theories and falsifiability but rather at the level of research programs and whether or not they are fruitful. So one looks at whether a theory spawns interesting experiments or just defensive hypotheses to preserve the theory. I'm pretty sure that ID fails under the Lakatos framework also.

I haven't encountered an "intelligent design" advocate with a grasp of Popper. Loads of lip service, like Bill Dembski deploys, but not understanding.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: I haven't encountered an "intelligent design" advocate with a grasp of Popper. Loads of lip service, like Bill Dembski deploys, but not understanding.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the old definition stayed up so long. Nelson admitted that there was no such thing as a scientific theory of intelligent design right after the ID perps ran the first public bait and switch scam on the Ohio State board of education back in 2003. Philip Johnson made a similar admission after the Dover trial back in 2005.

My guess is that it is so well known as a bogus lie that it is starting to create negative feedback among the ID perps and the rubes that are constantly being scammed by it. You can't run the bait and switch on every rube school board and legislator that wanted to teach the "science" of intelligent design since 2003 (years before the ID perps lost in court) and expect the creationist rubes to respect you for it.

Right now all they have supporting them are the ignorant, incompetent and the dishonest. Likely only the clueless or the guys that know it is a scam. It seems to have become common enough knowledge that ID is just bogus scam. They haven't had to run the bait and switch in public for over a year, now. I haven't heard of a single rube legislator or school board that has come out and wanted to teach the science of intelligent design in the past year. That likely means that enough of the creationist rubes know that ID is bogus that the only headway that they can make are with the ones dishonest enough to pick up the switch scam from the start, knowing how bogus ID is.

ID has been a ball and chain for the ID perps since they have been running the bait and switch scam publically. It is so bogus that anything that is connected to it probably has little chance to be taken seriously by any honest group of competent observers. Really, you don't run a bait and switch on your own political support base and give them a switch scam that doesn't even mention that your primary scam ever existed and look legitimate.

Their reliance on the ignorant and incompetent for most of their support made the situation even worse because they had to keep running the bait and switch on the stupid rubes even after Dover. You don't run the bait and switch over and over and still expect any honest or competent people to support you. So all the competent people that they have left are the dishonest ones that have decided to keep going with the political scams when they know they have squat.

They have to keep pretending that ID might amount to something to make it look like there could be some legitimate purpose behind the obfuscation switch scam, but the insiders likely know that the switch scam amounts to blowing smoke and an attempt to keep the kids as ignorant as possible, and has about as much to do with intelligent design as creationism has to do with real science. The greatest commonality between the ID scam and the switch scam is that they are both bogus scams that the creationists have had to resort to because they do not have the science to back up their claims. It is obvious by now that if they had the science they wouldn't have to resort to blowing smoke. Their only hope for getting what they really want taught is for an incompetent or dishonest teacher to use the switch scam as an excuse to do that. They know that they can't teach it any other way.

So the ID perps have to nuture the dishoenst among them. They have to find a pristine group of creeationists that haven't any evidence of falling for the ID scam. All they have gotten so far are the rubes too stupid to understand how bogus ID is. The winks and nods aren't good enough for these types. They probably want to down play the big lie about ID (that they have a scientific theory) so that they can get more rubes to fall directly for the switch scam. They basically have to get a group of people that are able to lie about what they want to do so that the scam has some chance of getting a pass. It would be my hope that getting a group of dishonest people together on a school board somewhere would be pretty tough so they likely have to sell the switch scam to the ignorant and incompetent before the ignorant and incompetent hear about intelligent design. They are pretty much stuck because they have had to keep using ID as bait, but my guess is that the type of people that they get to take the bait and keep supporting them aren't the type that are going to get them to what they want to do.

My guess is that the only way to do that is to make the words intelligent design as common in their propaganda as they are in their switch scam materials (zero mention). That is the likely future of intelligent design. It has become as much a pariah as creation science for the creationist's religious political movement. They can still sell their books and junk, but they know that they have to move on.

Really, it has been over a year since I've heard of a rube school board or legislator wanting to teach the bogus science of intelligent design. That tells me that enough creationist rubes know that intelligent design was just a bogus scam that they can step on the ones too ignorant and incompetent to have gotten the message. To get the honest competent ones back in the movement they have to try to, at least, look more honest. To recruit the incompetent all they have to do is start downplaying intelligent design and recruit the next generation of the ignorant and incompetent to their cause.

Fubars like Expelled actually backfired on the ID movement because it resulted in cases like Florida where large numbers of school boards and legislators had to have the bait and switch run on them. It was big national news and not a single Florida legislator or school board got any of the promised ID science to teach. One thing that is suggested by this is that the science side should keep intelligent design in the lime light for as long as possible so that the ID perps will have to keep suppressing their own side. It hasn't been the science side that has had to run the bait and switch on their own supporters. When you rely on the ignorant and incompetent for support that is what the ID perps have to keep doing. The longer that the ID perps have to do that the better for science education.

The science supporters haven't had to do much to keep intelligent design out of the public school classrooms for over 7 years. It is the ID perps themselves that have stopped most of the rubes from attempting that. The ID perps even tried to run the bait and switch on the Dover rubes. They didn't bend over and take the switch scam and the rest is history.

Currently we have to contend with the obfuscation switch scam, and the best way to keep it out of the public schools has been the ID scam. Most of the rubes screw things up and mouth off about ID before they get the bait and switch run on them and those types are not very believeable in court. Just think what a fiasco it would have been for the switch scam to get someone like McLeroy on the witness stand. Keeping the blowhards lying about intelligent design science is about the best thing the science side can do. Once it goes underground, or a new generation of scam artists can claim that "we aren't ID perps," we can't rely on the ID perps to convince the rubes to do something else. We would have to rely on reason, honesty and the competence of the people in the creationist political movement. That is pretty much a lost cause.

Ron Okimoto said: Frankly, I'm surprised that the old definition stayed up so long. Nelson admitted that there was no such thing as a scientific theory of intelligent design right after the ID perps ran the first public bait and switch scam on the Ohio State board of education back in 2003. Philip Johnson made a similar admission after the Dover trial back in 2005. My guess is that it is so well known as a bogus lie that it is starting to create negative feedback among the ID perps and the rubes that are constantly being scammed by it. You can't run the bait and switch on every rube school board and legislator that wanted to teach the "science" of intelligent design since 2003 (years before the ID perps lost in court) and expect the creationist rubes to respect you for it. Right now all they have supporting them are the ignorant, incompetent and the dishonest. Likely only the clueless or the guys that know it is a scam. It seems to have become common enough knowledge that ID is just bogus scam. They haven't had to run the bait and switch in public for over a year, now. I haven't heard of a single rube legislator or school board that has come out and wanted to teach the science of intelligent design in the past year. That likely means that enough of the creationist rubes know that ID is bogus that the only headway that they can make are with the ones dishonest enough to pick up the switch scam from the start, knowing how bogus ID is. ID has been a ball and chain for the ID perps since they have been running the bait and switch scam publically. It is so bogus that anything that is connected to it probably has little chance to be taken seriously by any honest group of competent observers. Really, you don't run a bait and switch on your own political support base and give them a switch scam that doesn't even mention that your primary scam ever existed and look legitimate. Their reliance on the ignorant and incompetent for most of their support made the situation even worse because they had to keep running the bait and switch on the stupid rubes even after Dover. You don't run the bait and switch over and over and still expect any honest or competent people to support you. So all the competent people that they have left are the dishonest ones that have decided to keep going with the political scams when they know they have squat. They have to keep pretending that ID might amount to something to make it look like there could be some legitimate purpose behind the obfuscation switch scam, but the insiders likely know that the switch scam amounts to blowing smoke and an attempt to keep the kids as ignorant as possible, and has about as much to do with intelligent design as creationism has to do with real science. The greatest commonality between the ID scam and the switch scam is that they are both bogus scams that the creationists have had to resort to because they do not have the science to back up their claims. It is obvious by now that if they had the science they wouldn't have to resort to blowing smoke. Their only hope for getting what they really want taught is for an incompetent or dishonest teacher to use the switch scam as an excuse to do that. They know that they can't teach it any other way. So the ID perps have to nuture the dishoenst among them. They have to find a pristine group of creeationists that haven't any evidence of falling for the ID scam. All they have gotten so far are the rubes too stupid to understand how bogus ID is. The winks and nods aren't good enough for these types. They probably want to down play the big lie about ID (that they have a scientific theory) so that they can get more rubes to fall directly for the switch scam. They basically have to get a group of people that are able to lie about what they want to do so that the scam has some chance of getting a pass. It would be my hope that getting a group of dishonest people together on a school board somewhere would be pretty tough so they likely have to sell the switch scam to the ignorant and incompetent before the ignorant and incompetent hear about intelligent design. They are pretty much stuck because they have had to keep using ID as bait, but my guess is that the type of people that they get to take the bait and keep supporting them aren't the type that are going to get them to what they want to do. My guess is that the only way to do that is to make the words intelligent design as common in their propaganda as they are in their switch scam materials (zero mention). That is the likely future of intelligent design. It has become as much a pariah as creation science for the creationist's religious political movement. They can still sell their books and junk, but they know that they have to move on. Really, it has been over a year since I've heard of a rube school board or legislator wanting to teach the bogus science of intelligent design. That tells me that enough creationist rubes know that intelligent design was just a bogus scam that they can step on the ones too ignorant and incompetent to have gotten the message. To get the honest competent ones back in the movement they have to try to, at least, look more honest. To recruit the incompetent all they have to do is start downplaying intelligent design and recruit the next generation of the ignorant and incompetent to their cause. Fubars like Expelled actually backfired on the ID movement because it resulted in cases like Florida where large numbers of school boards and legislators had to have the bait and switch run on them. It was big national news and not a single Florida legislator or school board got any of the promised ID science to teach. One thing that is suggested by this is that the science side should keep intelligent design in the lime light for as long as possible so that the ID perps will have to keep suppressing their own side. It hasn't been the science side that has had to run the bait and switch on their own supporters. When you rely on the ignorant and incompetent for support that is what the ID perps have to keep doing. The longer that the ID perps have to do that the better for science education. The science supporters haven't had to do much to keep intelligent design out of the public school classrooms for over 7 years. It is the ID perps themselves that have stopped most of the rubes from attempting that. The ID perps even tried to run the bait and switch on the Dover rubes. They didn't bend over and take the switch scam and the rest is history. Currently we have to contend with the obfuscation switch scam, and the best way to keep it out of the public schools has been the ID scam. Most of the rubes screw things up and mouth off about ID before they get the bait and switch run on them and those types are not very believeable in court. Just think what a fiasco it would have been for the switch scam to get someone like McLeroy on the witness stand. Keeping the blowhards lying about intelligent design science is about the best thing the science side can do. Once it goes underground, or a new generation of scam artists can claim that "we aren't ID perps," we can't rely on the ID perps to convince the rubes to do something else. We would have to rely on reason, honesty and the competence of the people in the creationist political movement. That is pretty much a lost cause.

Since when does writing error-filled books for public consumption count as a research program?

Ron Okimoto said: My guess is that the only way to do that is to make the words intelligent design as common in their propaganda as they are in their switch scam materials (zero mention).

I don’t think that the DI would ever correct anything that was wrong. My feeling is that they are seeing the success of the Biologos group. I think that they want to widen the tent to try and attract TEs by not saying that they are against evolution, they just think it was directed.

I see two important concessions from their side:

1. They do not promote the theory stuff any more, because they were shooting themselves in the foot with it because it undermines to sell the "just a theory" meme with regard to evolution.

2. They removed the random mutation part, which has become increasingly difficult to defend the claim that there is no increase of information based on the very simple scenario's by which it happens.

My prediction, their focus will shift to the aspects that have been under represented in the past discussions....

harold said: It is and always was merely an (unsuccessful) attempt to "court proof" religious denial of evolution in public schools.

John Kwok said: Ron, I think it took DEAR LEADER JOHNSON nearly six months after Jones's ruling before he made his public confession...

William Dembski said (February 6, 2000, at a meeting of the National Religious Broadcasters in Anaheim, California) Since Darwin, we can no longer believe that a benevolent God created us in His image, . . . Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God. . . . The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ. . . . And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view. . . . It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world.

Phil Johnson said (as quoted by Jay Grelen, "Witnesses for the Prosecution," World, November 30, 1996) This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science . . . It's about religion and philosophy.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

harold said: Not a chance. This would instantly cost the DI all of its funding. Here's why. It's simple. The whole point of ID is denial of evolution. ID as developed by the DI is just a bunch of very simple logic flaws dressed up with massive verbosity, in order to make evolution denial look respectable. ...

I personally define TE as meaning "our religion has no problem with evolution". From that point of view, the DI has to give up on anti-evolution actions to bridge the gap with TE, and they can't do that.

There is, however, the game of trying to redefine TE as ID. It's logically hopeless, but as far as muddying the water goes, it works fine.

OgreMkV said: Intelligent Design is a research program?? First of all, that makes no grammatical or logical sense. It's like saying "Love is warm cookie."

Second, where exactly is this 'research program'? To quote the great swordsman, "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

I think at the outset there were some people interested in ID – Denton for an example – who honestly thought that evo science was preposterous and it stood to reason that they could make a legitimate case against it.

harold said: Everything about ID is made as weaselly and verbose as possible.

Mike Elzinga said: This discussion over at UD illustrates some of the difficulty.

Paul Burnett said:

Mike Elzinga said: This discussion over at UD illustrates some of the difficulty.

I've made a contribution to the fray, quoting Phil Johnson's 2006 complaint about no science (yet) in ID, and asking when ID actually became "scientific." (Of course, they may not approve my comment for publication - I'm on delayed moderation at UD.)

Mike Elzinga said: i quite happy to see them this clueless.

I am somewhat fascinated by the (admittedly small) proportion of secular creationists. Their motivations seem much more opaque than those of traditional creationists.

harold said: The weird "I'll pretend not to be a Christian and then trick them into creationism" meme is going strong.

I see that Clive Hayden in comment 71 has “gaveled the discussion pertaining to the age of the earth.”

Of course, one major reason the age of the earth issue is important is because of comments like this on that thread:

"Does anyone seriously believe that MS Office 2010 was produced by an army of monkeys banging away at keyboards at random over in Redmond?"

An Old Earth makes ID far less plausible, since Deep Time gives evolution enough time to work, even if each step needed is improbable. ID needs a Young Earth in order to make sense. TE, on the other hand, accepts the evidence of an Old Earth.

But of course one won't get this kind of discussion at UD, since that would be opening the kimono a little too much. Better to simply pretend the issue is irrelevant, rather than fundamental (so to speak).

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.

"Intelligent Design refers to an ad hoc hypothesis for which there are vaguely-defined proposals for future scientific research programs, and a small community of Christian fundamentalist scientists, philosophers and other scholars are attempting to find evidence."

Tulse said: Of course, one major reason the age of the earth issue is important is because of comments like this on that thread: "Does anyone seriously believe that MS Office 2010 was produced by an army of monkeys banging away at keyboards at random over in Redmond?"

Paul Burnett said:

John Kwok said: Ron, I think it took DEAR LEADER JOHNSON nearly six months after Jones's ruling before he made his public confession...

Johnson is quoted as saying: "I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove… No product is ready for competition in the educational world." - quoted by Michelangelo D’Agostino in an article, "In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley," Berkeley Science Research, 10, Spring 2006, http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution

The Discovery Institute Creationists are in dire straits since Kitzmiller knocked them for a six.

Just look at the content on the DIC site since then: Egnor's psychic dualism of the soul, Hitler, Hitler and more (Hitler. Behe came out with a book but you'd be hard pressed to tell from the DIC, especially after Mikey got smacked down on his very own blog by a girl. (Hey, Abbie!) Luskin has been reduced to reliving the past and documenting all the woulda coulda's.

What a mess.

Then along comes Stevie M. with his creationist bodice ripper, Cigar in the Cell, and now things are hopping. Face it, it's the last great hope for the DIC's. Unfortunately, Stevie has been spending more time interviewing at the 700 Club (Fundamentalist Christian Broadcasting Channel - as in channeling U Know Who) and various Christian Crusades with the Hovind spawn and Ray Comfort! Sort of hard to frame intelligent design creationism as science when your peer group talks to snakes.

So, yeah, it's time to re-brand! Rather than an actual theory that delves into that "pathetic level of mechanistic detail" that so scares Dembski, the New DIC Design theory just looks for evidence, the merest hint, just a whiff, the essence, a glimpse of Design (tm) in nature. To make an analogy, if they were the DIC Taxi Co., they wouldn't actually have any cars, but they'd be looking at cars on Edmunds and their goal would be to identify yellow cars. Some day.

refining further...

“Intelligent Design refers to an ad hoc hypothesis [idea] for which there are vaguely-defined proposals for future [pseudo-]scientific research [public relations] programs, and a small community of Christian fundamentalist [pseudo-]scientists, philosophers and other scholars are attempting to find [manufacture] evidence.”

better.

I am not surprised at all about the new and "improved" approach by our IDC friends. After all, the IDC folks have not been very successful at inserting their non-science into science curricula, so one would expect that they would either disappear or change their presentation.

I do find it interesting, though, that they have singled out natural selection as an "undirected" process. As others have noted, natural selection is clearly directional. Why not focus on variation instead? Could it be that there is simply an overwhelming amount of data that support "directionless" variation? I suspect so.

That's all this is -- a definitional change -- a change in tactics. The ID movement has certainly proven that it is quite malleable as it suffers defeat after defeat in the courts and in state and local school boards. Remember in Texas half of the 'special committee' to examine the science curriculum was made up of DI fellows and other ID proponents -- and they still failed! Go back further and you can see the entire Creationism movement has been changing after each set-back. Can't mandate Evolution not be taught, ask for equal time for Creationism. Can't teach Creationism in science class because it's not science -- change the name to Creation Science. Can't teach Creation Science -- change the name to Intelligent Design. Can't call Intelligent Design a Theory -- redefine it. They have to evolve and this definition seems to be the latest evolution -- an evolution of a bad idea, but still evolution.

Ted Herrlich
tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com

I am encouraged by the number of people here who are pointing out that the major problem with ID is that there is nothing of positive substance to it. Whenever an advocate of ID makes a complaint about evolution, the first and enduring response ought to be: "Specify the alternative. What do you think happens?" Of course, the flaws in the complaint should be corrected, but let's make it famous that ID is empty, and maybe embarrassment will do more than a century-plus of science.

An Old Earth makes ID far less plausible, since Deep Time gives evolution enough time to work, even if each step needed is improbable. ID needs a Young Earth in order to make sense. TE, on the other hand, accepts the evidence of an Old Earth.

— Tulse

Paul Burnett said:

Ron Okimoto said: My guess is that the only way to do that is to make the words intelligent design as common in their propaganda as they are in their switch scam materials (zero mention).

That's why it's important for all of us to continue using the term "intelligent design creationism" as often as possible, to make certain everybody knows there is no difference between "intelligent design" and creationism.

Of course, many of the YECs insist that they accept that species and genera have "micro"evolved (whether because there is a limit to the amount of evidence that they can deny, or because of the crowding problem for Noah's Ark), so that is safe for ID.

I don't know that ID is equated with creationism, rather than being identified as a variety of creationism.

TomS said: I am encouraged by the number of people here who are pointing out that the major problem with ID is that there is nothing of positive substance to it. Whenever an advocate of ID makes a complaint about evolution, the first and enduring response ought to be: "Specify the alternative. What do you think happens?" Of course, the flaws in the complaint should be corrected, but let's make it famous that ID is empty, and maybe embarrassment will do more than a century-plus of science.

Ever since ID suffered its legal debacle at the close of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, it has relied on certain "code words" of which the most notarious is "teach the controversy". As Ron Okimoto has just noted, the DI is heavily invested in its "intelligent design creationist scam". It is for the very reason Ron points out that I have referred to the DI as a pathetic den of mendacious intellectual pornographers and Intelligent Design creationism as mendacious intellectual pornography (My apologies to those who may find my terms objectionable, but like them or not, they are valid, quite appropriate, terms to stick onto the Dishonesty Institute staff and their espousal of Intelligent Design creationism.). It is also an underlying reason as to why I have asserted that there is far more "truth" to Klingon Cosmology than there will ever be for Intelligent Design creationism (A sentiment that, I might add, is endorsed by Ken Miller, since he once suggested to me that Michael Behe ought to be writing a textbook on Klingon Biochemistry.).

Paul Nelson six years ago remarked: "Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus." They still don't have a theory. At least they are starting to be honest about that.

Well, if they don't accept an "undirected" process as the explanation, that MUST mean that they have a directed process in mind. So they still need to identify the "director" in order to make any predictions about how to detect that process.

Same old, same old.

I don’t know that ID is equated with creationism, rather than being identified as a variety of creationism.

— TomS

Well, if they don’t accept an “undirected” process as the explanation, that MUST mean that they have a directed process in mind. So they still need to identify the “director” in order to make any predictions about how to detect that process.

— Albatrossity

jimpithecus said: Paul Nelson six years ago remarked: "Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus."

jimpithecus said: Paul Nelson six years ago remarked: "Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus." They still don't have a theory. At least they are starting to be honest about that.

which makes it abunduntly clear that Johnson and his fellow travelers want to destroy science.

— paul Burnett

jimpithecus said: Paul Nelson six years ago remarked: "Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus." They still don't have a theory. At least they are starting to be honest about that.

It's worse than that. One doesn't have to have experience in doing real experimental research to understand the vacuity of ID. Instead of imagining oneself in the lab, imagine yourself back in a secondary school class in expository writing. Imagine writing an expository essay describing ID. Remember "who, what, where, when, why, how"?

The article uses the word “Darwinism” 40 times, and the way they describe it is nothing like evolutionary biology as scientists describe it. In fact they seem to be fully aware that they’re attacking a strawman. But ironically that’s how they can end up destroying the real science. But only if they have most non-fundamentalist nonscientists on their side. Sadly I think that’s already the case. When they can’t get away with “ID is science” they fall back on “‘Darwinism’ is a religion too.”

I could be wrong, and I hope I’m wrong, but if we keep saying only that ID is religious (or creationism), however true that may be, we will keep losing in the “court” of public opinion. What must be stressed is that ID is a scam.

Let’s drive our own “wedge” between the hopeless science-deniers, and those who are just fooled by feel-good anti-evolution sound bites.

I also think we have a good chance of using that “wedge” to divide the hopeless ones into those who will sell out to the DI’s big tent and those who find it too “liberal.”

TomS said: It's worse than that. One doesn't have to have experience in doing real experimental research to understand the vacuity of ID. Instead of imagining oneself in the lab, imagine yourself back in a secondary school class in expository writing. Imagine writing an expository essay describing ID. Remember "who, what, where, when, why, how"?

harold said: I am not aware of any "feel-good" anti-evolution sound bites.

harold said: Efforts to jam creationism of any sort into public school curricula have only taken place in isolated rural school districts in conservative areas

Even biased polls that discuss only human evolution and load an implication of "contradicting religion" into the question generally see a majority or plurality not choosing the denial of evolution choice.

TE is literally nothing but a religious person accepting mainstream science and not denying evolution.

Tulse said:

TE is literally nothing but a religious person accepting mainstream science and not denying evolution.

I'm not sure this is necessarily the case. Sure, there are some people who seem to accept science but want the fuzzy comfort of religion, and they often espouse some sort of muddled version of TE. But if one is actually more rigorous about one's beliefs, it is hard to see how one can make sense of having a god somehow "guide" evolution and not have that conflict with mainstream science.

Paul Burnett said: That's from http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-06-060-i The article has some other "interesting" comments from the likes of Johnson, Dembski, et al, ...

Stanton said: Theistic evolutionists assume that God guides evolution with natural laws,

Tulse said:

Stanton said: Theistic evolutionists assume that God guides evolution with natural laws,

One can say those words, but they are pretty much meaningless without further cashing out. Does "guides with natural laws" mean "set up all the laws and conditions in advance, so everything worked out appropriately without any further intervention"? This would be Deism, and is arguably not in direct conflict with science. But if "guides with natural laws" really means "occasionally intervenes and violates the natural course of events to produce the desired outcome", then that's clearly contrary to mainstream science, as a miracle is a miracle however "small" it may seem, and science has no place for miracles.

My favortite from the 2004 Tocuhstone issue is Dembski's prediction: "Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism—the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level—will be dead."

Even Touchstone seems to have given up the ghost of ID over the past several years.

Stanton said: On the other hand, since theistic evolutionists do not have a desire to see their religious beliefs enforced as scientific dogma like creationists do, I do not see how it is fair to demand that theistic evolutionists be forced to scientifically justify their religious beliefs.

Joe McFaul said: My favortite from the 2004 Tocuhstone issue is Dembski's prediction: "Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism—the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level—will be dead."

Tulse said:

Stanton said: Theistic evolutionists assume that God guides evolution with natural laws,

One can say those words, but they are pretty much meaningless without further cashing out. Does "guides with natural laws" mean "set up all the laws and conditions in advance, so everything worked out appropriately without any further intervention"? This would be Deism, and is arguably not in direct conflict with science. But if "guides with natural laws" really means "occasionally intervenes and violates the natural course of events to produce the desired outcome", then that's clearly contrary to mainstream science, as a miracle is a miracle however "small" it may seem, and science has no place for miracles.

Wheels said: This is pretty distinct from Deism but doesn't mean Theism includes ID-like meddling in the evolutionary process.

harold said: Efforts to jam creationism of any sort into public school curricula have only taken place in isolated rural school districts in conservative areas

Sadly that is simply not true – the Texas School Board is a prime example of a large institution with vast national influence that tried to put creationism into the state curriculum.

Even biased polls that discuss only human evolution and load an implication of “contradicting religion” into the question generally see a majority or plurality not choosing the denial of evolution choice.

Again, not true. See, for example, Jerry Coyne’s posting on some recent polling. In looking at the origin of “biological life”, not just human origins, only 18% chose evolution, with a further 24% picking TE. A full 43% picked the creationist option. And again, this is for all life, not just human origins.

TE is literally nothing but a religious person accepting mainstream science and not denying evolution.

I’m not sure this is necessarily the case. Sure, there are some people who seem to accept science but want the fuzzy comfort of religion, and they often espouse some sort of muddled version of TE. But if one is actually more rigorous about one’s beliefs, it is hard to see how one can make sense of having a god somehow “guide” evolution and not have that conflict with mainstream science.

harold said: Tulse - Thanks for your concern. Unfortunately you misread or misunderstood my comments.

harold said: Efforts to jam creationism of any sort into public school curricula have only taken place in isolated rural school districts in conservative areas

Actually, the polls in this link say exactly what I said polls usually say. In fact, you mainly refer to a poll about abiogenesis, not evolution, in which a plurality support the abiogenesis position 43-42. Of course, that's just one set of polls. If only we had some kind of a summary of multiple polls on the subject...but surely that's far too much to wish for. Oh, wait - http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm Of course, it would be better if 99% of the public rejected creationist craziness, and it's something of a disaster that over 40% at least claim to be creationists in poll after poll (I strongly suspect social bias), but the fact is, polls do not show that a vast majority support creationism, either.

I'm an apatheist. I don't give a damn whether you're an atheist or not.

I don't share the religious beliefs of theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins or Ken Miller, but they understand the theory of evolution with a lot more rigor than virtually all the atheist hipster video game designers in Austin, Brooklyn, and San Francisco combined.

This "no religious guy can truly be a scientist" crap is tiresome.

I don't want to start a war here.

Clearly we're basically on the same side. But science education versus unconstitutional religion in the classroom is its own battle - you don't have to be an atheist to support strong science education.

I am not religious myself, but I am not going to come up with rationalizations for denying that someone who happens to practice a religion might also understand the theory of evolution.

This “no religious guy can truly be a scientist” crap is tiresome.

this strawman argument is what's tiresome.

More than.

so stop it already.

OK, so is it ... "no True Christian(TM) can be an evilutionist" ...

... or is it "no True Scientist(TM) can be religious" or ...

... or is it "white guys can't jump" or ...

... or is it "some people have too much time on their hands." -- ?

Then again, no matter what the question is ... it's not very interesting.

Tulse said:

Wheels said: This is pretty distinct from Deism but doesn't mean Theism includes ID-like meddling in the evolutionary process.

But Theistic Evolution specifically does entail ID-like meddling at some level. I suppose one could call themselves a Theist and yet believe that once a god set up the universe, there was no more tinkering specifically with evolution, but my guess is that those folks are extremely rare and wouldn't say they believe in Theistic Evolution.

Wheels, which bit are you contesting, that TE does entail divine intervention, or that some people are more Deistic about evolution?

OK, let’s move from generalities to specifics – do you agree that if someone insists that miracles are part of the theory of evolution, they don’t understand it?

This “no religious guy can truly be a scientist” crap is tiresome. this strawman argument is what’s tiresome.

It seems for now that my so-called straw man is actually an accurate paraphrase of Tulse's view of theistic evolution, and not a straw man at all. However, I'll wait and see how the discussion plays out.

harold said: My understanding is that the religious people whom I perceive as scientifically sophisticated do not think that miracles are needed to explain life's evolution.

Can some religious people, who's religion does not directly make statements about physical reality, fully comprehend and contribute to science?

I'm confused, because it seems to me that every time anyone says that his or her particular religion is not at odds with science, they are challenged and told that it is (not by me).

Tulse said:

harold said: My understanding is that the religious people whom I perceive as scientifically sophisticated do not think that miracles are needed to explain life's evolution.

So presumably these people do not include anyone who believes in Theistic Evolution.

Tulse said:

harold said: My understanding is that the religious people whom I perceive as scientifically sophisticated do not think that miracles are needed to explain life's evolution.

So presumably these people do not include anyone who believes in Theistic Evolution.

Can some religious people, who's religion does not directly make statements about physical reality, fully comprehend and contribute to science?

As far as I know, only Deism does not make claims about physical reality (past its initial creation). But I am happy to say, as is every other atheist I know, that a religious person can contribute to science to the extent that his religious commitments do not clash with science. Heck, a Young Earth Creationist could be a fine chemist, just as a homeopath could be an outstanding geologist. But a homeopath would find his or her beliefs at odds with the principles of chemistry, and a YEC would make a lousy geologist. It's a matter of compartmentalization.

I'm confused, because it seems to me that every time anyone says that his or her particular religion is not at odds with science, they are challenged and told that it is (not by me).

As I said above, all religions except Deism make supernatural claims about the physical world, and so are at odds with science. But that is not identical to saying that a practitioner of a particular religion cannot be a scientist in those domains where there is no religious conflict.

Stanton said:

Tulse said:

harold said: My understanding is that the religious people whom I perceive as scientifically sophisticated do not think that miracles are needed to explain life's evolution.

So presumably these people do not include anyone who believes in Theistic Evolution.

If Theodosius Dobzhansky was still alive, I think he would disagree with you, given as how he was extremely religious, and yet, made numerous vital contributions to Evolutionary Biology.

harold said: I'm an apatheist. I don't give a damn whether you're an atheist or not. I don't share the religious beliefs of theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins or Ken Miller, but they understand the theory of evolution with a lot more rigor than virtually all the atheist hipster video game designers in Austin, Brooklyn, and San Francisco combined. This "no religious guy can truly be a scientist" crap is tiresome. I don't want to start a war here. Clearly we're basically on the same side. But science education versus unconstitutional religion in the classroom is its own battle - you don't have to be an atheist to support strong science education. I am not religious myself, but I am not going to come up with rationalizations for denying that someone who happens to practice a religion might also understand the theory of evolution.

Ichthyic said: This “no religious guy can truly be a scientist” crap is tiresome. this strawman argument is what's tiresome. More than. so stop it already.

Stanton said: If Theodosius Dobzhansky was still alive, I think he would disagree with you, given as how he was extremely religious, and yet, made numerous vital contributions to Evolutionary Biology.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/06/in-defense-of-m.html And yes, I still think "truthspeaker" was being a full of himself @$$hole. Want to bash me for daring to challenge the dogma of "atheists are superior in mind to all others who are religious"? Be my pest!

truthspeaker said: It wouldn't matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. As long as it starts with that premise - and it always will, because if it didn't it wouldn't be religion -, it will always be evil. There's just no getting around it - promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd.

Tulse said: If I did go into astronomy while holding such beliefs, I would at best hold "Theistic Planetary Formationism", since I argue that there was some (however small) divine intervention in the creation of the solar system. Such a view would be at odds with science.

Tulse said:

Stanton said: If Theodosius Dobzhansky was still alive, I think he would disagree with you, given as how he was extremely religious, and yet, made numerous vital contributions to Evolutionary Biology.

Did Dobzhansky think that evolution involved divine intervention? If not, he did not believe in Theistic evolution, whatever his other religious commitments.

I think folks are confusing the issue, which is really quite straightforward. Let's simplify. If my religion holds that literally everything in the universe were created naturally except for the Pluto's moon Charon, which was brought into being through divine fiat, then these things follow: a) My religion is incompatible with science, since it posits some divine intervention in the universe. b) In spite of a), as long as I avoid disciplines such as astronomy and astrophysics, I could be a fine scientist. In other words, I personally could do research that is compatible with the theoretical and epistemic commitments of a particular domain of science, one that did not impinge on my religious beliefs. (In other words, a person can be religious and practice science-compatible research, but that does not mean that their religion is compatible with science.) c) If I did go into astronomy while holding such beliefs, I would at best hold "Theistic Planetary Formationism", since I argue that there was some (however small) divine intervention in the creation of the solar system. Such a view would be at odds with science.

Paul Burnett said:

Tulse said: If I did go into astronomy while holding such beliefs, I would at best hold "Theistic Planetary Formationism", since I argue that there was some (however small) divine intervention in the creation of the solar system. Such a view would be at odds with science.

Ah, so you have heard of Guillermo Gonzalez and his Privileged Planet creationist nonsense? (Read the editorial reviews at http://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-Cosmos-Designed-Discovery/dp/0895260654)

Did Dobzhansky think that evolution involved divine intervention?

If not, he did not believe in Theistic evolution, whatever his other religious commitments.

I think folks are confusing the issue, which is really quite straightforward.

Let’s simplify. If my religion holds that literally everything in the universe were created naturally except for the Pluto’s moon Charon, which was brought into being through divine fiat, then these things follow: a) My religion is incompatible with science, since it posits some divine intervention in the universe. b) In spite of a), as long as I avoid disciplines such as astronomy and astrophysics, I could be a fine scientist. In other words, I personally could do research that is compatible with the theoretical and epistemic commitments of a particular domain of science, one that did not impinge on my religious beliefs. (In other words, a person can be religious and practice science-compatible research, but that does not mean that their religion is compatible with science.) c) If I did go into astronomy while holding such beliefs, I would at best hold “Theistic Planetary Formationism”, since I argue that there was some (however small) divine intervention in the creation of the solar system. Such a view would be at odds with science.

Set me straight.

I have. several times that I can recall, and not just you.

you apparently are simply mentally unable to absorb it.

let me try in fewer words maybe?

compartmentalization /= compatibility.

the argument HAS NEVER been that being religious and being a scientist are impossibilities. The argument is, and always was, that science and religion are incompatible methodologies for explaining observations and making testable predictions.

Please, don't make me YET AGAIN do some 3 page explanation of how Miller or Collins can indeed be a scientist, but religion makes them say really stupid shit like "god is in the quantum" (Miller), or "The Moral Law" (Collins).

And that DOGMATIC claim was what started my battle with him.

still don't understand that word, do ya Dale?

I’m in a generous mood, and so I’ll let you tell everybody else what “theistic evolution” means.

pick a definition that doesn't include a supernatural causative factor, and we'll be perfectly happy to call you a "theistic evolutionist" AND a scientist.

so, pick.

if there is a supernatural deity/causative factor involved, and we call that theistic evolution, then we also call that unscientific.

you really can't have it both ways.

there is no scientific theory of theistic evolution.

Ichthyic said: And that DOGMATIC claim was what started my battle with him. still don't understand that word, do ya Dale?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogmatism dogmatism 1. a statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact. 2. the use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises. — dogmatist, n. — dogmatic, adj

truthspeaker said: It wouldn't matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. As long as it starts with that premise - and it always will, because if it didn't it wouldn't be religion -, it will always be evil. There's just no getting around it - promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd.

Ichthyic said: I’m in a generous mood, and so I’ll let you tell everybody else what “theistic evolution” means. pick a definition that doesn't include a supernatural causative factor, and we'll be perfectly happy to call you a "theistic evolutionist" AND a scientist. so, pick. if there is a supernatural deity/causative factor involved, and we call that theistic evolution, then we also call that unscientific. you really can't have it both ways. there is no scientific theory of theistic evolution.

I don't know what exactly Tulse is basing his classification of TE on; it seems he has cobbled it together without looking very deeply. From all the people I've talked to and the sources I've read (and the changing views I myself have had over the years), TE simply doesn't claim miraculous intervention in natural processes at all: that's what separates it from ID or other forms of Special Creation. To call it "Deistic about evolution" is weird; that'd be like calling Christians who rejected demonic possession as the mechanism of sickness to be "Deistic about germ theory." At its most basic, TE is defined by its lack of appealing to the supernatural to explain evolution or other bits of biology. In that regard it's perfectly compatible with science, and someone with such a view can be religious and yet accept the veracity of evolution, even abiogenesis, without perceiving a conflict between their faith and the revelations of scientific inquiry. Indeed, most TEs seem to be more sophisticated about science than the general population and recognize the power and necessity of methodological naturalism to answer real questions.

This is the problem IDists have with TEists; ID requires intervention by the "Intelligent Designer" and says natural processes can't explain X feature of Y creature. TE doesn't really want or need any of that, so the ID movement has been hostile to them over the years for not sharing their blatantly anti-evolution, anti-science bent.

TEists (as distinct from Deists) mostly do hold that miraculous intervention has happened, usually in the form of some/all of the New Testament miracles really happening in the case of Christian TEists, but they don't think the complexities of living things need miracles and magic to explain like IDists do. So they do depart from total dedication to methodological naturalism to maintain faith in some parts of their religious beliefs in the supernatural, which is where TEists and various atheists/agnostics tend to part ways and then we get into the familiar old argument.

Does that help clear things up?

Wheels said: I don't know what exactly Tulse is basing his classification of TE on; it seems he has cobbled it together without looking very deeply. From all the people I've talked to and the sources I've read (and the changing views I myself have had over the years), TE simply doesn't claim miraculous intervention in natural processes at all: that's what separates it from ID or other forms of Special Creation. To call it "Deistic about evolution" is weird; that'd be like calling Christians who rejected demonic possession as the mechanism of sickness to be "Deistic about germ theory." At its most basic, TE is defined by its lack of appealing to the supernatural to explain evolution or other bits of biology. In that regard it's perfectly compatible with science, and someone with such a view can be religious and yet accept the veracity of evolution, even abiogenesis, without perceiving a conflict between their faith and the revelations of scientific inquiry. Indeed, most TEs seem to be more sophisticated about science than the general population and recognize the power and necessity of methodological naturalism to answer real questions. This is the problem IDists have with TEists; ID requires intervention by the "Intelligent Designer" and says natural processes can't explain X feature of Y creature. TE doesn't really want or need any of that, so the ID movement has been hostile to them over the years for not sharing their blatantly anti-evolution, anti-science bent. TEists (as distinct from Deists) mostly do hold that miraculous intervention has happened, usually in the form of some/all of the New Testament miracles really happening in the case of Christian TEists, but they don't think the complexities of living things need miracles and magic to explain like IDists do. So they do depart from total dedication to methodological naturalism to maintain faith in some parts of their religious beliefs in the supernatural, which is where TEists and various atheists/agnostics tend to part ways and then we get into the familiar old argument. Does that help clear things up?

Here's an idea:

If (I say "if", for pity's sake) God exists and has the properties of omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence (specific definition on request see Aquinas) then He is personally present in the interactions of every particle and every quantum that has ever existed, or ever will exist. Further, since He stands outside (as well as inside) time and space, He has this as one single gestalt, one action. (He must be beyond time and space; it follows from the premise that He created them.)

If this follows, then it is not so much that He made the natural laws. He is the natural laws. He has, as a single gestalt, caused the interactions of all things to occur so that the Universe which He created (and creates) should bring forth something that can know Him. That is, His presence is in the natural laws every bit as much as it would be in a miracle.

This is not the God of Deism, remote, unengaged, unknowable. It is a God whose presence in the Universe is constant, and to a purpose. That God caused evolution, by the expression of his will, to make humans. It could have made intelligent dinosaurs or cephalopods or hive minds, but it didn't. It produced us, and did so by His will.

Now, I don't believe this. But there is nothing there that I find contrary to reason, given acceptance of the premises. Yes, I know, and I don't accept those premises either. But I can see how one who does can without compartmentalisation do good science, and hold that they are not only discovering God, but are doing His will in that very act, and would not be in any way constrained or inclined to find miracles.

mostly do hold that miraculous intervention has happened

eos.

Theistic evolutionists do not call their THEISM scientific

tell it to "Moral Law" Collins and "Quantum God" Miller.

you guys are in denial.

No, because I say it is NOT a strawman.

Dale, you're an idiot.

od exists and has the properties of omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence (specific definition on request see Aquinas) then He is personally present in the interactions of every particle and every quantum that has ever existed, or ever will exist.

congratulations on reaching the "Miller conclusion".

what you have done is made the concept of god entirely superfluous.

I have no problem with that, but it ain't religion, neither.

I swear, you guys NEVER EVER listen to the actual arguments anyone makes counter to your own.

I see you spouting the same mistakes over and over and over again.

have you ever considered THIS is your echo chamber?

seriously, your logic fails to hold up, it gets tiresome to even bother trying.

here, fucking argue with Jerry Coyne about how the idea of a "quantum god" is an utter failure AND nonscientific:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/ken-miller-cant-win-p-z-and-i-gets-pwned/

I think I’ve done enough here.

and Dale runs away, having missed Wheel's point.

...and then we get into the familiar old argument.

so, you see, Dale?

Theistic evolution while functionally easier to compartmentalize than say YEC, still runs into the same problems in the end, and is still just as unneeded to explain evolution.

who am i kidding.

You'll never see. This concept seems to be entirely beyond several of the regular posters here.

Ichthyic said: what you have done is made the concept of god entirely superfluous. I have no problem with that, but it ain't religion, neither.

hey, you clowns could try arguing with Larry Moran and make him rip his hair out too!

http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html

But since it is patently a series of statements and reasoning about God and His doings, it sure sounds like religion to me.

you seriously have not thought out the logic of this very well.

again, go ahead and argue with Jerry. I'm done.

Ichthyic said: mostly do hold that miraculous intervention has happened eos.

Well, to calm things a bit. Paul Burnett, you are comment 80 at UD 'A Convergence' and you were ignored in the echo chamber that is ID. Your quotes by Johnson honestly explaining the vacuity of their position have gone un-answered. There are around 25 posts after yours, all ignoring Johnson's frankly damning admissions. We should now call them the Ostrich Society, searching for the truth with their heads buried in the sand:)

I believe the basic point of this blog was to support good education in science, especially in biology, in publicly-supported schools in the United States of America.

Under the establishment clause of the first amendment of the US constitution, it is unconstitutional for a teacher in a public school to proselytize his or her religious viewpoint in any school-sponsored context. This proscription extends to teaching atheism as well as any established (or idiosyncratic) religion.

Consequently, it makes absolutely no difference, for the purpose of this blog, whether a teacher is an atheist, a devout Christian, a Wiccan, or whatever-- as long as that teacher is willing to teach the principles of evolution as understood by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. There should be no occasion whatsoever for the teacher to mention that evolution strengthens OR weakens OR has no effect on his/her faith in any supernatural being. Therefore, this debate about theists who also accept evolution is not really appropriate to the purpose of this blog.

I can appreciate that Icthyic, who is writing from the other side of the globe, might not understand American political constraints. But I, personally, consider it vital not to antagonize potential allies-- any people who consider it important to have effective science education in American public schools-- by questioning their religious beliefs.

Since a science teacher in an American public school cannot constitutionally say, "I believe evolution is guided (or, alternatively, "is not guided") by a higher power," it makes absolutely no difference which of those two things he or she privately believes.

Dave Luckett said: Here's an idea: If (I say "if", for pity's sake) God exists and has the properties of omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence (specific definition on request see Aquinas) then He is personally present in the interactions of every particle and every quantum that has ever existed, or ever will exist.

robert van bakel said: Well, to calm things a bit. Paul Burnett, you are comment 80 at UD 'A Convergence' and you were ignored in the echo chamber that is ID. Your quotes by Johnson honestly explaining the vacuity of their position have gone un-answered. There are around 25 posts after yours, all ignoring Johnson's frankly damning admissions. We should now call them the Ostrich Society, searching for the truth with their heads buried in the sand:)

Ichthyic said: No, because I say it is NOT a strawman. Dale, you're an idiot.

Ichthyic said: Theistic evolutionists do not call their THEISM scientific tell it to "Moral Law" Collins and "Quantum God" Miller. you guys are in denial.

Ichthyic said: what you have done is made the concept of god entirely superfluous. I have no problem with that, but it ain't religion, neither.

Ichthyic said: I swear, you guys NEVER EVER listen to the actual arguments anyone makes counter to your own. I see you spouting the same mistakes over and over and over again. have you ever considered THIS is your echo chamber? seriously, your logic fails to hold up, it gets tiresome to even bother trying.

Ichthyic said: I think I’ve done enough here. and Dale runs away, having missed Wheel's point. ...and then we get into the familiar old argument. so, you see, Dale? Theistic evolution while functionally easier to compartmentalize than say YEC, still runs into the same problems in the end, and is still just as unneeded to explain evolution. who am i kidding. You'll never see. This concept seems to be entirely beyond several of the regular posters here.

Ichthyic said: hey, you clowns could try arguing with Larry Moran and make him rip his hair out too!

Ichthyic said: But since it is patently a series of statements and reasoning about God and His doings, it sure sounds like religion to me. you seriously have not thought out the logic of this very well. again, go ahead and argue with Jerry. I'm done.

Wheels said: I don't know what exactly Tulse is basing his classification of TE on; it seems he has cobbled it together without looking very deeply. [...] TE simply doesn't claim miraculous intervention in natural processes at all: that's what separates it from ID or other forms of Special Creation.

robert van bakel said: Paul Burnett, you are comment 80 at UD 'A Convergence' and you were ignored in the echo chamber that is ID. Your quotes by Johnson honestly explaining the vacuity of their position have gone un-answered. There are around 25 posts after yours, all ignoring Johnson's frankly damning admissions. We should now call them the Ostrich Society, searching for the truth with their heads buried in the sand:)

Stanton said:

Tulse said:

Stanton said: If Theodosius Dobzhansky was still alive, I think he would disagree with you, given as how he was extremely religious, and yet, made numerous vital contributions to Evolutionary Biology.

Did Dobzhansky think that evolution involved divine intervention? If not, he did not believe in Theistic evolution, whatever his other religious commitments.

That Dr Dobzhansky often spoke of "God creating through Evolution" does strongly suggest that he was a Theistic evolutionist.

I think folks are confusing the issue, which is really quite straightforward. Let's simplify. If my religion holds that literally everything in the universe were created naturally except for the Pluto's moon Charon, which was brought into being through divine fiat, then these things follow: a) My religion is incompatible with science, since it posits some divine intervention in the universe. b) In spite of a), as long as I avoid disciplines such as astronomy and astrophysics, I could be a fine scientist. In other words, I personally could do research that is compatible with the theoretical and epistemic commitments of a particular domain of science, one that did not impinge on my religious beliefs. (In other words, a person can be religious and practice science-compatible research, but that does not mean that their religion is compatible with science.) c) If I did go into astronomy while holding such beliefs, I would at best hold "Theistic Planetary Formationism", since I argue that there was some (however small) divine intervention in the creation of the solar system. Such a view would be at odds with science.

The only problems with your analogy are that it is overly simplistic, and that not all (or even most) religions or religious sects demand complete or blind adherence to literally everything the religious tenets say. As far as I know, the scientific community as a whole does not care or recognize a particular scientist's religious beliefs if those religious beliefs do not impair the scientist's ability to produce honest research.

Tulse -

Could you please provide a source for your definition?

I have no problem with "divinely desired"; as far as I'm concerned, the idea that some supernatural presence that exists beyond space and time "desired" something or other is untestable, and, although not what I believe, is not at all at odds with science. We need some kind of term to describe people whose beliefs fall roughly in this category. "Theistic evolution" has been used by some, but if that's going to be (re)defined to mean "the belief that God jiggered with H. habilus base pair sequences" or some such thing, then we need a new term to describe scientifically neutral religious beliefs. Although perhaps "scientifically neutral religious beliefs" (SNRB) will suffice.

The idea that physical laws were altered to produce humans is weakly but definitively at odds with the scientific method. That's "god of the gaps". Since we'll never know ever atomic detail of the evolution of humans, there will always be a gap, but obviously, this is mildly but definitively problematic. This is perhaps a subtle problem, as such a belief could still be entirely compatible with acceptance of all scientific evidence for all of the foreseeable future. Still, it is not an idea I agree with.

Now, of course, the claim of ID/creationism is that physical laws had to be altered to allow for the human species. That's flat out denial of all scientific evidence.

have. several times that I can recall, and not just you. you apparently are simply mentally unable to absorb it. let me try in fewer words maybe?

compartmentalization /= compatibility. the argument HAS NEVER been that being religious and being a scientist are impossibilities. The argument is, and always was, that science and religion are incompatible methodologies for explaining observations and making testable predictions.

Please, don’t make me YET AGAIN do some 3 page explanation of how Miller or Collins can indeed be a scientist, but religion makes them say really stupid shit like “god is in the quantum” (Miller), or “The Moral Law” (Collins).

I’m in a generous mood, and so I’ll let you tell everybody else what “theistic evolution” means.

pick a definition that doesn’t include a supernatural causative factor, and we’ll be perfectly happy to call you a “theistic evolutionist” AND a scientist. so, pick. if there is a supernatural deity/causative factor involved, and we call that theistic evolution, then we also call that unscientific. you really can’t have it both ways. there is no scientific theory of theistic evolution.

I came back and was amused at what was just posted here by Ichthyic. Clearly, he blew a gasket.

harold said: I suggested, in language mildly exaggerated for effect, that Tulse had implied that religious people could not make good scientists.

harold said: Could you please provide a source for your definition?

I have no problem with "divinely desired"; as far as I'm concerned, the idea that some supernatural presence that exists beyond space and time "desired" something or other is untestable, and, although not what I believe, is not at all at odds with science.

We need some kind of term to describe people whose beliefs fall roughly in this category. "Theistic evolution" has been used by some, but if that's going to be (re)defined to mean "the belief that God jiggered with H. habilus base pair sequences" or some such thing, then we need a new term to describe scientifically neutral religious beliefs. Although perhaps "scientifically neutral religious beliefs" (SNRB) will suffice.

I know I am late to the party but:
at least to me, 'theistic evolution' implies acceptance of evolutionary science, the modern synthesis etc. yet still holding a belief in the devine.

to me this implies that the believer KNOWS that the belief is not rational, or supported by evidence (the way that scientific claims must be)- aka the definiation of 'faith'

or to pare it down - "Miracles happen" but you will NEVER find evidence of miracles

JASONMITCHELL and Tulse -

I retract any statement which misrepresented Tulse's views.

I thought what Jason thought about the meaning of TE.

Having said that, there isn't much disagreement here. It's really a matter of semantics. I gather that the definition you, Tulse, offered was of your own construction. However, as I stated above, I'm willing to refer to "scientifically neutral religious beliefs" going forward, just be more clear.

People who hold SNRBs may hold some ideas that others find stupid, or do what I perceive as a poor job of justifying their SNRBs. By defintion, SNRBs must either be inherently untestable, or the holder must be willing to discard the idea if it is tested and fails. Othewise, the belief wouldn't be scientifically neutral. An "Occam's razor" argument that SNRB's aren't necessary to "explain" any aspect of human existence can always be made. But the point is that their beliefs do not conflict with understanding of or engagement in science.

It's my habit to let the person who holds a religious belief show me whether their belief conflicts with science, not the other way around. That way, I don't have to try to read their minds. If they make a mistake about science I can probably tell.

So far, I've never encountered a fundamentalist who failed to deny and/or misunderstand mainstream science, usually both.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos Todd Wood is wasting his time and apparent abilities, but that is another issue. A weird possible partial exception is Todd Wood and other advocates of what amount to an omphalos position.

The link and subsequent final sentences are in the wrong order and not very relevant. I was going to mention that omphalos type positions are arguable scientifically neutral, in a way, but let's not get into that right now.

Eugenie C. Scott wrote: Theistic evolution is a theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature. Theistic evolutionists (TEs) accept all the results of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well as in astronomy, physics, and geology. In particular, it is acceptable to TEs that one species give rise to another; they accept descent with modification. However, TEs vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene -- some believe that God created the laws of nature and allows events to occur with no further intervention. Other TEs believe that God intervenes at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans). A 2003 book presents an entire continuum of TEs; clearly, there is much variation among Christians regarding this theological view (Peters and Hewlett 2003). In one form or another, TE is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the position of the Catholic Church. In 1996, Pope John Paul II (1996) reiterated the Catholic version of theistic evolution, in which God created, evolution happened, humans may indeed be descended from more primitive forms, but the hand of God was required for the production of the human soul. The current pope, Benedict XVI, has reiterated the evolution-friendly Catholic view, stressing the importance of rejecting philosophical naturalism (Lawton, 2007).

SWT said: Re: "Theistic evolution" -- there is a range of opinion covered in this position. Per the NCSE web site:

Eugenie C. Scott wrote: Theistic evolution is a theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature. Theistic evolutionists (TEs) accept all the results of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well as in astronomy, physics, and geology. In particular, it is acceptable to TEs that one species give rise to another; they accept descent with modification. However, TEs vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene -- some believe that God created the laws of nature and allows events to occur with no further intervention. Other TEs believe that God intervenes at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans). [...]

Note first that TE is described as a theological view, not a scientific view. IMO, TE is about the theological consequences of scientific results and not about the scientific consequences of theological assertions.

Also, contra other assertions in this thread, TE does not require either divine intervention in the unfolding of the universe or a deistic god. If one believes (as I do) that the universe is an expression divine will, the deity could choose not to meddle in, for example, abiogenesis or evolution, but still choose to interact in some way with whatever sentient beings finally appeared.

Tulse said: So what makes their view Theistic Evolution?

Here is a definition of Theistic Evolution that may clarify my view: Theistic Evolution believes that human beings arose as the divinely desired product of evolution. While the processes of natural evolution are contingent and rely solely on materialistic physical laws to produce most current organisms, those laws and processes were divinely altered in some fashion to ensure that humans (or something very like humans) came about.

(As I said above, if there has been no intervention in the process, why call it "theistic"?)

Wheels said: I think that's mostly a great description, except to my understanding "altered in some way" isn't quite right; rather say that the laws and processes were initiated in such a way.

Because, as you assert, if there was supernatural meddling once the processes are already at work, that's more like invoking miraculous intervention than accepting the role of natural processes to explain things.

I think at the end of the day their religious beliefs about "why it happened" are what set them apart from the more capital-N Naturalistically inclined, while their acceptance of methodological naturalism as sufficient to explain the mechanisms of evolution sets them apart from IDists and other Special Creationists.

Tulse said:

SWT said: Note first that TE is described as a theological view, not a scientific view. IMO, TE is about the theological consequences of scientific results and not about the scientific consequences of theological assertions.

I would strongly disagree. To be perfectly blunt, most atheists (and certainly I) don't give a damn what religious scientists believe theologically -- the question is where those beliefs impinge on their understanding of the natural world.

Or, perhaps to put the issue more accurately, while you may believe that TE is primarily a theological position, it has the potential for scientific consequences, and it is really only those consequences that concern me in this discussion. Specifically, if one believes that "God intervenes at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans)", then that is not a scientifically supportable claim.

Also, contra other assertions in this thread, TE does not require either divine intervention in the unfolding of the universe or a deistic god. If one believes (as I do) that the universe is an expression divine will, the deity could choose not to meddle in, for example, abiogenesis or evolution, but still choose to interact in some way with whatever sentient beings finally appeared.

How is this not Deism with further intervention thrown in? How does it differ significantly from those two options? I'm genuinely confused as to the distinction you're making.

Tulse said:

Wheels said: I think that's mostly a great description, except to my understanding "altered in some way" isn't quite right; rather say that the laws and processes were initiated in such a way.

So that's a "god set everything in motion to produce humans", which seems to me to be Deism (at least as regards to this issue).

I think, in addition, it is also at odds with what we know about the role contingency plays in evolution -- to the extent that humans are seen as the inevitable, deterministic result of those initiated processes, such a view is not consistent with science.

Right, but I've certainly seen folks who describe their view as TE who nonetheless argue that their god used a bit of nudging here and there to keep evolution on the right path. (As you note in your comment later, Francis Collins seems to be one of these folks with regards to the human sense of ethics.)

If their views are completely limited to "why", I have no problem with them. But the "why" almost always also involves a "how" that, at some level, violates our understanding of evolution (either direct intervention after natural laws were established, or at the very least the notion that these natural laws do not involve a level of contingency that might have prevented the development of humans).

SWT said:

Tulse said: I would strongly disagree. To be perfectly blunt, most atheists (and certainly I) don't give a damn what religious scientists believe theologically -- the question is where those beliefs impinge on their understanding of the natural world.

For not giving a damn about it, you sure spend a lot of time thinking and posting about it.

Who has asserted that "God intervenes at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans)" is a scientifically supportable claim? It's not even a testable claim, let alone a scientific claim, until someone makes a specific, objectively testable assertion about one or more such interventions. Can you point to specific instances where TEs make such claims and assert them as science?

How is this not Deism with further intervention thrown in? How does it differ significantly from those two options? I'm genuinely confused as to the distinction you're making.

OK, educate me. How would "deism with further intervention" differ from theism?

Wheels said: I don't think "at least as regards to this issue" really justifies the Deist label [...] Deists generally hold that [...] C) The Deity does not interfere with the world once it got going (again, contrast that with Christian Theistic Evolutionists who depend at least on Divine Intervention for the basis of Christianity).

Theism isn't scientific, and science isn't concerned with supernaturalist thinking.

A TEist typically maintains that evolution "appears" totally un-teleological and that teleology is useless when trying to analyze the evolution of living things, while personally believing that there is some kind of plan behind the whole process itself that simply isn't detectable to methodological naturalism, especially so if the Deity is as inscrutable as the Christian God is typically held to be. I think most people either don't think about the science/non-science issue enough to care, or if they care at all subscribe to a kind of Non-Overlapping-Magisteria on the subject and call it a day.

I think that's mainly an issue of not recognizing things like "morality" as being within the purview of evolution in the first place. As I said, there seems to be a lot of Dualism in the shades of TE.

I will say that it seems some people just aren't satisfied in letting other people subscribe to a NOMA view and have to push at the Naturalism/Theism issue purely for ideological purity's sake.

Tulse said: You're certainly right that there is more to Deism than the way I have been using the term in the present context, which is your point C. I was trying to find a label to distinguish between those who think evolution has run completely without divine intervention, as compared to those who think it has been divinely tweaked from time to time (but who do not subscribe to special creation), as both of these beliefs seem to me to be put under the "theistic evolution" banner. Again, if there's a better term, please let me know.

When the supernatural is part of a "scientific" theory...

The issue, as I see it, isn't whether or not people actually think of their beliefs in that way, but whether they are right to think of their beliefs in that way. In other words, is it coherent to be a TEist and still claim to be fully scientific about evolution?

And I would argue that such makes those varieties of TE (including Collins') non-scientific.

I guess this is where we differ, because I don't see anyone whose beliefs actually involve NOMA, whatever they may claim, as their religious commitments always seem to involve some sort of divine physical intervention.

Tulse said:

SWT said:

Tulse said: I would strongly disagree. To be perfectly blunt, most atheists (and certainly I) don't give a damn what religious scientists believe theologically -- the question is where those beliefs impinge on their understanding of the natural world.

For not giving a damn about it, you sure spend a lot of time thinking and posting about it.

*sigh* I thought I was pretty clear that my concern is with how beliefs impinge on science.

Who has asserted that "God intervenes at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans)" is a scientifically supportable claim? It's not even a testable claim, let alone a scientific claim, until someone makes a specific, objectively testable assertion about one or more such interventions. Can you point to specific instances where TEs make such claims and assert them as science?

I don't care if any TEs assert that these claims as science -- they do involve scientific claims, whether asserted as such or no. If the claim is about impacts on the physical world, it is a scientific claim. It may at this point not be a claim that can currently be tested, but that doesn't mean it is not a scientific claim.

SWT said: Are you equally concerned that non-religious beliefs from a person's upbringing might hinder them from doing research?

Have you cited cases where a theistic evolutionist has not been following the process of methodological naturalism when working as a scientist?

I don't care if any TEs assert that these claims as science -- they do involve scientific claims, whether asserted as such or no. If the claim is about impacts on the physical world, it is a scientific claim. It may at this point not be a claim that can currently be tested, but that doesn't mean it is not a scientific claim.

If this is the case, you have a much looser definition of "scientific claim" than I have -- I've always worked under the assumption that a scientific claim must be, at least in principle, objectively testable.

Tulse said:

SWT said: Are you equally concerned that non-religious beliefs from a person's upbringing might hinder them from doing research?

Hell yes -- if someone was an adherent of astrology, or homeopathy, or reiki, I'd have the same misgivings. Let me be clear, though -- I have no problem as long as those beliefs don't actually influence their scientific work. An astrology could be a fine geologist, and a homeopath could do quite well studying aerodynamics. I suppose that a homeopath could even be fine doing research on allopathic medicine, as long as he or she were willing to completely put aside beliefs and be willing to follow the research even if it contradicted those beliefs.

Have you cited cases where a theistic evolutionist has not been following the process of methodological naturalism when working as a scientist?

Francis Collins appears to think that ethics were given to human divinely -- does that count?

I don't care if any TEs assert that these claims as science -- they do involve scientific claims, whether asserted as such or no. If the claim is about impacts on the physical world, it is a scientific claim. It may at this point not be a claim that can currently be tested, but that doesn't mean it is not a scientific claim.

If this is the case, you have a much looser definition of "scientific claim" than I have -- I've always worked under the assumption that a scientific claim must be, at least in principle, objectively testable.

And I've always worked under the assumption that "testable" doesn't mean "testable right now." We currently can't test for the Higgs boson since the LHC isn't running yet -- does that make the Higgs not a scientific concept? We can't currently do experiments in a variety of the historical sciences (e.g., paleontology, geology, astronomy) -- does that mean claims about, for example, how planets formed are unscientific?

Dogmatic Dale Husband said:

Ichthyic said: And that DOGMATIC claim was what started my battle with him. still don't understand that word, do ya Dale?

Of course I do.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogmatism dogmatism 1. a statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact. 2. the use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises. — dogmatist, n. — dogmatic, adj

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: I came back and was amused at what was just posted here by Ichthyic. Clearly, he blew a gasket. It seems that when all else fails, the dogmatic atheist, like dogmatists of all types, resorts to insults.

Ichthyic said: No, because I say it is NOT a strawman. Dale, you're an idiot.

And you are a sore loser.

Ichthyic said: Theistic evolutionists do not call their THEISM scientific tell it to "Moral Law" Collins and "Quantum God" Miller. you guys are in denial.

Nice try at changing the subject, but you know as well as anyone that evolution is not related to moral laws like the Ten Commandments or other scientific concepts like quantum mechanics. I was responding directly to your statement that, "there is no scientific theory of theistic evolution." And pointing out that OF COURSE THERE ISN'T! AND WHO THE HELL EVER SAID THERE WAS ONE?!

Ichthyic said: what you have done is made the concept of god entirely superfluous. I have no problem with that, but it ain't religion, neither.

Or you are saying it should NOT be religion, because of your hostility to religion. Next...

Ichthyic said: I swear, you guys NEVER EVER listen to the actual arguments anyone makes counter to your own. I see you spouting the same mistakes over and over and over again. have you ever considered THIS is your echo chamber? seriously, your logic fails to hold up, it gets tiresome to even bother trying.

Ichthyic said: I think I’ve done enough here. and Dale runs away, having missed Wheel's point. ...and then we get into the familiar old argument. so, you see, Dale? Theistic evolution while functionally easier to compartmentalize than say YEC, still runs into the same problems in the end, and is still just as unneeded to explain evolution. who am i kidding. You'll never see. This concept seems to be entirely beyond several of the regular posters here.

Ichthyic said: hey, you clowns could try arguing with Larry Moran and make him rip his hair out too!

Ichthyic said: But since it is patently a series of statements and reasoning about God and His doings, it sure sounds like religion to me. you seriously have not thought out the logic of this very well. again, go ahead and argue with Jerry. I'm done.

Shorter Ichthyic: WAAAAAAAAAA, THEY ARE MEAN TO ME BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK I'M INFALLIBLE! Seriously, get the fuk over yourself. Unless you can prove otherwise, it is a safe bet that you are a human being and thus as prone to error and failure as all others.

phantomreader42 said: So, every time you state your point of view, you're being dogmatic. Congratulations, you've twisted the word so severely that you've wrung out every bit of meaning!

That’s a pretty dogmatic post from someone who dogmatically claims to be against dogmatism.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said:

phantomreader42 said: So, every time you state your point of view, you're being dogmatic. Congratulations, you've twisted the word so severely that you've wrung out every bit of meaning!

No, you got it right with the first sentence. We ALL have dogmas when we deal in any way with religion, politics, or many other issues. The only field of study that is never dogmatic is SCIENCE, which is strictly empirical in nature.

That’s a pretty dogmatic post from someone who dogmatically claims to be against dogmatism.

I don't have a problem with people having religious, political, or personal dogmas, including myself. I have a HUGE problem with people who make dogmatic statements who then turn around and claim, "I'm not a dogmatist and there are no atheist dogmatists." WTF?!

phantomreader42 said:

Dale Husband said:

phantomreader42 said: So, every time you state your point of view, you're being dogmatic. Congratulations, you've twisted the word so severely that you've wrung out every bit of meaning!

No, you got it right with the first sentence. We ALL have dogmas when we deal in any way with religion, politics, or many other issues. The only field of study that is never dogmatic is SCIENCE, which is strictly empirical in nature.

That’s a pretty dogmatic post from someone who dogmatically claims to be against dogmatism.

I don't have a problem with people having religious, political, or personal dogmas, including myself. I have a HUGE problem with people who make dogmatic statements who then turn around and claim, "I'm not a dogmatist and there are no atheist dogmatists." WTF?!

So, do you admit that you're being dogmatic by your absurd definition every single time you post whines about other people's alleged dogmatism? Your definition of "dogma" is so ridiculously broad that it has no possible relevance in the real world.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said:

phantomreader42 said:

Dale Husband said:

phantomreader42 said: So, every time you state your point of view, you're being dogmatic. Congratulations, you've twisted the word so severely that you've wrung out every bit of meaning!

No, you got it right with the first sentence. We ALL have dogmas when we deal in any way with religion, politics, or many other issues. The only field of study that is never dogmatic is SCIENCE, which is strictly empirical in nature.

That’s a pretty dogmatic post from someone who dogmatically claims to be against dogmatism.

I don't have a problem with people having religious, political, or personal dogmas, including myself. I have a HUGE problem with people who make dogmatic statements who then turn around and claim, "I'm not a dogmatist and there are no atheist dogmatists." WTF?!

So, do you admit that you're being dogmatic by your absurd definition every single time you post whines about other people's alleged dogmatism? Your definition of "dogma" is so ridiculously broad that it has no possible relevance in the real world.

So is the definition of atheism that has been passed around here ("no belief in God"). By that defintion, all children are born atheists. While that might be a useful thing to proclaim among yourselves ("by teaching your kids religion you warp their minds") it is not logical. People have to make a CHOICE to be atheist; it is NOT a default position! That is why I say atheism should be defined ONLY as "the BELIEF that there is NO God." You have to know what atheism is before you can be an atheist. A baby with no knowledge of religion couldn't possibly be an atheist. And it's NOT my defintion of "dogma", you idiot. I got it from an actual dictionary. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogmatism

phantomreader42 said:

Dale Husband said:

phantomreader42 said:

Dale Husband said:

phantomreader42 said: So, every time you state your point of view, you're being dogmatic. Congratulations, you've twisted the word so severely that you've wrung out every bit of meaning!

No, you got it right with the first sentence. We ALL have dogmas when we deal in any way with religion, politics, or many other issues. The only field of study that is never dogmatic is SCIENCE, which is strictly empirical in nature.

That’s a pretty dogmatic post from someone who dogmatically claims to be against dogmatism.

I don't have a problem with people having religious, political, or personal dogmas, including myself. I have a HUGE problem with people who make dogmatic statements who then turn around and claim, "I'm not a dogmatist and there are no atheist dogmatists." WTF?!

So, do you admit that you're being dogmatic by your absurd definition every single time you post whines about other people's alleged dogmatism? Your definition of "dogma" is so ridiculously broad that it has no possible relevance in the real world.

So is the definition of atheism that has been passed around here ("no belief in God"). By that defintion, all children are born atheists. While that might be a useful thing to proclaim among yourselves ("by teaching your kids religion you warp their minds") it is not logical. People have to make a CHOICE to be atheist; it is NOT a default position! That is why I say atheism should be defined ONLY as "the BELIEF that there is NO God." You have to know what atheism is before you can be an atheist. A baby with no knowledge of religion couldn't possibly be an atheist. And it's NOT my defintion of "dogma", you idiot. I got it from an actual dictionary. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogmatism

S, y'r syng tht w shld us th defntn frm th dctnry whn dong s s cnvnnt fr y (s n yr nsstnc n lblng ny sttmnt whtsvr "dgm") bt w shld cmpltly ignr th defntn whn dng s s cnvnnt fr y (s wth thsm). Frthrmr, f thr is more than one definition, the only one anyone is ever llwd t s s th n tht y fnd mst cnvnnt. Thnks fr clrng tht p, Hmpty Dmpty.

Question: If atheism is just disbelief in gods, then what is the difference between that and agnosticism? Response: Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. This is not a valid position to adopt because it misrepresents or misunderstands everything involved: atheism, theism, agnosticism, and the nature of belief itself. It also happens to reinforce popular prejudice against atheists. Agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas “agnostic” is perceived as more respectable.

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

Ichthyic said: Theistic evolutionists do not call their THEISM scientific tell it to "Moral Law" Collins and "Quantum God" Miller. you guys are in denial.

And now Dogmatic Dale Husband has proven he's too wrapped up in his own dogmatism to be able to discuss anything honestly.

Your word games will not magically make reality go away.

phantomreader42 said: And now Dogmatic Dale Husband has proven he's too wrapped up in his own dogmatism to be able to discuss anything honestly. Your word games will not magically make reality go away.

Stanton said:

phantomreader42 said: And now Dogmatic Dale Husband has proven he's too wrapped up in his own dogmatism to be able to discuss anything honestly. Your word games will not magically make reality go away.

Some people are just more sensitive than others. I just feel that, if a person's religious beliefs do not impair his or her ability to participate in science, that person should not be obligated to give scientific reasons for justifying their own personal religious beliefs. I mean, why is it unreasonable to assume otherwise?

John Kwok said: Agreed, unless of course you are a Fundamentalist Atheist (A new term I picked up elsewhere online ...

Stanton said:

phantomreader42 said: And now Dogmatic Dale Husband has proven he's too wrapped up in his own dogmatism to be able to discuss anything honestly. Your word games will not magically make reality go away.

Some people are just more sensitive than others. I just feel that, if a person's religious beliefs do not impair his or her ability to participate in science, that person should not be obligated to give scientific reasons for justifying their own personal religious beliefs. I mean, why is it unreasonable to assume otherwise?

phantomreader42 said: And now Dale Husband has proven he's too wrapped up in his own dogmatism to be able to discuss anything honestly. Your word games will not magically make reality go away.

Deen said:

Dale Husband said: Remember what atheism is: “The BELIEF that there is NO God.”

No, atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. That's all it is.

truthspeaker said: I have actually had moderate theists try to convince me that believing in something with no evidence was less stupid in believing in something that contradicted known evidence. In that way fundamentalism is a more honest stupidity - if you're going to believe something that has no supporting evidence, such that there is a benevolent deity who cares about us, you might as well believe in something that contradicts what we know about the natural world, such as that the earth is 6000 years old.

truthspeaker said: Can somebody explain to me how moderate religion is less stupid than fundamentalism?

truthspeaker said: How is it bigoted to say that ideas are stupid? Ideas aren't people. If you want to demonstrate that believing in resurrection isn't stupid, then come up with some evidence that resurrection has ever ocurred in humans or that it's even possible. If you can't, then you're conceding the point. The same goes with life after death. If you can figure out how a human consciousness can exist without a physical human brain, then put up the evidence. If you can't, then you're admitting the belief is stupid.

truthspeaker said: Where in that comment did I say all religious people are crazy? I said they hold beliefs that are as stupid and deluded as Young Earth Creationism. There's nothing ignorant or bigoted about that.

fnxtr said: You should no more feel obligated to justify your faith, or lack of it, to the so-called "New Atheists" than you should to FL or anyone else ...

fnxtr said:

Stanton said:

phantomreader42 said: And now Dogmatic Dale Husband has proven he's too wrapped up in his own dogmatism to be able to discuss anything honestly. Your word games will not magically make reality go away.

Some people are just more sensitive than others. I just feel that, if a person's religious beliefs do not impair his or her ability to participate in science, that person should not be obligated to give scientific reasons for justifying their own personal religious beliefs. I mean, why is it unreasonable to assume otherwise?

You should no more feel obligated to justify your faith, or lack of it, to the so-called "New Atheists" than you should to FL or anyone else. A hard line on religion is just as stupid as a hard line on politics.

Dale Husband said:

Deen said:

Dale Husband said: Remember what atheism is: “The BELIEF that there is NO God.”

No, atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. That's all it is.

Therefore, all babies must be BORN atheists.......NOT!

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said:

fnxtr said:

Stanton said:

phantomreader42 said: And now Dogmatic Dale Husband has proven he's too wrapped up in his own dogmatism to be able to discuss anything honestly. Your word games will not magically make reality go away.

Some people are just more sensitive than others. I just feel that, if a person's religious beliefs do not impair his or her ability to participate in science, that person should not be obligated to give scientific reasons for justifying their own personal religious beliefs. I mean, why is it unreasonable to assume otherwise?

You should no more feel obligated to justify your faith, or lack of it, to the so-called "New Atheists" than you should to FL or anyone else. A hard line on religion is just as stupid as a hard line on politics.

Indeed, that was my whole point all along. And you should learn to take back whatever you dish out.

Robin said:

Dogmatic Dale Husband said:

Deen said:

Dogmatic Dale Husband said: Remember what atheism is: “The BELIEF that there is NO God.”

No, atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. That's all it is.

Therefore, all babies must be BORN atheists.......NOT!

Just curious, but why is this not a true statement and how do you know?

Stanton said:

phantomreader42 said: And now Dogmatic Dale Husband has proven he's too wrapped up in his own dogmatism to be able to discuss anything honestly. Your word games will not magically make reality go away.

Some people are just more sensitive than others. I just feel that, if a person's religious beliefs do not impair his or her ability to participate in science, that person should not be obligated to give scientific reasons for justifying their own personal religious beliefs. I mean, why is it unreasonable to assume otherwise?

phantomreader42 said:

Robin said:

Dogmatic Dale Husband said:

Deen said:

Dogmatic Dale Husband said: Remember what atheism is: “The BELIEF that there is NO God.”

No, atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. That's all it is.

Therefore, all babies must be BORN atheists.......NOT!

Just curious, but why is this not a true statement and how do you know?

Because babies are born without believing in any god, and Dogmatic Dale Husband cannot accept that this makes them atheists, so Dogmatic Dale Husband demands that the definition of atheism be changed to fit his dogma.

(shrug) That looks like atheism by default to me. Is that what you mean? Belief in god(s) has to be a decision, but if you've never heard of gods, you're an atheist?

I guess by analogy to amoral vs. immoral, that could work... seems appropriate this argument would be on the "word games" thread.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said:

phantomreader42 said: And now Dogmatic Dale Husband has proven he's too wrapped up in his own dogmatism to be able to discuss anything honestly. Your word games will not magically make reality go away.

Sounds like projection to me. As far as I'm concerned, I successfully argued against the increasingly popular notion that atheism should mean "no belief in God".

This could actually be an interesting question. If children were raised in the complete absence of any religious teachings, what percentage would develop an concept of god or some sort of supreme being independently? Of course, the experiment would be problematic, since the child would have to taught a language and presumably raised in some culture.

Of course, one could also ask what proportion would independently construct the magic apple, magic flood scenario without being taught the mythology. Just askin.

Robin said:

phantomreader42 said:

Robin said:

Dogmatic Dale Husband said:

Deen said:

Dogmatic Dale Husband said: Remember what atheism is: “The BELIEF that there is NO God.”

No, atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. That's all it is.

Therefore, all babies must be BORN atheists.......NOT!

Just curious, but why is this not a true statement and how do you know?

Because babies are born without believing in any god, and Dogmatic Dale Husband cannot accept that this makes them atheists, so Dogmatic Dale Husband demands that the definition of atheism be changed to fit his dogma.

Umm...I get the impression, semantics aside, that Dale thinks that babies are actually born believing something or some such. Maybe I'm wrong on this interpretation though, which is why I asked the question. It didn't seem to me to be an issue of semantics of the term atheism, but rather that he insists that regardless of the definition of atheism, babies are not atheists. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this point.

Dale Husband said: By that defintion, all children are born atheists. While that might be a useful thing to proclaim among yourselves ("by teaching your kids religion you warp their minds") it is not logical. People have to make a CHOICE to be atheist; it is NOT a default position! That is why I say atheism should be defined ONLY as "the BELIEF that there is NO God." You have to know what atheism is before you can be an atheist. A baby with no knowledge of religion couldn't possibly be an atheist.

MrG said:

fnxtr said: You should no more feel obligated to justify your faith, or lack of it, to the so-called "New Atheists" than you should to FL or anyone else ...

That's one of the things that is off-putting about such arguments one way or another: "I do not believe that you can justify your belief system [or lack thereof] to my personal satisfaction." To which the only sensible reply is: "Why don't you kiss my ass?"

Robin said:

Dale Husband said: By that defintion, all children are born atheists. While that might be a useful thing to proclaim among yourselves ("by teaching your kids religion you warp their minds") it is not logical. People have to make a CHOICE to be atheist; it is NOT a default position! That is why I say atheism should be defined ONLY as "the BELIEF that there is NO God." You have to know what atheism is before you can be an atheist. A baby with no knowledge of religion couldn't possibly be an atheist.

Seeing as how Dale isn't yet available to answer my question, I'll pursue an answer philosophically: Assuming, for the sake of an argument (heh! who am I kidding - it clearly is an argument!) that Dale does mean that babies can't be atheists because atheism by definition (to him) requires that someone actively choose not to believe in God, a god, gods, etc, then what exactly are babies as far as such a description? In other words, what is the default state; what is the term that describes someone who just lacks a belief in any gods?

Dale and fnxtr, I am in complete agreement with your recent observations. Too often, I think the discussion seems more Swiftian than rational, even if the Fundamentalist-acting New Atheists insist that theirs is the only rational, logical course to take. A pity they haven't appreciated the word "tolerance".

Dale Husband said: What is it with these atheist fanatics? They laugh at the stupidity of Creationist bigots like FL and Robert Byers and ID promoters like Michael Behe, but justify their own semantic stunts?

John Wilkes Kwok said: Well having been raked over the coals far too often by some of these "New Atheist" creotards (including, I might add, one in progress elsewhere online), I've used somewhat stronger language like "hope you assume room temperature" (to their intellectually-challenged minds, that phrase is as much a "death threat" as an actual threat to rape and to kill two prominent Discover Magazine bloggers last March at, where else, Pharyngula, which, of course, has been excused by the blog's owner and his acolytes as a "joke"):

MrG said:

fnxtr said: You should no more feel obligated to justify your faith, or lack of it, to the so-called "New Atheists" than you should to FL or anyone else ...

That's one of the things that is off-putting about such arguments one way or another: "I do not believe that you can justify your belief system [or lack thereof] to my personal satisfaction." To which the only sensible reply is: "Why don't you kiss my ass?"

John Kwok said: I'd prefer the term agnostic, with the symbol N/A applicable to newborns:

fnxtr said: (shrug) That looks like atheism by default to me. Is that what you mean? Belief in god(s) has to be a decision, but if you've never heard of gods, you're an atheist?

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

fnxtr said: (shrug) That looks like atheism by default to me. Is that what you mean? Belief in god(s) has to be a decision, but if you've never heard of gods, you're an atheist?

What term would the atheists here apply to the following scenarios:

1. Belief in the non-existence of God.

2. Neither belief nor dis-belief in the existence of God, while maintaining that knowledge of his existence is possible.

3. Neither belief nor dis-belief in the existence of God, while maintaining that knowledge of his existence is not possible.

To define "atheism" as "lack of belief in God" leaves no room for a distinction between position 1 and positions 2 and 3. Since the last two are positions held by many that seems a shame, and there seems to be a crying need for terms that would make the distinction. Or are people going to go with "strong atheism" (God doesn't exist) and "weak atheism" (neither belief nor disbelief in God)? I would think for emotional reasons people wouldn't want to refer to themselves as "weak atheists;" it sounds a bit off-putting.

I think that part of what is going on here is a confusion between non-believing and dis-believing. Most of the atheists seem to be saying that "atheism" refers to non-belief, whereas the theists (and an agnostic) seem to be saying that it refers to disbelief. For the record, it might be said that I have a dog in this fight, but that as a polytheist it would be a dog of an uncommon breed.

Add apatheism: "It is a matter of practical indifference to me whether there is a deity or not." Doesn't rule it out, doesn't deny it ... doesn't care.

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

fnxtr said: (shrug) That looks like atheism by default to me. Is that what you mean? Belief in god(s) has to be a decision, but if you've never heard of gods, you're an atheist?

What term would the atheists here apply to the following scenarios: 1. Belief in the non-existence of God. 2. Neither belief nor dis-belief in the existence of God, while maintaining that knowledge of his existence is possible. 3. Neither belief nor dis-belief in the existence of God, while maintaining that knowledge of his existence is not possible. To define "atheism" as "lack of belief in God" leaves no room for a distinction between position 1 and positions 2 and 3. Since the last two are positions held by many that seems a shame, and there seems to be a crying need for terms that would make the distinction. Or are people going to go with "strong atheism" (God doesn't exist) and "weak atheism" (neither belief nor disbelief in God)? I would think for emotional reasons people wouldn't want to refer to themselves as "weak atheists;" it sounds a bit off-putting. I think that part of what is going on here is a confusion between non-believing and dis-believing. Most of the atheists seem to be saying that "atheism" refers to non-belief, whereas the theists (and an agnostic) seem to be saying that it refers to disbelief. For the record, it might be said that I have a dog in this fight, but that as a polytheist it would be a dog of an uncommon breed.

So what would a person be called who disbelieves in atheism?

...oh...right...an apologetic presuppositionalist. ;-P

Robin said: I must confess that I can't think of anyone who falls into category 2 above, nor can I think of any situation in which 2 could even be possible. If one feels that knowledge of god is possible, I can't imagine such a person would not investigate such to some extent and come to a belief about god's existence.

I certainly see no difference between non-belief and disbelief.

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Well having been raked over the coals far too often by some of these "New Atheist" creotards (including, I might add, one in progress elsewhere online), I've used somewhat stronger language like "hope you assume room temperature" (to their intellectually-challenged minds, that phrase is as much a "death threat" as an actual threat to rape and to kill two prominent Discover Magazine bloggers last March at, where else, Pharyngula, which, of course, has been excused by the blog's owner and his acolytes as a "joke"):

MrG said:

fnxtr said: You should no more feel obligated to justify your faith, or lack of it, to the so-called "New Atheists" than you should to FL or anyone else ...

That's one of the things that is off-putting about such arguments one way or another: "I do not believe that you can justify your belief system [or lack thereof] to my personal satisfaction." To which the only sensible reply is: "Why don't you kiss my ass?"

So, you think any variant of "go fuck yourself" is a threat of violent rape, but you whine when people point out that you're making death threats by your own definition. And you feel you can just redefine words whenever it's convenient for you. You scream bloody murder at any comparison of Ken Miller to a creationist, but you will call anyone who dares disagree with you a creotard, despite knowing full well that the accusation is false. Congratulations, John Wilkes Kwok! You've managed to become even MORE of an irritating, hypocritical, dishonest asshat than ever before! I didn't think you could pull it off.

Robin said: So what would a person be called who disbelieves in atheism? ...oh...right...an apologetic presuppositionalist. ;-P

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Robin said: I must confess that I can't think of anyone who falls into category 2 above, nor can I think of any situation in which 2 could even be possible. If one feels that knowledge of god is possible, I can't imagine such a person would not investigate such to some extent and come to a belief about god's existence.

I can imagine someone being quite interested in the question of God's existence or non-existence, and investigating the question to the best of their ability, without coming to a definitive answer. They might then decide that they aren't qualified to make a decision either way. By the criterion of "atheist = non-belief" they would be an atheist, by the criterion "atheist = disbelief" they would not.

I certainly see no difference between non-belief and disbelief.

Really?

Non-belief simply refers to not believing in the existence of something, whereas disbelief refers to believe that it doesn't exist.

At the very least apatheists would fall into the "non-belief" rather than "disbelief" category.

I'm a non-believer in Platonic forms, but not a disbeliever. I think that it's possible the idea could be valid, but I'm not going to commit myself to it.

As far as I'm concerned that latter is just a stronger perspective on the former.

The only exception, as I note above, is active uncertainty - that is not knowing if there is a god - which to me is agnosticism.

Robin said:

Dale Husband said: Therefore, all babies must be BORN atheists.......NOT!

Just curious, but why is this not a true statement and how do you know?

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said:

Robin said:

Dale Husband said: Therefore, all babies must be BORN atheists.......NOT!

Just curious, but why is this not a true statement and how do you know?

Because in order to be an atheist, you must first know of the God concept you are rejecting. The default position is simply having no opinion at all. It doesn't need any lable.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: phantomreader42 has clearly lost it. He doesn't like the idea of "dogmatism" associated with himself and other atheists because it is popularly used only in reference to religious beliefs. But that is incorrect and that should have been obvious the moment I posted the dictionary reference. Anything he said after that was just useless barking. And calling me "Dogmatic Dale Husband" over and over again, suggesting I work for FOX News, and other inane remarks is simply more grade school spitting.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: I'm not trying to change the defintion of atheism. YOU New Atheists already did it first! I know what it was decades ago and if you were honest you would at least admit to what you have been doing!

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: In fact, even the lable "New Atheist" is a misnomer. It's simply a resurgence of the Militant Atheism led by the likes of Madalyn Murray O'Hair. There's nothing new about it.

So, on what grounds are YOU not being dogmatic? By your definition, any statement whatsoever is dogmatic, so why do you exempt yourself from that definition? I’m calling you dogmatic because by your definition you ARE dogmatic, but you refuse to admit it. More projection on your part.

Also, I never suggested you had any connection at all to Fox News, so that’s just an outright lie.

In your replies to me and to Dale, I have seen a rhetorical style that is far similar to Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Bill Dembski and Casey Luskin than you care to admit. Yours is what can and should be described as a "Fundamentalist" variety of Atheism, in which its adherents must reaffirm their intellectual and moral superiority to those who are devout believers in a Deity (or Deities). As I have noted more than once, the irrational conduct I have seen from you and your fellow Fundamenatlist Atheists is far rational than the conduct I have seen from devoutly religious scientists who are, in their private lives, devoted Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims.

Contrary to what you might wish to believe, I do not tar and feather all atheists. I have ample admiration and respect for atheist philosophers like Austin Dacey and Massimo Pigliucci who can argue persuasively that atheism is superior to organized religions, without mocking - or otherwise casting ample discord amongst - those who are religiously devout.

John Kwok said: In your replies to me and to Dale, I have seen a rhetorical style that is far similar to Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Bill Dembski and Casey Luskin than you care to admit. Yours is what can and should be described as a "Fundamentalist" variety of Atheism, in which its adherents must reaffirm their intellectual and moral superiority to those who are devout believers in a Deity (or Deities). As I have noted more than once, the irrational conduct I have seen from you and your fellow Fundamenatlist Atheists is far rational than the conduct I have seen from devoutly religious scientists who are, in their private lives, devoted Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims. Contrary to what you might wish to believe, I do not tar and feather all atheists. I have ample admiration and respect for atheist philosophers like Austin Dacey and Massimo Pigliucci who can argue persuasively that atheism is superior to organized religions, without mocking - or otherwise casting ample discord amongst - those who are religiously devout.

Dogmatic Dale Husband said: You are melting down like a snowman in spring, phantomreader42. I will never take you seriously as long as you keep acting like a fraction of your age.

So, on what grounds are YOU not being dogmatic? By your definition, any statement whatsoever is dogmatic, so why do you exempt yourself from that definition? I’m calling you dogmatic because by your definition you ARE dogmatic, but you refuse to admit it. More projection on your part.

As an agnostic, I am non-dogmatic about whether or not God exists. Since I never denied being dogmatic about at least some things, your objections are pointless. Statements of fact, such as those found in science are not dogmatic, but statements of OPINION, like those in religion or politics, certainly are.

Also, I never suggested you had any connection at all to Fox News, so that’s just an outright lie.

That was Science Avenger's doing. You didn't notice it? You are a complete failure at this point.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: You are melting down like a snowman in spring, phantomreader42. I will never take you seriously as long as you keep acting like a fraction of your age.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: As an agnostic, I am non-dogmatic about whether or not God exists. Since I never denied being dogmatic about at least some things, your objections are pointless. Statements of fact, such as those found in science are not dogmatic, but statements of OPINION, like those in religion or politics, certainly are.

So, Dogmatic Dale, why is it that in order for a religious person to be labeled “militant”, they have to actually kill people, or at the very least advocate doing so, but for an atheist to be “militant” they just have to admit being an atheist and not cower in mortal terror from any criticism of religion?

John Wilkes Kwok said: In your replies to me and to Dale, I have seen a rhetorical style that is far similar to Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Bill Dembski and Casey Luskin than you care to admit. Yours is what can and should be described as a "Fundamentalist" variety of Atheism, in which its adherents must reaffirm their intellectual and moral superiority to those who are devout believers in a Deity (or Deities). As I have noted more than once, the irrational conduct I have seen from you and your fellow Fundamenatlist Atheists is far rational than the conduct I have seen from devoutly religious scientists who are, in their private lives, devoted Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims. Contrary to what you might wish to believe, I do not tar and feather all atheists. I have ample admiration and respect for atheist philosophers like Austin Dacey and Massimo Pigliucci who can argue persuasively that atheism is superior to organized religions, without mocking - or otherwise casting ample discord amongst - those who are religiously devout.

Science Avenger said:

Dale Husband said: What is it with these atheist fanatics? They laugh at the stupidity of Creationist bigots like FL and Robert Byers and ID promoters like Michael Behe, but justify their own semantic stunts?

Your false equivalence runneth over. It doesn't make you look enlightened. It makes you look incapable of evaluating people and arguments objectively. You should go work for Fox News - they like your brand of "fair and balanced" over there. Oh, BTW, I discussed this with a few high school classmates, and they agree.

Now, what I want to know is how Dogmatic Dale is going to justify how he saw this post, falsely attributed it to me, and when called on it blamed me for his own mistake.

are we having fun yet?

;)

So why is it that in order for a religious person to be labeled “militant”, they have to actually kill people, or at the very least advocate doing so, but for an atheist to be “militant” they just have to admit being an atheist and not cower in mortal terror from any criticism of religion?

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said:

So why is it that in order for a religious person to be labeled “militant”, they have to actually kill people, or at the very least advocate doing so, but for an atheist to be “militant” they just have to admit being an atheist and not cower in mortal terror from any criticism of religion?

Your question is nonsense, since I do think of fundamentalist Christians and fundamenalist Muslims, even the nonviolent ones, as being no better than militant atheists. Intolerance simply is, no matter what the cause. Also atheists under the banner of Communism killed millions of people in the 20th Century. Or do you deny that most Communists in that period were atheists?

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: Look at how you are acting, phantomreader42. Are you really that dense? That hypocritical? You keep hurling insults at me even after I explain the facts to you. Then you keep ignoring what I really say and repeat the same childish crap over and over. You are no longer capable of rational argument. You prove exactly the problem I've always had with militant atheism. It is fueled by hatred of religion, not love for reason and truth. And things driven by hatred eventually ruin themselves.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: Did you have a problem with truthspeaker calling all religious beliefs "delusional", "stupid" or even at one point "evil"? If so, I never saw your object to it as I did. If not, why should you care if Christians or others call atheists "militant", "bigoted", "hateful" and simular prejudicial and inflammatory remarks? What goes around comes around. What you do to others eventually turns back on you.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: Panda's Thumb is not about atheism; it is about defending evolution and other issues of science from Creationist misrepresentation. If a Christian who is undecided about evolution comes here and sees atheists like you screaming about religion in general and bashing liberal minded Christians and even moderate agnostics like me, they may conclude that this is what belief in evolution leads to and they will no longer be open to the evidence for evolution. Are you and several other atheists so damned stupid you'd allow that to happen? Sure looks like it!

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: I didn't lie about you, period (unless you really think my lumping you together with Science Avenger was a lie), and I showed how you were wrong on several points in your direct attacks on me. Grow up!

So, because most communists decades ago were atheists, all atheists today and until the end of time are to blame for everything ever done wrong by communists?

So, it’s okay for you to ignore what I say, but not for me to ignore what you say, and you consider me pointing out that what you’re saying is idiotic and false to be “ignoring what you say”?

If you intended to attribute all the things you were complaining about to me, as that rant looked like you were doing, then you were lying. If you did not intend to attribute other people’s comments to me, then I would be willing to accept your apology for communicating poorly.

Dale, I think at this point you've accumulated enough timecube points to graduate from bold to allcaps!

congrats!

phantomreader42 said: Making shit up again, Kwok? Can you go five seconds without name-dropping? Gonna threaten to kill me next? Go fuck yourself. No one else is desperate enough to.

John Wilkes Kwok said: In your replies to me and to Dale, I have seen a rhetorical style that is far similar to Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Bill Dembski and Casey Luskin than you care to admit. Yours is what can and should be described as a "Fundamentalist" variety of Atheism, in which its adherents must reaffirm their intellectual and moral superiority to those who are devout believers in a Deity (or Deities). As I have noted more than once, the irrational conduct I have seen from you and your fellow Fundamenatlist Atheists is far rational than the conduct I have seen from devoutly religious scientists who are, in their private lives, devoted Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims. Contrary to what you might wish to believe, I do not tar and feather all atheists. I have ample admiration and respect for atheist philosophers like Austin Dacey and Massimo Pigliucci who can argue persuasively that atheism is superior to organized religions, without mocking - or otherwise casting ample discord amongst - those who are religiously devout.

phantomreader42 said:

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said:

So why is it that in order for a religious person to be labeled “militant”, they have to actually kill people, or at the very least advocate doing so, but for an atheist to be “militant” they just have to admit being an atheist and not cower in mortal terror from any criticism of religion?

Your question is nonsense, since I do think of fundamentalist Christians and fundamenalist Muslims, even the nonviolent ones, as being no better than militant atheists. Intolerance simply is, no matter what the cause. Also atheists under the banner of Communism killed millions of people in the 20th Century. Or do you deny that most Communists in that period were atheists?

So, because most communists decades ago were atheists, all atheists today and until the end of time are to blame for everything ever done wrong by communists? Are you SURE you're not a christian fundie? Do I need to remind you that by that argument all christians are Hitler? What, since you couldn't get away with blaming me for someone else's comments you have to blame me for things that happened before I was even born? If by "militant" you mean "intolerant", then why not SAY intolerant? You'd still be wrong, but at least you wouldn't be mangling the English language so badly. Why use a word that doesn't mean what you want it to mean?

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: Look at how you are acting, phantomreader42. Are you really that dense? That hypocritical? You keep hurling insults at me even after I explain the facts to you. Then you keep ignoring what I really say and repeat the same childish crap over and over. You are no longer capable of rational argument. You prove exactly the problem I've always had with militant atheism. It is fueled by hatred of religion, not love for reason and truth. And things driven by hatred eventually ruin themselves.

So, it's okay for you to ignore what I say, but not for me to ignore what you say, and you consider me pointing out that what you're saying is idiotic and false to be "ignoring what you say"? Look in a mirror, honestly. You have not even attempted a rational argument on this. You just declare that words mean whatever you want them to mean, then whine whenever anyone dares question you.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: Did you have a problem with truthspeaker calling all religious beliefs "delusional", "stupid" or even at one point "evil"? If so, I never saw your object to it as I did. If not, why should you care if Christians or others call atheists "militant", "bigoted", "hateful" and simular prejudicial and inflammatory remarks? What goes around comes around. What you do to others eventually turns back on you.

truthspeaker's comments were irrelevant to what I was saying. The people who disagree with you are not a single monolithic mass. I am not truthspeaker, nor am I Science Avenger, and I am not responsible for their comments, no matter how much you may want me to be. And if you have a problem with inflammatory remarks you should stop accusing me of murders that happened before I was born and tell Kwok to lay off the death threats and whining about imaginary rape threats.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: Panda's Thumb is not about atheism; it is about defending evolution and other issues of science from Creationist misrepresentation. If a Christian who is undecided about evolution comes here and sees atheists like you screaming about religion in general and bashing liberal minded Christians and even moderate agnostics like me, they may conclude that this is what belief in evolution leads to and they will no longer be open to the evidence for evolution. Are you and several other atheists so damned stupid you'd allow that to happen? Sure looks like it!

Again you get back to your dogmatic insistence that no one is ever allowed to criticize religion. Do you really have that little respect for the christians you're supposedly defending that you think their beliefs are too delicate to survive the slightest encounter with reality? Are you really so cowardly that you cannot bring yourself to call the insane on their insanity? Will you be patrolling the Freshwater threads, insisting how reasonable it is to brand a child in the name of god, and denouncing everyone who says otherwise as "hurting the cause" or some such bullshit? If some nutcase shows up and accuses me of mass murder, on the grounds that Stalin was an atheist so every atheist in the world is guilty of his crimes, am I allowed to say a single word in my own defense? Or does your dogma demand that I sit quietly and allow myself to be slandered to avoid offending those delicate flowers who you fear will wilt at the slightest word of disagreement from someone outside their cult? Would you ever dare criticize a christian for anything, or are they too fragile? I'm not bashing you because you're a "moderate agnostic" (of course anyone who blames all atheists for the crimes of Stalin cannot be considered "moderate"). I'm bashing you because you're a whiny, dogmatic, dishonest, hypocritical asshole. And, because you started babbling word games in a thread about word games. I'm bashing you because you insist that other people remain silent because you say so.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: I didn't lie about you, period (unless you really think my lumping you together with Science Avenger was a lie), and I showed how you were wrong on several points in your direct attacks on me. Grow up!

You identified me, and only me, by name in your rant about all the mean things said about you. If you intended to attribute all the things you were complaining about to me, as that rant looked like you were doing, then you were lying. If you did not intend to attribute other people's comments to me, then I would be willing to accept your apology for communicating poorly.

If Atheism is such a great alternative to organized religions, phantom-twit, then why do you and your fellow Fundamentalist New Atheist tribal members insist on mocking and harassing those who are religiously devout? I have seen too many times far more rational behavior from those who are religiously devout (I am referring to sensible ones, not fanatical Xians or Muslims, such as for example, a favorite uncle who is a recently retired Methodist minister.) than from so-called "Affirmative Atheists" such as yourself.

If Atheism is a better, far more compelling, alternative to organized religion, it will be due to rational thinking and persuasive writing from philosophers such as Austin Dacey and
Massimo Pigliucci and a journalist like Susan Jacoby, than any of the harsh rhetoric and quite juvenile, frat-boy stunts performed by the likes of mediocre biologist PZ Myers (And yes, compared to the prior accomplishments of Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins, who have both made significant contributions to evolutionary biology, Myers is mediocre. Indeed, in one rather rare lucid moment of e-mail correspondence between us, he admitted that he is not quite the scientist that his ccolleague, evolutionary developmental biologist Sean B. Carroll is.).

So may suggest that you stop trying to mock me and Dale (and others who are in agreement with us) and try to demonstrate, from a rational perspective, why your Atheist belief system is superior to my Deism or of valid, mainstream organized religion in general.

Dale Husband said:

Robin said:

Dale Husband said: Therefore, all babies must be BORN atheists.......NOT!

Just curious, but why is this not a true statement and how do you know?

Because in order to be an atheist, you must first know of the God concept you are rejecting. The default position is simply having no opinion at all. It doesn't need any lable.

Ichthyic said: Dale, I think at this point you've accumulated enough timecube points to graduate from bold to allcaps! congrats!

John Kwok said: If Atheism is such a great alternative to organized religions, phantom-twit, then why do you and your fellow Fundamentalist New Atheist tribal members insist on mocking and harassing those who are religiously devout? I have seen too many times far more rational behavior from those who are religiously devout (I am referring to sensible ones, not fanatical Xians or Muslims, such as for example, a favorite uncle who is a recently retired Methodist minister.) than from so-called "Affirmative Atheists" such as yourself. If Atheism is a better, far more compelling, alternative to organized religion, it will be due to rational thinking and persuasive writing from philosophers such as Austin Dacey and Massimo Pigliucci and a journalist like Susan Jacoby, than any of the harsh rhetoric and quite juvenile, frat-boy stunts performed by the likes of mediocre biologist PZ Myers (And yes, compared to the prior accomplishments of Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins, who have both made significant contributions to evolutionary biology, Myers is mediocre. Indeed, in one rather rare lucid moment of e-mail correspondence between us, he admitted that he is not quite the scientist that his ccolleague, evolutionary developmental biologist Sean B. Carroll is.). So may suggest that you stop trying to mock me and Dale (and others who are in agreement with us) and try to demonstrate, from a rational perspective, why your Atheist belief system is superior to my Deism or of valid, mainstream organized religion in general.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: Still bashing me for the fun of it, I see. You will just take ANYTHING I say and distort it according to your prejudices.

I’m not bashing you because you’re a “moderate agnostic” (of course anyone who blames all atheists for the crimes of Stalin cannot be considered “moderate”). I’m bashing you because you’re a whiny, dogmatic, dishonest, hypocritical asshole. And, because you started babbling word games in a thread about word games. I’m bashing you because you insist that other people remain silent because you say so.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said:

So, it’s okay for you to ignore what I say, but not for me to ignore what you say, and you consider me pointing out that what you’re saying is idiotic and false to be “ignoring what you say”?

I have ignored nothing you have said. If I was doing that, I wouldn't have replied as I have.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said:

If you intended to attribute all the things you were complaining about to me, as that rant looked like you were doing, then you were lying. If you did not intend to attribute other people’s comments to me, then I would be willing to accept your apology for communicating poorly.

As soon as you stop using that rediculous phrase, "Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said", I will be convinced that you are worth apologizing to.

Dogmatic Dale Husband said: Your failure to note Science Avenger's comment from the start was no one's fault but your own. If you were confused about anything I said, you could have said something like, "I don't recall mentioning FOX News, let alone suggesting you work for it. Who said that, if not me?" Then I would have told you.

Dogmatic Dale Husband said: I myself criticize religion when I think it proper to do so, usually in the context of slamming Creationists and their lies and stupidities. I have done it many times even here. So, again, your objections are pointless.

phantomreader42 said: Do you care whether or not what you believe is true? Given your past behavior I doubt it. If so, do you have the slightest speck of evidence for any god? Since there is no evidence whatsoever of any god, not believing in any god is consistent with the evidence. Believing in an invisible man in the sky that conveniently leaves not a single trace of its existence is not. Though I don't really expect you to care about that.

John Kwok said: If Atheism is such a great alternative to organized religions, phantom-twit, then why do you and your fellow Fundamentalist New Atheist tribal members insist on mocking and harassing those who are religiously devout? I have seen too many times far more rational behavior from those who are religiously devout (I am referring to sensible ones, not fanatical Xians or Muslims, such as for example, a favorite uncle who is a recently retired Methodist minister.) than from so-called "Affirmative Atheists" such as yourself. If Atheism is a better, far more compelling, alternative to organized religion, it will be due to rational thinking and persuasive writing from philosophers such as Austin Dacey and Massimo Pigliucci and a journalist like Susan Jacoby, than any of the harsh rhetoric and quite juvenile, frat-boy stunts performed by the likes of mediocre biologist PZ Myers (And yes, compared to the prior accomplishments of Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins, who have both made significant contributions to evolutionary biology, Myers is mediocre. Indeed, in one rather rare lucid moment of e-mail correspondence between us, he admitted that he is not quite the scientist that his ccolleague, evolutionary developmental biologist Sean B. Carroll is.). So may suggest that you stop trying to mock me and Dale (and others who are in agreement with us) and try to demonstrate, from a rational perspective, why your Atheist belief system is superior to my Deism or of valid, mainstream organized religion in general.

phantomreader42 said:

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said: Still bashing me for the fun of it, I see. You will just take ANYTHING I say and distort it according to your prejudices.

I explained why I was bashing you. You ignored that explanation. Here it is again:

I’m not bashing you because you’re a “moderate agnostic” (of course anyone who blames all atheists for the crimes of Stalin cannot be considered “moderate”). I’m bashing you because you’re a whiny, dogmatic, dishonest, hypocritical asshole. And, because you started babbling word games in a thread about word games. I’m bashing you because you insist that other people remain silent because you say so.

I'll add to that, I'm bashing you because you keep bashing me.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said:

So, it’s okay for you to ignore what I say, but not for me to ignore what you say, and you consider me pointing out that what you’re saying is idiotic and false to be “ignoring what you say”?

I have ignored nothing you have said. If I was doing that, I wouldn't have replied as I have.

See just above.

Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said:

If you intended to attribute all the things you were complaining about to me, as that rant looked like you were doing, then you were lying. If you did not intend to attribute other people’s comments to me, then I would be willing to accept your apology for communicating poorly.

As soon as you stop using that rediculous phrase, "Dogmatic Dale Husband dogmatically said", I will be convinced that you are worth apologizing to.

What, precisely, is "rediculous" about that phrase? Your definition of "dogmatism" is such that any opinion or argument whatsoever (in fact just about any form of communication at all) qualifies as dogmatic. Are you claiming that you are exempt from this definition? Or are you admitting that it is so overbroad as to be useless? If you are dogmatic by your own definition, why are you so offended by me pointing out that fact?

Dogmatic Dale Husband said: Your failure to note Science Avenger's comment from the start was no one's fault but your own. If you were confused about anything I said, you could have said something like, "I don't recall mentioning FOX News, let alone suggesting you work for it. Who said that, if not me?" Then I would have told you.

How silly of me to assume that identifying me by name implied you were talking about me. In the future I will take into account the fact that you are incapable of comprehending that more than one person on the planet disagrees with you. Thank you for clearing that up. I was not confused by what you said. It looked quite clear that you were attributing to me comments I had not made. That is what the plain text of your rant implied. Doing such a thing is dishonest. If you did not intend to do such a thing, then you expressed yourself very badly, and my making fun of your dogmatic insistence on a rediculously broad definition of dogmatism does not change that fact.

Dogmatic Dale Husband said: I myself criticize religion when I think it proper to do so, usually in the context of slamming Creationists and their lies and stupidities. I have done it many times even here. So, again, your objections are pointless.

So, I'm only allowed to criticize religion when YOU think it's "proper"? Why, exactly, should I give a flying fuck what you think is proper? If you had anything close to a reasonable argument for your version of propriety that would be a start, but I have seen no such argument. All I've seen is you whining about how horrible it is that everyone other than you is so "dogmatic", when you're the most dogmatic person in this thread. You haven't specified under what circumstances you consider it proper to criticize religion, nor why I should care. When someone says that I deserve to be tortured for all eternity for not sacrificing my brain and my humanity to their god, I consider it proper to criticize them. When someone says that the bible is the literal word of god, I consider it proper to point out that it actually says some pretty sick, insane, and contradictory things. When someone claims to have magical powers, I consider it proper to ask them to demonstrate those powers, preferably in a way that would help others in need, and I consider it proper to criticize them when they refuse to put their alleged powers to the test. When someone insists on making claims not supported by their own references, I consider it proper to criticize them for that. When someone says something that is false, and that they should know by now is false, I consider it proper to call them a liar.

John Wilkes Kwok said: What makes you think I believe in an "invisible man in the sky that conveniently leaves not a single trace of its existence"? Haven't you realized yet that I am a firm believer in Klingon Cosmology? So if I believe in that, then it's obvious I don't believe in an "invisible man in the sky".

John Wilkes Kwok said: It has been pointed out to you hear that one of the greatest biologists of the 20th Century, evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, was a devout Christian. If he could distinguish clearly between his science and his faith, then why couldn't I, a much lesser mortal, do likewise?

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: What makes you think I believe in an "invisible man in the sky that conveniently leaves not a single trace of its existence"? Haven't you realized yet that I am a firm believer in Klingon Cosmology? So if I believe in that, then it's obvious I don't believe in an "invisible man in the sky".

You have claimed to be a Deist. As I understand it, deism posits a non-interventionist god, that does not show itself or affect the world in any way. Thus, an invisible man who conveniently leaves no trace. If, in fact, you believe in Klingon Cosmology, then you are an atheist, as the Klingons have no gods, they found them to be more trouble than they were worth. As I recall, the story is that the gods were too weak and were destroyed by the mighty heartbeats of the first Klingons. :P

John Wilkes Kwok said: It has been pointed out to you hear that one of the greatest biologists of the 20th Century, evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, was a devout Christian. If he could distinguish clearly between his science and his faith, then why couldn't I, a much lesser mortal, do likewise?

I never claimed you could not distinguish between science and faith. Apparently, like Dogmatic Dale, you are incapable of comprehending the fact that more than one person on the planet disagrees with you. I have, however, concluded that you are unable to separate science (or, for that matter, anything) from your compulsive name-dropping and bizarre obsessive verbal tics.

phantomreader42 said: I have, however, concluded that you are unable to separate science (or, for that matter, anything) from your compulsive name-dropping and bizarre obsessive verbal tics.

phantomreader42 said: Apparently, like Dogmatic Dale, you are incapable of comprehending the fact that more than one person on the planet disagrees with you.

John Wilkes Kwok said: Didn't know that whether one does or doesn't agree with either myself or Dale (or others who are in agreement here and elsewhere with us) is a subject worthy of a democratic election:

phantomreader42 said: Apparently, like Dogmatic Dale, you are incapable of comprehending the fact that more than one person on the planet disagrees with you.

Since when were you appointed the official "Speaker" of Panda's Thumb, urging others to "vote" in a manner which you and your fellow Fundamentalist New Atheist barbarians would approve of?

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Didn't know that whether one does or doesn't agree with either myself or Dale (or others who are in agreement here and elsewhere with us) is a subject worthy of a democratic election:

phantomreader42 said: Apparently, like Dogmatic Dale, you are incapable of comprehending the fact that more than one person on the planet disagrees with you.

Since when were you appointed the official "Speaker" of Panda's Thumb, urging others to "vote" in a manner which you and your fellow Fundamentalist New Atheist barbarians would approve of?

The only one here who mentioned a "vote" was you. The only one who pretended to have the authority to tell other people what they can and cannot say was Dogmatic Dale. You're incoherent and delusional.

John Wilkes Kwok said: Yours is the observation of a most sanctimonious hypocrite:

phantomreader42 said: I have, however, concluded that you are unable to separate science (or, for that matter, anything) from your compulsive name-dropping and bizarre obsessive verbal tics.

An observation I'll remember the next time you pledge your fealty to your New Atheist apostle, one Paul Zachary the Great of the clan Myers.

John Wilkes Kwok said: And of course by asserting that it's a "popularity contest" that you claim that there is no "voting" here. Speaking of absurdity, thy name is you phantom-twit. You're the one who is both incoherent and delusional, especially given your bizarre rants and raves against Dale and myself:

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Didn't know that whether one does or doesn't agree with either myself or Dale (or others who are in agreement here and elsewhere with us) is a subject worthy of a democratic election:

phantomreader42 said: Apparently, like Dogmatic Dale, you are incapable of comprehending the fact that more than one person on the planet disagrees with you.

Since when were you appointed the official "Speaker" of Panda's Thumb, urging others to "vote" in a manner which you and your fellow Fundamentalist New Atheist barbarians would approve of?

The only one here who mentioned a "vote" was you. The only one who pretended to have the authority to tell other people what they can and cannot say was Dogmatic Dale. You're incoherent and delusional.

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Yours is the observation of a most sanctimonious hypocrite:

phantomreader42 said: I have, however, concluded that you are unable to separate science (or, for that matter, anything) from your compulsive name-dropping and bizarre obsessive verbal tics.

An observation I'll remember the next time you pledge your fealty to your New Atheist apostle, one Paul Zachary the Great of the clan Myers.

You really, really need to get over this obsession you have with PZ Myers. It's not healthy. Pretending that atheism is a religion devoted to the worship of PZ is something a psychotic creotard with severe brain damage would do. Have you really gone so insane that you can't see how far you've sunk?

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: And of course by asserting that it's a "popularity contest" that you claim that there is no "voting" here. Speaking of absurdity, thy name is you phantom-twit. You're the one who is both incoherent and delusional, especially given your bizarre rants and raves against Dale and myself:

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Didn't know that whether one does or doesn't agree with either myself or Dale (or others who are in agreement here and elsewhere with us) is a subject worthy of a democratic election:

phantomreader42 said: Apparently, like Dogmatic Dale, you are incapable of comprehending the fact that more than one person on the planet disagrees with you.

Since when were you appointed the official "Speaker" of Panda's Thumb, urging others to "vote" in a manner which you and your fellow Fundamentalist New Atheist barbarians would approve of?

The only one here who mentioned a "vote" was you. The only one who pretended to have the authority to tell other people what they can and cannot say was Dogmatic Dale. You're incoherent and delusional.

Again, I did not at any time mention a "popularity contest". Are you making shit up or are you actually hallucinating posts that I never made? Are you crazy or a liar, or, as seems more likely with every post you make, both? When I say that you are incapable of comprehending that more than one person on the planet disagrees with you, I am referring to the fact that you treat everyone who disagrees with you as a single monolithic mass, with no distinctions between them, acting as if they are all in total lockstep and blaming each for the statments of all others, as if they were all one person. I am referring to the fact that you rant at me for things other people said, without any apparent recognition that I was not the one who said them. The fact that you cannot seem to comprehend is that there are multiple people who disagree with you, and these people are not clones of each other, or mindless zombie slaves of PZ Myers, but actual living human beings, separate individuals who have their own thoughts.

phantomreader42 said: When I say that you are incapable of comprehending that more than one person on the planet disagrees with you, I am referring to the fact that you treat everyone who disagrees with you as a single monolithic mass, with no distinctions between them, acting as if they are all in total lockstep and blaming each for the statments of all others, as if they were all one person. I am referring to the fact that you rant at me for things other people said, without any apparent recognition that I was not the one who said them. The fact that you cannot seem to comprehend is that there are multiple people who disagree with you, and these people are not clones of each other, or mindless zombie slaves of PZ Myers, but actual living human beings, separate individuals who have their own thoughts.

John Wilkes Kwok said: What obsession? That it is both fair and reasonable to note that, by his own admission, he is a mediocre biologist, delights in engaging in frat-boy antics, and, were it not for Pharynugla, that no one would have been interested in him, period? Sorry, phantom-twit, these are fair observations to make (along with the sad, but true, one declaring that Pharyngula is an intellectual cesspool, especially in light of the fact that he tolerated a "joke" about wanting to "fuck" and to stab others with a rusty knife). Now if I were making them each and every second of my adult waking life, then that would demonstrate that I am suffering an obsession about him. Hate to disappoint you phantom-twit, but have a lot more important obligations and interests to contend with than worrying about PZ. More than once I have noted here and elsewhere, in reponse to delusional, intellectually-challenged Pharyngulie trolls like yourself, that I couldn't care that he has banned me at Pharyngula or that I really don't want expensive Leica photographic equipment from him. But again and again, you and other Pharyngulites bring it up as though I spent my every waking moment thinking of how I'd get reinstated at Pharyngula or get the Leica photographic equipment which PZ owes me. Since I get these very questions again, and again, could it be that those who are obsessed about PZ are the very ones accusing me of such an obsession? I think so. You ought to deal with your own PZ Myers obsession phantom-twit before worrying about mine (On a somewhat different, but related, subject, I will never think of asking PZ for reinstatement at his blog (or any other blog I have been banned from). That pledge stands in stark contrast with Ophelia Benson's pathetic effort at getting reinstated over at The Intersection (And before you comment further about my own banishment from there, I've already told Sheril and a mutual friend of ours that I have no interest in making a similar demand of her and Chris Mooney.).

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Yours is the observation of a most sanctimonious hypocrite:

phantomreader42 said: I have, however, concluded that you are unable to separate science (or, for that matter, anything) from your compulsive name-dropping and bizarre obsessive verbal tics.

An observation I'll remember the next time you pledge your fealty to your New Atheist apostle, one Paul Zachary the Great of the clan Myers.

You really, really need to get over this obsession you have with PZ Myers. It's not healthy. Pretending that atheism is a religion devoted to the worship of PZ is something a psychotic creotard with severe brain damage would do. Have you really gone so insane that you can't see how far you've sunk?

John Wilkes Kwok said: Go get a life please. Has it occurred to you at all that I might be sarcastic, merely to lump you in with each and every delusional Pharyngulite troll who drives by here:

phantomreader42 said: When I say that you are incapable of comprehending that more than one person on the planet disagrees with you, I am referring to the fact that you treat everyone who disagrees with you as a single monolithic mass, with no distinctions between them, acting as if they are all in total lockstep and blaming each for the statments of all others, as if they were all one person. I am referring to the fact that you rant at me for things other people said, without any apparent recognition that I was not the one who said them. The fact that you cannot seem to comprehend is that there are multiple people who disagree with you, and these people are not clones of each other, or mindless zombie slaves of PZ Myers, but actual living human beings, separate individuals who have their own thoughts.

You're hopeless and in dire need of assistance. Have a good day.

phantomreader42 said: Oh, so you say you have more important things to think about than PZ Myers? Then why did you feel compelled to whine about him when it was totally irrelevant? No one is forcing you to screech at the top of your lungs about PZ, and blame him for everyone that dares question you, that's all your decision. If you don't care about Pharyngula, why keep babbling about a comment made there months ago, that no one but you is still obsessed with? If you don't care about being banned from the Intersection, why even bring it up? What relevance does it have? I didn't mention the ridiculous incident with the Leica. YOU did. Why would you do that, if, as you claim, it's of so little importance to you? Scanning back through this thread, YOU were the first person to mention Pharyngula, YOU were the first person to mention that old comment that you claim was a "rape threat", YOU were the first person to mention PZ. It wasn't me. It wasn't PZ. It wasn't one of the other people who disagrees with you that you seem incapable of distinguishing from me and PZ, it was YOU. So, if you have more important things to do than obsess over PZ, why don't you go do them?

John Wilkes Kwok said: What obsession? That it is both fair and reasonable to note that, by his own admission, he is a mediocre biologist, delights in engaging in frat-boy antics, and, were it not for Pharynugla, that no one would have been interested in him, period? Sorry, phantom-twit, these are fair observations to make (along with the sad, but true, one declaring that Pharyngula is an intellectual cesspool, especially in light of the fact that he tolerated a "joke" about wanting to "fuck" and to stab others with a rusty knife). Now if I were making them each and every second of my adult waking life, then that would demonstrate that I am suffering an obsession about him. Hate to disappoint you phantom-twit, but have a lot more important obligations and interests to contend with than worrying about PZ. More than once I have noted here and elsewhere, in reponse to delusional, intellectually-challenged Pharyngulie trolls like yourself, that I couldn't care that he has banned me at Pharyngula or that I really don't want expensive Leica photographic equipment from him. But again and again, you and other Pharyngulites bring it up as though I spent my every waking moment thinking of how I'd get reinstated at Pharyngula or get the Leica photographic equipment which PZ owes me. Since I get these very questions again, and again, could it be that those who are obsessed about PZ are the very ones accusing me of such an obsession? I think so. You ought to deal with your own PZ Myers obsession phantom-twit before worrying about mine (On a somewhat different, but related, subject, I will never think of asking PZ for reinstatement at his blog (or any other blog I have been banned from). That pledge stands in stark contrast with Ophelia Benson's pathetic effort at getting reinstated over at The Intersection (And before you comment further about my own banishment from there, I've already told Sheril and a mutual friend of ours that I have no interest in making a similar demand of her and Chris Mooney.).

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Yours is the observation of a most sanctimonious hypocrite:

phantomreader42 said: I have, however, concluded that you are unable to separate science (or, for that matter, anything) from your compulsive name-dropping and bizarre obsessive verbal tics.

An observation I'll remember the next time you pledge your fealty to your New Atheist apostle, one Paul Zachary the Great of the clan Myers.

You really, really need to get over this obsession you have with PZ Myers. It's not healthy. Pretending that atheism is a religion devoted to the worship of PZ is something a psychotic creotard with severe brain damage would do. Have you really gone so insane that you can't see how far you've sunk?

phantomreader42 said: Oh, I see. You were knowingly and deliberately attributing comments to me that I did not make. You're a liar. Thanks for clearing that up.

John Wilkes Kwok said: Go get a life please. Has it occurred to you at all that I might be sarcastic, merely to lump you in with each and every delusional Pharyngulite troll who drives by here:

phantomreader42 said: When I say that you are incapable of comprehending that more than one person on the planet disagrees with you, I am referring to the fact that you treat everyone who disagrees with you as a single monolithic mass, with no distinctions between them, acting as if they are all in total lockstep and blaming each for the statments of all others, as if they were all one person. I am referring to the fact that you rant at me for things other people said, without any apparent recognition that I was not the one who said them. The fact that you cannot seem to comprehend is that there are multiple people who disagree with you, and these people are not clones of each other, or mindless zombie slaves of PZ Myers, but actual living human beings, separate individuals who have their own thoughts.

You're hopeless and in dire need of assistance. Have a good day.

John Wilkes Kwok said: And how do you know it's not relevant? If I believe it is, then I'll mention it (And if it isn't, then I won't). I was going to ignore you now, but thought against it, merely because you are, like your fellow delusional Pharyngulites, interested only in hatred, in condemning those who don't agree with you, and, where possible, in smearing the reputations of critics whom you regard as offensive. Of course this is what you regard as "Democratic" and "Liberal" thought, but actually, as far more in common with what has transpired in the infamous "Socialist" dictatorships of the 20th and 21st Centuries. You're merely rambling way phantom-twit and again I wish you a good day. Just take the hint and shut up:

phantomreader42 said: Oh, so you say you have more important things to think about than PZ Myers? Then why did you feel compelled to whine about him when it was totally irrelevant? No one is forcing you to screech at the top of your lungs about PZ, and blame him for everyone that dares question you, that's all your decision. If you don't care about Pharyngula, why keep babbling about a comment made there months ago, that no one but you is still obsessed with? If you don't care about being banned from the Intersection, why even bring it up? What relevance does it have? I didn't mention the ridiculous incident with the Leica. YOU did. Why would you do that, if, as you claim, it's of so little importance to you? Scanning back through this thread, YOU were the first person to mention Pharyngula, YOU were the first person to mention that old comment that you claim was a "rape threat", YOU were the first person to mention PZ. It wasn't me. It wasn't PZ. It wasn't one of the other people who disagrees with you that you seem incapable of distinguishing from me and PZ, it was YOU. So, if you have more important things to do than obsess over PZ, why don't you go do them?

John Wilkes Kwok said: What obsession? That it is both fair and reasonable to note that, by his own admission, he is a mediocre biologist, delights in engaging in frat-boy antics, and, were it not for Pharynugla, that no one would have been interested in him, period? Sorry, phantom-twit, these are fair observations to make (along with the sad, but true, one declaring that Pharyngula is an intellectual cesspool, especially in light of the fact that he tolerated a "joke" about wanting to "fuck" and to stab others with a rusty knife). Now if I were making them each and every second of my adult waking life, then that would demonstrate that I am suffering an obsession about him. Hate to disappoint you phantom-twit, but have a lot more important obligations and interests to contend with than worrying about PZ. More than once I have noted here and elsewhere, in reponse to delusional, intellectually-challenged Pharyngulie trolls like yourself, that I couldn't care that he has banned me at Pharyngula or that I really don't want expensive Leica photographic equipment from him. But again and again, you and other Pharyngulites bring it up as though I spent my every waking moment thinking of how I'd get reinstated at Pharyngula or get the Leica photographic equipment which PZ owes me. Since I get these very questions again, and again, could it be that those who are obsessed about PZ are the very ones accusing me of such an obsession? I think so. You ought to deal with your own PZ Myers obsession phantom-twit before worrying about mine (On a somewhat different, but related, subject, I will never think of asking PZ for reinstatement at his blog (or any other blog I have been banned from). That pledge stands in stark contrast with Ophelia Benson's pathetic effort at getting reinstated over at The Intersection (And before you comment further about my own banishment from there, I've already told Sheril and a mutual friend of ours that I have no interest in making a similar demand of her and Chris Mooney.).

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Yours is the observation of a most sanctimonious hypocrite:

phantomreader42 said: I have, however, concluded that you are unable to separate science (or, for that matter, anything) from your compulsive name-dropping and bizarre obsessive verbal tics.

An observation I'll remember the next time you pledge your fealty to your New Atheist apostle, one Paul Zachary the Great of the clan Myers.

You really, really need to get over this obsession you have with PZ Myers. It's not healthy. Pretending that atheism is a religion devoted to the worship of PZ is something a psychotic creotard with severe brain damage would do. Have you really gone so insane that you can't see how far you've sunk?

phantomreader42 said: Ah, so you're back to the conspiracy theories and babbling about "socialism". How long until you throw in birfer bullshit or call for an assassination? Can you even wrap your mind around the concept that more than one person can think you're wrong without all of them being involved in a vast conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids?

John Wilkes Kwok said: And how do you know it's not relevant? If I believe it is, then I'll mention it (And if it isn't, then I won't). I was going to ignore you now, but thought against it, merely because you are, like your fellow delusional Pharyngulites, interested only in hatred, in condemning those who don't agree with you, and, where possible, in smearing the reputations of critics whom you regard as offensive. Of course this is what you regard as "Democratic" and "Liberal" thought, but actually, as far more in common with what has transpired in the infamous "Socialist" dictatorships of the 20th and 21st Centuries. You're merely rambling way phantom-twit and again I wish you a good day. Just take the hint and shut up:

phantomreader42 said: Oh, so you say you have more important things to think about than PZ Myers? Then why did you feel compelled to whine about him when it was totally irrelevant? No one is forcing you to screech at the top of your lungs about PZ, and blame him for everyone that dares question you, that's all your decision. If you don't care about Pharyngula, why keep babbling about a comment made there months ago, that no one but you is still obsessed with? If you don't care about being banned from the Intersection, why even bring it up? What relevance does it have? I didn't mention the ridiculous incident with the Leica. YOU did. Why would you do that, if, as you claim, it's of so little importance to you? Scanning back through this thread, YOU were the first person to mention Pharyngula, YOU were the first person to mention that old comment that you claim was a "rape threat", YOU were the first person to mention PZ. It wasn't me. It wasn't PZ. It wasn't one of the other people who disagrees with you that you seem incapable of distinguishing from me and PZ, it was YOU. So, if you have more important things to do than obsess over PZ, why don't you go do them?

John Wilkes Kwok said: What obsession? That it is both fair and reasonable to note that, by his own admission, he is a mediocre biologist, delights in engaging in frat-boy antics, and, were it not for Pharynugla, that no one would have been interested in him, period? Sorry, phantom-twit, these are fair observations to make (along with the sad, but true, one declaring that Pharyngula is an intellectual cesspool, especially in light of the fact that he tolerated a "joke" about wanting to "fuck" and to stab others with a rusty knife). Now if I were making them each and every second of my adult waking life, then that would demonstrate that I am suffering an obsession about him. Hate to disappoint you phantom-twit, but have a lot more important obligations and interests to contend with than worrying about PZ. More than once I have noted here and elsewhere, in reponse to delusional, intellectually-challenged Pharyngulie trolls like yourself, that I couldn't care that he has banned me at Pharyngula or that I really don't want expensive Leica photographic equipment from him. But again and again, you and other Pharyngulites bring it up as though I spent my every waking moment thinking of how I'd get reinstated at Pharyngula or get the Leica photographic equipment which PZ owes me. Since I get these very questions again, and again, could it be that those who are obsessed about PZ are the very ones accusing me of such an obsession? I think so. You ought to deal with your own PZ Myers obsession phantom-twit before worrying about mine (On a somewhat different, but related, subject, I will never think of asking PZ for reinstatement at his blog (or any other blog I have been banned from). That pledge stands in stark contrast with Ophelia Benson's pathetic effort at getting reinstated over at The Intersection (And before you comment further about my own banishment from there, I've already told Sheril and a mutual friend of ours that I have no interest in making a similar demand of her and Chris Mooney.).

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Yours is the observation of a most sanctimonious hypocrite:

phantomreader42 said: I have, however, concluded that you are unable to separate science (or, for that matter, anything) from your compulsive name-dropping and bizarre obsessive verbal tics.

An observation I'll remember the next time you pledge your fealty to your New Atheist apostle, one Paul Zachary the Great of the clan Myers.

You really, really need to get over this obsession you have with PZ Myers. It's not healthy. Pretending that atheism is a religion devoted to the worship of PZ is something a psychotic creotard with severe brain damage would do. Have you really gone so insane that you can't see how far you've sunk?

John Wilkes Kwok said: Go get a life please. Has it occurred to you at all that I might be sarcastic, merely to lump you in with each and every delusional Pharyngulite troll who drives by here:

phantomreader42 said: When I say that you are incapable of comprehending that more than one person on the planet disagrees with you, I am referring to the fact that you treat everyone who disagrees with you as a single monolithic mass, with no distinctions between them, acting as if they are all in total lockstep and blaming each for the statments of all others, as if they were all one person. I am referring to the fact that you rant at me for things other people said, without any apparent recognition that I was not the one who said them. The fact that you cannot seem to comprehend is that there are multiple people who disagree with you, and these people are not clones of each other, or mindless zombie slaves of PZ Myers, but actual living human beings, separate individuals who have their own thoughts.

You're hopeless and in dire need of assistance. Have a good day.

John Kwok said: Study your history moron. Germany was a totalitarian state from 1932 to 1945 ruled by the National Socialist (Nazi) Party. From November 1917 through October 1990, Russia was known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), ruled by a Marxist - Leninist Communist Dictatorship. As for "conspiracy theories", you've forgotten that I rejected long ago the wingnut "Birther" contention that Obama was born in East Africa. And do you honestly think I would condone anything even remotely resembling assassination, when two of the key advisors of the President of the United States, senior White House advisor David Axelrod and United States Attorney General Eric Holder are prominent alumni of our high school alma mater here in New York City? You've lost any semblance of rationality phantom-twit. Have a good day and take a break from posting here. I will, since I have other, more important, issues to contend with:

phantomreader42 said: Ah, so you're back to the conspiracy theories and babbling about "socialism". How long until you throw in birfer bullshit or call for an assassination? Can you even wrap your mind around the concept that more than one person can think you're wrong without all of them being involved in a vast conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids?

John Wilkes Kwok said: And how do you know it's not relevant? If I believe it is, then I'll mention it (And if it isn't, then I won't). I was going to ignore you now, but thought against it, merely because you are, like your fellow delusional Pharyngulites, interested only in hatred, in condemning those who don't agree with you, and, where possible, in smearing the reputations of critics whom you regard as offensive. Of course this is what you regard as "Democratic" and "Liberal" thought, but actually, as far more in common with what has transpired in the infamous "Socialist" dictatorships of the 20th and 21st Centuries. You're merely rambling way phantom-twit and again I wish you a good day. Just take the hint and shut up:

phantomreader42 said: Oh, so you say you have more important things to think about than PZ Myers? Then why did you feel compelled to whine about him when it was totally irrelevant? No one is forcing you to screech at the top of your lungs about PZ, and blame him for everyone that dares question you, that's all your decision. If you don't care about Pharyngula, why keep babbling about a comment made there months ago, that no one but you is still obsessed with? If you don't care about being banned from the Intersection, why even bring it up? What relevance does it have? I didn't mention the ridiculous incident with the Leica. YOU did. Why would you do that, if, as you claim, it's of so little importance to you? Scanning back through this thread, YOU were the first person to mention Pharyngula, YOU were the first person to mention that old comment that you claim was a "rape threat", YOU were the first person to mention PZ. It wasn't me. It wasn't PZ. It wasn't one of the other people who disagrees with you that you seem incapable of distinguishing from me and PZ, it was YOU. So, if you have more important things to do than obsess over PZ, why don't you go do them?

John Wilkes Kwok said: What obsession? That it is both fair and reasonable to note that, by his own admission, he is a mediocre biologist, delights in engaging in frat-boy antics, and, were it not for Pharynugla, that no one would have been interested in him, period? Sorry, phantom-twit, these are fair observations to make (along with the sad, but true, one declaring that Pharyngula is an intellectual cesspool, especially in light of the fact that he tolerated a "joke" about wanting to "fuck" and to stab others with a rusty knife). Now if I were making them each and every second of my adult waking life, then that would demonstrate that I am suffering an obsession about him. Hate to disappoint you phantom-twit, but have a lot more important obligations and interests to contend with than worrying about PZ. More than once I have noted here and elsewhere, in reponse to delusional, intellectually-challenged Pharyngulie trolls like yourself, that I couldn't care that he has banned me at Pharyngula or that I really don't want expensive Leica photographic equipment from him. But again and again, you and other Pharyngulites bring it up as though I spent my every waking moment thinking of how I'd get reinstated at Pharyngula or get the Leica photographic equipment which PZ owes me. Since I get these very questions again, and again, could it be that those who are obsessed about PZ are the very ones accusing me of such an obsession? I think so. You ought to deal with your own PZ Myers obsession phantom-twit before worrying about mine (On a somewhat different, but related, subject, I will never think of asking PZ for reinstatement at his blog (or any other blog I have been banned from). That pledge stands in stark contrast with Ophelia Benson's pathetic effort at getting reinstated over at The Intersection (And before you comment further about my own banishment from there, I've already told Sheril and a mutual friend of ours that I have no interest in making a similar demand of her and Chris Mooney.).

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Yours is the observation of a most sanctimonious hypocrite:

phantomreader42 said: I have, however, concluded that you are unable to separate science (or, for that matter, anything) from your compulsive name-dropping and bizarre obsessive verbal tics.

An observation I'll remember the next time you pledge your fealty to your New Atheist apostle, one Paul Zachary the Great of the clan Myers.

You really, really need to get over this obsession you have with PZ Myers. It's not healthy. Pretending that atheism is a religion devoted to the worship of PZ is something a psychotic creotard with severe brain damage would do. Have you really gone so insane that you can't see how far you've sunk?

John Wilkes Kwok said: Study your history moron. Germany was a totalitarian state from 1932 to 1945 ruled by the National Socialist (Nazi) Party. From November 1917 through October 1990, Russia was known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), ruled by a Marxist - Leninist Communist Dictatorship. As for "conspiracy theories", you've forgotten that I rejected long ago the wingnut "Birther" contention that Obama was born in East Africa. And do you honestly think I would condone anything even remotely resembling assassination, when two of the key advisors of the President of the United States, senior White House advisor David Axelrod and United States Attorney General Eric Holder are prominent alumni of our high school alma mater here in New York City? You've lost any semblance of rationality phantom-twit. Have a good day and take a break from posting here. I will, since I have other, more important, issues to contend with:

phantomreader42 said: Ah, so you're back to the conspiracy theories and babbling about "socialism". How long until you throw in birfer bullshit or call for an assassination? Can you even wrap your mind around the concept that more than one person can think you're wrong without all of them being involved in a vast conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids?

John Wilkes Kwok said: And how do you know it's not relevant? If I believe it is, then I'll mention it (And if it isn't, then I won't). I was going to ignore you now, but thought against it, merely because you are, like your fellow delusional Pharyngulites, interested only in hatred, in condemning those who don't agree with you, and, where possible, in smearing the reputations of critics whom you regard as offensive. Of course this is what you regard as "Democratic" and "Liberal" thought, but actually, as far more in common with what has transpired in the infamous "Socialist" dictatorships of the 20th and 21st Centuries. You're merely rambling way phantom-twit and again I wish you a good day. Just take the hint and shut up:

phantomreader42 said: Oh, so you say you have more important things to think about than PZ Myers? Then why did you feel compelled to whine about him when it was totally irrelevant? No one is forcing you to screech at the top of your lungs about PZ, and blame him for everyone that dares question you, that's all your decision. If you don't care about Pharyngula, why keep babbling about a comment made there months ago, that no one but you is still obsessed with? If you don't care about being banned from the Intersection, why even bring it up? What relevance does it have? I didn't mention the ridiculous incident with the Leica. YOU did. Why would you do that, if, as you claim, it's of so little importance to you? Scanning back through this thread, YOU were the first person to mention Pharyngula, YOU were the first person to mention that old comment that you claim was a "rape threat", YOU were the first person to mention PZ. It wasn't me. It wasn't PZ. It wasn't one of the other people who disagrees with you that you seem incapable of distinguishing from me and PZ, it was YOU. So, if you have more important things to do than obsess over PZ, why don't you go do them?

John Wilkes Kwok said: What obsession? That it is both fair and reasonable to note that, by his own admission, he is a mediocre biologist, delights in engaging in frat-boy antics, and, were it not for Pharynugla, that no one would have been interested in him, period? Sorry, phantom-twit, these are fair observations to make (along with the sad, but true, one declaring that Pharyngula is an intellectual cesspool, especially in light of the fact that he tolerated a "joke" about wanting to "fuck" and to stab others with a rusty knife). Now if I were making them each and every second of my adult waking life, then that would demonstrate that I am suffering an obsession about him. Hate to disappoint you phantom-twit, but have a lot more important obligations and interests to contend with than worrying about PZ. More than once I have noted here and elsewhere, in reponse to delusional, intellectually-challenged Pharyngulie trolls like yourself, that I couldn't care that he has banned me at Pharyngula or that I really don't want expensive Leica photographic equipment from him. But again and again, you and other Pharyngulites bring it up as though I spent my every waking moment thinking of how I'd get reinstated at Pharyngula or get the Leica photographic equipment which PZ owes me. Since I get these very questions again, and again, could it be that those who are obsessed about PZ are the very ones accusing me of such an obsession? I think so. You ought to deal with your own PZ Myers obsession phantom-twit before worrying about mine (On a somewhat different, but related, subject, I will never think of asking PZ for reinstatement at his blog (or any other blog I have been banned from). That pledge stands in stark contrast with Ophelia Benson's pathetic effort at getting reinstated over at The Intersection (And before you comment further about my own banishment from there, I've already told Sheril and a mutual friend of ours that I have no interest in making a similar demand of her and Chris Mooney.).

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Yours is the observation of a most sanctimonious hypocrite:

phantomreader42 said: I have, however, concluded that you are unable to separate science (or, for that matter, anything) from your compulsive name-dropping and bizarre obsessive verbal tics.

An observation I'll remember the next time you pledge your fealty to your New Atheist apostle, one Paul Zachary the Great of the clan Myers.

You really, really need to get over this obsession you have with PZ Myers. It's not healthy. Pretending that atheism is a religion devoted to the worship of PZ is something a psychotic creotard with severe brain damage would do. Have you really gone so insane that you can't see how far you've sunk?

phantomreader42 said: Sarcasm is supposed to be humorous. What you said was not funny, it did not even come close to being funny, it was just you randomly accusing me of saying something I did not say. Sarcasm is supposed to be over-the-top, but you don't seem to have an over-the-top setting, given that you, apparently in all seriousness, wrote to a certain well-known blogger demanding expensive camera equipment, and accused the President of the United States of running some kind of vast socialist conspiracy. If you were attempting sarcasm, you failed miserably.

John Wilkes Kwok said: Go get a life please. Has it occurred to you at all that I might be sarcastic, merely to lump you in with each and every delusional Pharyngulite troll who drives by here:

phantomreader42 said: When I say that you are incapable of comprehending that more than one person on the planet disagrees with you, I am referring to the fact that you treat everyone who disagrees with you as a single monolithic mass, with no distinctions between them, acting as if they are all in total lockstep and blaming each for the statments of all others, as if they were all one person. I am referring to the fact that you rant at me for things other people said, without any apparent recognition that I was not the one who said them. The fact that you cannot seem to comprehend is that there are multiple people who disagree with you, and these people are not clones of each other, or mindless zombie slaves of PZ Myers, but actual living human beings, separate individuals who have their own thoughts.

You're hopeless and in dire need of assistance. Have a good day.

phantomreader42 said: Oh, come on! Bringing up your high school again? People, are we sure Kwok isn't just some sort of elaborate hoax? Because I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that a human being this insane is capable of feeding himself and operating a computer. And yeah, the Nazis were socialist, just like North Korea is a democracy and China is a republic, and socialism conveniently has no definition beyond "whatever boogeyman the right wing is screeching about today". And the commies and the Nazis all loved each other, that whole thing about going to war was just a smokescreen to throw people off the scent of their vast conspiracy to put a center-right politician in the White House decades after they were all dead. See, THAT'S how you do sarcasm.

John Wilkes Kwok said: Study your history moron. Germany was a totalitarian state from 1932 to 1945 ruled by the National Socialist (Nazi) Party. From November 1917 through October 1990, Russia was known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), ruled by a Marxist - Leninist Communist Dictatorship. As for "conspiracy theories", you've forgotten that I rejected long ago the wingnut "Birther" contention that Obama was born in East Africa. And do you honestly think I would condone anything even remotely resembling assassination, when two of the key advisors of the President of the United States, senior White House advisor David Axelrod and United States Attorney General Eric Holder are prominent alumni of our high school alma mater here in New York City? You've lost any semblance of rationality phantom-twit. Have a good day and take a break from posting here. I will, since I have other, more important, issues to contend with:

phantomreader42 said: Ah, so you're back to the conspiracy theories and babbling about "socialism". How long until you throw in birfer bullshit or call for an assassination? Can you even wrap your mind around the concept that more than one person can think you're wrong without all of them being involved in a vast conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids?

John Wilkes Kwok said: And how do you know it's not relevant? If I believe it is, then I'll mention it (And if it isn't, then I won't). I was going to ignore you now, but thought against it, merely because you are, like your fellow delusional Pharyngulites, interested only in hatred, in condemning those who don't agree with you, and, where possible, in smearing the reputations of critics whom you regard as offensive. Of course this is what you regard as "Democratic" and "Liberal" thought, but actually, as far more in common with what has transpired in the infamous "Socialist" dictatorships of the 20th and 21st Centuries. You're merely rambling way phantom-twit and again I wish you a good day. Just take the hint and shut up:

phantomreader42 said: Oh, so you say you have more important things to think about than PZ Myers? Then why did you feel compelled to whine about him when it was totally irrelevant? No one is forcing you to screech at the top of your lungs about PZ, and blame him for everyone that dares question you, that's all your decision. If you don't care about Pharyngula, why keep babbling about a comment made there months ago, that no one but you is still obsessed with? If you don't care about being banned from the Intersection, why even bring it up? What relevance does it have? I didn't mention the ridiculous incident with the Leica. YOU did. Why would you do that, if, as you claim, it's of so little importance to you? Scanning back through this thread, YOU were the first person to mention Pharyngula, YOU were the first person to mention that old comment that you claim was a "rape threat", YOU were the first person to mention PZ. It wasn't me. It wasn't PZ. It wasn't one of the other people who disagrees with you that you seem incapable of distinguishing from me and PZ, it was YOU. So, if you have more important things to do than obsess over PZ, why don't you go do them?

John Wilkes Kwok said: What obsession? That it is both fair and reasonable to note that, by his own admission, he is a mediocre biologist, delights in engaging in frat-boy antics, and, were it not for Pharynugla, that no one would have been interested in him, period? Sorry, phantom-twit, these are fair observations to make (along with the sad, but true, one declaring that Pharyngula is an intellectual cesspool, especially in light of the fact that he tolerated a "joke" about wanting to "fuck" and to stab others with a rusty knife). Now if I were making them each and every second of my adult waking life, then that would demonstrate that I am suffering an obsession about him. Hate to disappoint you phantom-twit, but have a lot more important obligations and interests to contend with than worrying about PZ. More than once I have noted here and elsewhere, in reponse to delusional, intellectually-challenged Pharyngulie trolls like yourself, that I couldn't care that he has banned me at Pharyngula or that I really don't want expensive Leica photographic equipment from him. But again and again, you and other Pharyngulites bring it up as though I spent my every waking moment thinking of how I'd get reinstated at Pharyngula or get the Leica photographic equipment which PZ owes me. Since I get these very questions again, and again, could it be that those who are obsessed about PZ are the very ones accusing me of such an obsession? I think so. You ought to deal with your own PZ Myers obsession phantom-twit before worrying about mine (On a somewhat different, but related, subject, I will never think of asking PZ for reinstatement at his blog (or any other blog I have been banned from). That pledge stands in stark contrast with Ophelia Benson's pathetic effort at getting reinstated over at The Intersection (And before you comment further about my own banishment from there, I've already told Sheril and a mutual friend of ours that I have no interest in making a similar demand of her and Chris Mooney.).

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Yours is the observation of a most sanctimonious hypocrite:

phantomreader42 said: I have, however, concluded that you are unable to separate science (or, for that matter, anything) from your compulsive name-dropping and bizarre obsessive verbal tics.

An observation I'll remember the next time you pledge your fealty to your New Atheist apostle, one Paul Zachary the Great of the clan Myers.

You really, really need to get over this obsession you have with PZ Myers. It's not healthy. Pretending that atheism is a religion devoted to the worship of PZ is something a psychotic creotard with severe brain damage would do. Have you really gone so insane that you can't see how far you've sunk?

John Wilkes Kwok said: They're both fellow alumni, and I know, from someone active in alumni affairs, that at least one has been quite active in that as well. Why don't you look up their biographies to see that I'm telling the truth. But of course you won't, since you'd rather believe every insane lie you can think of about me. Good luck in assuming room temperature soon. At least you can do your part by helping to reduce the world's surplus population of mentally defective internet trolls such as yourself:

phantomreader42 said: Oh, come on! Bringing up your high school again? People, are we sure Kwok isn't just some sort of elaborate hoax? Because I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that a human being this insane is capable of feeding himself and operating a computer. And yeah, the Nazis were socialist, just like North Korea is a democracy and China is a republic, and socialism conveniently has no definition beyond "whatever boogeyman the right wing is screeching about today". And the commies and the Nazis all loved each other, that whole thing about going to war was just a smokescreen to throw people off the scent of their vast conspiracy to put a center-right politician in the White House decades after they were all dead. See, THAT'S how you do sarcasm.

John Wilkes Kwok said: Study your history moron. Germany was a totalitarian state from 1932 to 1945 ruled by the National Socialist (Nazi) Party. From November 1917 through October 1990, Russia was known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), ruled by a Marxist - Leninist Communist Dictatorship. As for "conspiracy theories", you've forgotten that I rejected long ago the wingnut "Birther" contention that Obama was born in East Africa. And do you honestly think I would condone anything even remotely resembling assassination, when two of the key advisors of the President of the United States, senior White House advisor David Axelrod and United States Attorney General Eric Holder are prominent alumni of our high school alma mater here in New York City? You've lost any semblance of rationality phantom-twit. Have a good day and take a break from posting here. I will, since I have other, more important, issues to contend with:

phantomreader42 said: Ah, so you're back to the conspiracy theories and babbling about "socialism". How long until you throw in birfer bullshit or call for an assassination? Can you even wrap your mind around the concept that more than one person can think you're wrong without all of them being involved in a vast conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids?

John Wilkes Kwok said: And how do you know it's not relevant? If I believe it is, then I'll mention it (And if it isn't, then I won't). I was going to ignore you now, but thought against it, merely because you are, like your fellow delusional Pharyngulites, interested only in hatred, in condemning those who don't agree with you, and, where possible, in smearing the reputations of critics whom you regard as offensive. Of course this is what you regard as "Democratic" and "Liberal" thought, but actually, as far more in common with what has transpired in the infamous "Socialist" dictatorships of the 20th and 21st Centuries. You're merely rambling way phantom-twit and again I wish you a good day. Just take the hint and shut up:

phantomreader42 said: Oh, so you say you have more important things to think about than PZ Myers? Then why did you feel compelled to whine about him when it was totally irrelevant? No one is forcing you to screech at the top of your lungs about PZ, and blame him for everyone that dares question you, that's all your decision. If you don't care about Pharyngula, why keep babbling about a comment made there months ago, that no one but you is still obsessed with? If you don't care about being banned from the Intersection, why even bring it up? What relevance does it have? I didn't mention the ridiculous incident with the Leica. YOU did. Why would you do that, if, as you claim, it's of so little importance to you? Scanning back through this thread, YOU were the first person to mention Pharyngula, YOU were the first person to mention that old comment that you claim was a "rape threat", YOU were the first person to mention PZ. It wasn't me. It wasn't PZ. It wasn't one of the other people who disagrees with you that you seem incapable of distinguishing from me and PZ, it was YOU. So, if you have more important things to do than obsess over PZ, why don't you go do them?

John Wilkes Kwok said: What obsession? That it is both fair and reasonable to note that, by his own admission, he is a mediocre biologist, delights in engaging in frat-boy antics, and, were it not for Pharynugla, that no one would have been interested in him, period? Sorry, phantom-twit, these are fair observations to make (along with the sad, but true, one declaring that Pharyngula is an intellectual cesspool, especially in light of the fact that he tolerated a "joke" about wanting to "fuck" and to stab others with a rusty knife). Now if I were making them each and every second of my adult waking life, then that would demonstrate that I am suffering an obsession about him. Hate to disappoint you phantom-twit, but have a lot more important obligations and interests to contend with than worrying about PZ. More than once I have noted here and elsewhere, in reponse to delusional, intellectually-challenged Pharyngulie trolls like yourself, that I couldn't care that he has banned me at Pharyngula or that I really don't want expensive Leica photographic equipment from him. But again and again, you and other Pharyngulites bring it up as though I spent my every waking moment thinking of how I'd get reinstated at Pharyngula or get the Leica photographic equipment which PZ owes me. Since I get these very questions again, and again, could it be that those who are obsessed about PZ are the very ones accusing me of such an obsession? I think so. You ought to deal with your own PZ Myers obsession phantom-twit before worrying about mine (On a somewhat different, but related, subject, I will never think of asking PZ for reinstatement at his blog (or any other blog I have been banned from). That pledge stands in stark contrast with Ophelia Benson's pathetic effort at getting reinstated over at The Intersection (And before you comment further about my own banishment from there, I've already told Sheril and a mutual friend of ours that I have no interest in making a similar demand of her and Chris Mooney.).

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Yours is the observation of a most sanctimonious hypocrite:

phantomreader42 said: I have, however, concluded that you are unable to separate science (or, for that matter, anything) from your compulsive name-dropping and bizarre obsessive verbal tics.

An observation I'll remember the next time you pledge your fealty to your New Atheist apostle, one Paul Zachary the Great of the clan Myers.

You really, really need to get over this obsession you have with PZ Myers. It's not healthy. Pretending that atheism is a religion devoted to the worship of PZ is something a psychotic creotard with severe brain damage would do. Have you really gone so insane that you can't see how far you've sunk?

(sigh)

So anyway, about these DI word games...

It's like when Deep Thought asks the philosophers what they mean by the question "Life, the Universe, and Everything".

"Yes, but what exactly is it?"

"You know, just everything!"

I love the excerpts posted in the AtBC forums, lots of insistence that "it's a theory that life was designed!". Yes, but, what, exactly is it? Without the 5W's, it's not a theory, it's just a hunch. Or more accurately a rationalization.

phantomreader42 said: Whether or not Presidential advisors went to your high school is totally irrelevant. It's so irrelevant that there's no reason for you to bring it up except that you apparently can't stop yourself from compulsively name-dropping. Get this through your thick skull: Nobody cares where you went to high school! Spending every waking moment trying to bring back your glory days does not make you look smart, it does not make you look cool, it just makes you look pathetic, like you've never done anything worth noting since graduation. Which, even if true, is not a fact you want to be constantly drawing attention to.

John Wilkes Kwok said: They're both fellow alumni, and I know, from someone active in alumni affairs, that at least one has been quite active in that as well. Why don't you look up their biographies to see that I'm telling the truth. But of course you won't, since you'd rather believe every insane lie you can think of about me. Good luck in assuming room temperature soon. At least you can do your part by helping to reduce the world's surplus population of mentally defective internet trolls such as yourself:

phantomreader42 said: Oh, come on! Bringing up your high school again? People, are we sure Kwok isn't just some sort of elaborate hoax? Because I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that a human being this insane is capable of feeding himself and operating a computer. And yeah, the Nazis were socialist, just like North Korea is a democracy and China is a republic, and socialism conveniently has no definition beyond "whatever boogeyman the right wing is screeching about today". And the commies and the Nazis all loved each other, that whole thing about going to war was just a smokescreen to throw people off the scent of their vast conspiracy to put a center-right politician in the White House decades after they were all dead. See, THAT'S how you do sarcasm.

John Wilkes Kwok said: Study your history moron. Germany was a totalitarian state from 1932 to 1945 ruled by the National Socialist (Nazi) Party. From November 1917 through October 1990, Russia was known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), ruled by a Marxist - Leninist Communist Dictatorship. As for "conspiracy theories", you've forgotten that I rejected long ago the wingnut "Birther" contention that Obama was born in East Africa. And do you honestly think I would condone anything even remotely resembling assassination, when two of the key advisors of the President of the United States, senior White House advisor David Axelrod and United States Attorney General Eric Holder are prominent alumni of our high school alma mater here in New York City? You've lost any semblance of rationality phantom-twit. Have a good day and take a break from posting here. I will, since I have other, more important, issues to contend with:

phantomreader42 said: Ah, so you're back to the conspiracy theories and babbling about "socialism". How long until you throw in birfer bullshit or call for an assassination? Can you even wrap your mind around the concept that more than one person can think you're wrong without all of them being involved in a vast conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids?

John Wilkes Kwok said: And how do you know it's not relevant? If I believe it is, then I'll mention it (And if it isn't, then I won't). I was going to ignore you now, but thought against it, merely because you are, like your fellow delusional Pharyngulites, interested only in hatred, in condemning those who don't agree with you, and, where possible, in smearing the reputations of critics whom you regard as offensive. Of course this is what you regard as "Democratic" and "Liberal" thought, but actually, as far more in common with what has transpired in the infamous "Socialist" dictatorships of the 20th and 21st Centuries. You're merely rambling way phantom-twit and again I wish you a good day. Just take the hint and shut up:

phantomreader42 said: Oh, so you say you have more important things to think about than PZ Myers? Then why did you feel compelled to whine about him when it was totally irrelevant? No one is forcing you to screech at the top of your lungs about PZ, and blame him for everyone that dares question you, that's all your decision. If you don't care about Pharyngula, why keep babbling about a comment made there months ago, that no one but you is still obsessed with? If you don't care about being banned from the Intersection, why even bring it up? What relevance does it have? I didn't mention the ridiculous incident with the Leica. YOU did. Why would you do that, if, as you claim, it's of so little importance to you? Scanning back through this thread, YOU were the first person to mention Pharyngula, YOU were the first person to mention that old comment that you claim was a "rape threat", YOU were the first person to mention PZ. It wasn't me. It wasn't PZ. It wasn't one of the other people who disagrees with you that you seem incapable of distinguishing from me and PZ, it was YOU. So, if you have more important things to do than obsess over PZ, why don't you go do them?

John Wilkes Kwok said: What obsession? That it is both fair and reasonable to note that, by his own admission, he is a mediocre biologist, delights in engaging in frat-boy antics, and, were it not for Pharynugla, that no one would have been interested in him, period? Sorry, phantom-twit, these are fair observations to make (along with the sad, but true, one declaring that Pharyngula is an intellectual cesspool, especially in light of the fact that he tolerated a "joke" about wanting to "fuck" and to stab others with a rusty knife). Now if I were making them each and every second of my adult waking life, then that would demonstrate that I am suffering an obsession about him. Hate to disappoint you phantom-twit, but have a lot more important obligations and interests to contend with than worrying about PZ. More than once I have noted here and elsewhere, in reponse to delusional, intellectually-challenged Pharyngulie trolls like yourself, that I couldn't care that he has banned me at Pharyngula or that I really don't want expensive Leica photographic equipment from him. But again and again, you and other Pharyngulites bring it up as though I spent my every waking moment thinking of how I'd get reinstated at Pharyngula or get the Leica photographic equipment which PZ owes me. Since I get these very questions again, and again, could it be that those who are obsessed about PZ are the very ones accusing me of such an obsession? I think so. You ought to deal with your own PZ Myers obsession phantom-twit before worrying about mine (On a somewhat different, but related, subject, I will never think of asking PZ for reinstatement at his blog (or any other blog I have been banned from). That pledge stands in stark contrast with Ophelia Benson's pathetic effort at getting reinstated over at The Intersection (And before you comment further about my own banishment from there, I've already told Sheril and a mutual friend of ours that I have no interest in making a similar demand of her and Chris Mooney.).

phantomreader42 said:

John Wilkes Kwok said: Yours is the observation of a most sanctimonious hypocrite:

phantomreader42 said: I have, however, concluded that you are unable to separate science (or, for that matter, anything) from your compulsive name-dropping and bizarre obsessive verbal tics.

An observation I'll remember the next time you pledge your fealty to your New Atheist apostle, one Paul Zachary the Great of the clan Myers.

You really, really need to get over this obsession you have with PZ Myers. It's not healthy. Pretending that atheism is a religion devoted to the worship of PZ is something a psychotic creotard with severe brain damage would do. Have you really gone so insane that you can't see how far you've sunk?

fnxtr said: (sigh) So anyway, about these DI word games... It's like when Deep Thought asks the philosophers what they mean by the question "Life, the Universe, and Everything". "Yes, but what exactly is it?" "You know, just everything!" I love the excerpts posted in the AtBC forums, lots of insistence that "it's a theory that life was designed!". Yes, but, what, exactly is it? Without the 5W's, it's not a theory, it's just a hunch. Or more accurately a rationalization.

fnxtr said: (sigh) So anyway, about these DI word games... It's like when Deep Thought asks the philosophers what they mean by the question "Life, the Universe, and Everything". "Yes, but what exactly is it?" "You know, just everything!" I love the excerpts posted in the AtBC forums, lots of insistence that "it's a theory that life was designed!". Yes, but, what, exactly is it? Without the 5W's, it's not a theory, it's just a hunch. Or more accurately a rationalization.