Casey Luskin: the new Wendell Bird?

Posted 12 August 2010 by Nick Matzke

I recently read Casey Luskin's article ("Zeal for Darwin's House Consumes Them: How Supporters of Evolution Encourage Violations of the Establishment Clause") in the Liberty University Law Review. Most of it is tendentious as usual, and Tim Sandefur makes an excellent reply (PT: Luskin, laws, and lies). However, I think it may be important for us to read Luskin's article, as it looks like it is laying out a new lawsuit strategy for the ID movement, which would be to provoke parents into suing school districts that use a textbook that has some smidgen of (alleged) materialism, (alleged) endorsement of theistic evolution or accommodationism, or critique of ID/creationism somewhere within its hundreds or thousands of pages. In support of his argument, Luskin pulls out all of the various (alleged) anti-religion, pro-materialism, pro-theistic evolution, etc. passages that the DI guys have dug up in textbooks over the years, and traces some of them to e.g. statements by major popularizers like Dawkins & Gould. Luskin has a lot of examples, and when he strings them together he gives the impression that students are being drowned in various antireligious or religious indoctrination (many of the statements he cites contradict each other, but oh well). He entirely forgets that a biology class is very unlikely to use more than one textbook, and probably will only use portions of that. Also, some of his "textbooks" aren't textbooks. (Sociobiology, E.O. Wilson 1975?!? In what sense is this a relevant "textbook"? It's a famous book that founded an area of study, and might be used as a text in an advanced college course or seminar, but it's a textbook only in the vaguest sense at best.) Some of them are upper-level college texts, some of them are decades old and out of circulation. But more importantly, most of the quotes Luskin drags up are, well, quote mines. Once you've looked up a few of these passages in textbooks, you realize that many of the quoted statements have alternative, much less nefarious interpretations, compared to the interpretation they provoke in a naively ideological fundamentalist reader like Luskin or other ID promoters. To list some of the options: * Some statements quoted by Luskin are descriptions of intellectual history, or descriptions of how many people saw e.g. the theory of evolution at a particular time. The passages that Luskin quotes from Futuyma's textbooks are like this. It is true that many people in Darwin's day were concerned about implications that arose for naive readers of the Origins -- cruelty in nature, adaptation by natural law and random processes rather than by Design, etc. Describing these reactions is not endorsement of them. And the history of public reactions to evolution are a somewhat important thing for students of evolution to learn about. Sometimes, textbooks, which go through a long series of edits, editions, sometimes authors, etc., and where authors are responsible for producing a huge amount of material on a huge number of topics, not all of which they have huge expertise on, might be less than perfect about telling history in a way that is utterly impossible for a creationist to quote-mine and turn into an endorsement of materialism, cosmic hopelessness, or whatnot. Most people, most of the time, are not armoring their writing against creationist misinterpretation. * Some passages in some textbooks are convicted for merely using words like random, directionless, blind, purposeless, etc. Creationist activists, and Luskin is no exception, just lose all vestige of critical faculties when these sorts of words are used in discussions of evolution. They go crazy and see these words as confirmation of what they already think, which is that evolution is basically a big atheist/materialist conspiracy. What creationist activists totally miss, incredibly and irresponsibly, is that such words do not always have a cosmic, metaphysical implication, and do not always mandate the interpretation that the author is endorsing the view that there is/is not some ultimate purpose behind existence. These words often have an entirely prosaic, non-metaphysical sense -- scientifically, various evolutionary processes like mutation or mass extinction can be described as "random", "blind", "directionless", etc., in the very same way that the results of rolling dice, the weather, earthquakes, etc. can be described in this fashion. The word "random", in particular, is utterly ubiquitous throughout science and statistics, it is almost always merely shorthand for "process with stochastic, probabilistically-governed outcomes", and its usage in describing evolution implies no particular extra-scientific endorsements by the authors. Admittedly, some words, like "purposeless", are more prone to be read or misread as metaphysical statements. I tend to think that, if some word is likely to be misunderstood, and better words can be found, then writers might as well do that. But an occasional failure to be completely perfect in matters of word choice is not evidence of metaphysical indoctrination in textbooks. * In particular, some discussions of evolution being directionless, purposeless, random, etc., are addressing historical controversies in evolutionary biology -- e.g. inheritance of acquired characters, orthogenesis, recapitulation, vitalism, and the like. Some of these ideas claimed to discern a "direction" and/or a cause for a particular "direction" in evolution, even though they were (typically) totally "naturalistic" hypothesis about evolution (read Gould 2002, Structure of Evolutionary Theory, for an account of some of these). It is totally legitimate for textbooks to describe these schools of thought and explain how and why they lost academic credibility -- e.g. many of them were knocked off during the development of the Modern Synthesis. * Futhermore, it is well known that students learning about evolution often make incorrect assumptions about how it is supposed to operate -- e.g., several studies in education journals have shown that students often have an almost innate preference for a "Lamarkian" view of how adaptation comes about, or a simplistic orthogenetic or ladder-like linear view of evolution, e.g. from simple to complex, from fish to ape to man, or whatever. It is totally and completely legitimate for textbooks to address these common student misconceptions, which are very well known amongst evolution educators. And often language correcting these sorts of things will make statements about evolution being "random", "without direction", etc. And I think that, just for the purposes of having high-quality introductory science writing, and having a textbook that is actually readable, it is unfair to expect that every use of such words be accompanied with some elaborate disclaimer to head off quote-miners like Luskin and other naively selective readers. * That said, *another* common student misconception about evolution is that its description as "random", "directionless", and the like, means that if they believe evolution then they have to adopt these words as metaphysical descriptors of reality, give up God, etc. This is an important misconception, one that definitely impedes the responsible secular purpose of learning about evolution, and about learning about what science is and what topics it does and does not address. So it is important for texts to address this misconception and rebut it. Of course, Luskin tendentiously *also* pulls passages out of context that do exactly this! And he portrays those as endorsing theistic evolution or whatnot. The kind of obfuscation Luskin is engaging in here would not impress a judge, should it ever come before one. * Some passages which Luskin quotes are from interviews included in textbooks. If, in the course of an interview presented in a textbook (interviews of scientists seem to be an increasingly hot thing to put in introductory textbooks these days), Stephen Jay Gould or Francis Collins or someone drops a personal opinion on some metaphysical issue, is that really a constitutional issue? If it is, are textbook writers supposed to censor all the interviews? There could conceivably be some constitutional issues here, I don't know if all 20 interviews in a textbook were univocal strong endorsements of the stupidity of Christianity or something, but if a textbook has a collection of interviews, it's going to be a tough argument that quote-mining one of them is good evidence for a constitutional violation. * Some passages that Luskin quotes are various statements opposing creationism/ID for being false, unfalsifiable, or both (proving that not everyone reads the Kitzmiller decision, which was very clear on stating that ID's statements about evolution are falsifiable, because evolution is science and is a testable theory, but IDists' almost nonexistent positive statements about ID are not testable, because, well, they are just vague invocations of the supernatural). Often there is not even a true internal contradiction in these statements. E.g. if a text says "there is no empirical basis for creationism/ID", that's not saying ID/creationism is false, it's saying it is scientifically unsupported, which is true and which is not the same thing as saying it's false. If a text says ID is wrong about transitional fossils, since such fossils actually exist, the only thing that has happened here is that the author has made the perfectly reasonable assumption that "ID" refers to the collection of ID arguments made by ID proponents. Ideally, people would distinguish between negative arguments against evolution and positive arguments for ID, but really this is pretty inside baseball, and the only place I've ever seen it done well is by the Kitzmiller plaintiffs and their experts, who are the ultimate ID wonks. And as noted by Sandefur, statements about scientific facts are always legitimate secular endeavors, whether or not they offend or contradict some particular religious view or person who has decided that some aspect of reality is "against their religion." * Finally, some passages are just authors getting their wires crossed, or poor turns of phrase in early editions of a textbook. Luskin likes to quote e.g. Ken Miller's first textbook (coauthored with Joe Levine), which had a somewhat confusing historical passage about cultural reactions to evolution, which could be read (by very unsympathetic readers like Luskin) as stating that evolution supported cosmic randomness, etc. But even that first edition passage (a) obviously wasn't actually an endorsement of this view considering that Ken Miller was a theist then and now, and (b) the end of the passage contained a paragraph pointing out that, of course, it was a fallacy to say that evolution and religion are necessarily opposed. Anyway, Luskin seems to think that extracting dozens of tiny bits from dozens of huge textbooks, and stringing them together, avoiding all ameliorating context, amounts to an argument. Since no student will ever have more than one textbook, this is extremely unlikely to be a relevant argument in court. However, Luskin may well succeed in getting some ID-fan parent somewhere to sue based on the school's use of one of these textbooks. Whether this would get anywhere at all would depend on all the details above and more. If one hypothetically had a highly ideological textbook that takes a Richard-Dawkins-like stance on religion throughout, you might have a problem, but I doubt that any common high school biology textbook does this. Textbook publishers, after all, prefer to sell books, not get them ruled unconstitutional by courts. For what it's worth, the book that Luskin seems to get the most mileage out of is Strickberger's Evolution. I haven't read it and I don't trust Luskin's account of it, and it's a college text anyway, intended for an upper-level biology majors course, so I bet its use in high school is nonexistent. If it crosses the line into metaphysics, then so much the worse for it; but college professors have a number of textbooks to chose from. In conclusion: I don't think Luskin has found a winning tactic here, but it could be a headache if this became a new creationist ploy. Perhaps Luskin is gunning to be the new Wendell Bird?

214 Comments

OgreMkV · 12 August 2010

C/IDs can alwaya find crap (or manufacture crap) to suit their purposes. It's only there to confuse. They cannot function in a court of law and that's where the only battle that matters is taking place.

Until education effectively teaches students to think and those students gain the courage to stand up against those that indoctrinate them, then that aspect of the battle is lost.

As long as the truth is taught and lies are not, then we will eventually win.

MrG · 12 August 2010

Stephen Jay Gould said the much same thing about his participation in the Arkansas trial:

Debate is an artform. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact — which they are very good at. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtrooms you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two week trial we had our victory party.

Wayne Robinson · 12 August 2010

Putting in a disclaimer or an explanation of what something actually means isn't going to stop quote miners from picking a small (or even large) section from a text to 'prove' the reverse of what was actually said.

I had Richard Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan's "A Demon Haunted World" quoted to me twice in the same week:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen".

What the creationists fail to do is to quote the immediate preceding paragraph:

"With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd".

Read together, and in the right order, Richard Lewontin is actually revealed to be saying something completely different to what the creationists were implying he was saying.

robert van bakel · 12 August 2010

It seems that Luskin is being taken far more seriously than he deserves. This DI loon is aiming this most recent speel at an ever increasingly marginalised hotch potch of ID supporters. They are their own worst enemies; the 'big tent' is only so big, before you turn on your fellow 'big tenter'. Each attempt to bring a rational argument in defence of their irrational position (basically,Evolution is not a science but an indoctrination process. To what is not made clear, raping babies and drinking virgin's blood perhaps) may garner support, or even popular support, but it essentially erodes any vestiges of credibility this loon and his side-kicks had, in the legal and scientific world, WHERE IT MATTERS!

Robert Byers · 12 August 2010

I couldn't comment on the previous thread for some reason. Thers no box.
anyways this stuff about Luskin is exciting. This is like the angle I.ve been pushing for several years.
i have made the case here too.
I wrote to Mr Luskin but he said he didn't see my angle as the way to go but it seems this stuff is very close.
it is the right and excellent point to say that if creationism/religion is taught as false or banned (same thing) then the state is making a opinion on religious doctrines. This is not nuetrality but picking sides.
There is no actual law controlling origin teachings in schools but if they are saying there is then the law must work both ways. They invent a law of censorship under neutral principal and then they break their own law.
This is tru;y a good sign of the better thinking taking place in these small circles that realize the censorship against the bible is illegal. Of coarse the people can talk about anything they want in schools. Especially important things.

Ichthyic · 12 August 2010

an ever increasingly marginalised hotch potch of ID supporters.

were you trying to predict Byers would immediately prove your point?

if so, well done!

robert van bakel · 12 August 2010

Byers is a YEC, ID is a wagon he can hitch himself to until it no longer is fundamental enough, at which time he will latch on to the next crank idea that supports his biblical idiocy. These people, I maintain, are inherently self destructive. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' hypothesis that they habitually use doesn't bare scrutiny very well as history has well shown. After all, the Taliban of today are merely the Mujihadeen of yesterday whom so conveniently killed soviets in the 80's, and now unfortunately kill godless US soldiers. No, Byers is ill, we all know that, he is suffering from a mass delusion, and talks to invisible 'friends' in the sky, and licks the arse of Luskin and co.

Chris Lawson · 12 August 2010

According to 1 Kings 7:23-26, pi is equal to three exactly. In Luskin Land, therefore, teaching that pi is 3.14 (or any variation thereof) in public school is a violation of religious freedom.

Mike Elzinga · 13 August 2010

Ichthyic said: an ever increasingly marginalised hotch potch of ID supporters. were you trying to predict Byers would immediately prove your point? if so, well done!

Byers is a self-absorbed saxophonist attempting to play his own badly composed jazz in the middle of a classical music concert.

Dave Luckett · 13 August 2010

Nah. An incompetent and tone-deaf kazoo player with a busted kazoo...

Mike Elzinga · 13 August 2010

Dave Luckett said: Nah. An incompetent and tone-deaf kazoo player with a busted kazoo...

Yup; that’s what it sounds like. And coming out of a saxophone no less. Compositions for broken kazoos and snare drum orchestras; played on an out-of-tune sax.

Dale Husband · 13 August 2010

Robert Byers said: I couldn't comment on the previous thread for some reason. Thers no box. anyways this stuff about Luskin is exciting. This is like the angle I.ve been pushing for several years. i have made the case here too. I wrote to Mr Luskin but he said he didn't see my angle as the way to go but it seems this stuff is very close. it is the right and excellent point to say that if creationism/religion is taught as false or banned (same thing) then the state is making a opinion on religious doctrines. This is not nuetrality but picking sides. There is no actual law controlling origin teachings in schools but if they are saying there is then the law must work both ways. They invent a law of censorship under neutral principal and then they break their own law. This is tru;y a good sign of the better thinking taking place in these small circles that realize the censorship against the bible is illegal. Of coarse the people can talk about anything they want in schools. Especially important things.

How many times must we point out that Creationist fraud and bigotry does not belong in science classes? It's not censorship to exclude such things, it's common sense.

hoary puccoon · 13 August 2010

Robert Byers said: this stuff about Luskin is exciting. This is like the angle I.ve been pushing for several years. i have made the case here too. I wrote to Mr Luskin but he said he didn't see my angle as the way to go but it seems this stuff is very close.

That's because he stole your idea, sweetie. He lied to you that it wasn't 'the way to go', and then he turned around and stole it! Personally, if I were you, I'd sue the Disco Institute for everything it's worth. They say that guy Ahmanson has very deep pockets.

The Founding Mothers · 13 August 2010

Robert Byers said: Blah blah blah. Toot, parp, prump.

A more suitable analogy would be to have religious education school classes (do you have those in the States? They sound a little unconstitutional for the US, but I had them for two compulsory high school years in Scotland) giving 'balanced' time to all supernatural and natural explanations for the origins of life and species; or, to force any religious organization that gets federal tax breaks to give equal preaching time to the scientific understanding of any religious topics preached, e.g., the recent work on the evolution of altruism through punishment and policing must be presented following the parable of the good Samaritan [or insert equivalent baby story here]. And while we're using musical metaphors, does anyone know what one should do with a troublesome trumpet tree?

Frank J · 13 August 2010

[C/IDs] cannot function in a court of law and that’s where the only battle that matters is taking place.
— OgreMkV

I wish it were true that the court battles were the only ones that matter, but the polls tell a different story. Assuming that anti-evolution activists are not currently getting their way in public school science class - not necessarily a good assumption given that many teachers are pressured into downplaying evolution - their propaganda still sells in the "court or public opinion." From various sources I estimate that only ~25% of adult Americans (most but not all fundamentalists) are so beyond hope that they would never admit evolution under any circumstances. But another ~25% has doubts of evolution, and another ~25% accepts evolution (or more likely a caricature) but thinks it's fair to "teach the controversy" in science class. That other ~50% doesn't care that it's against the law. They need to be shown that ID/creationism is at best failed science that only misleads people, and at worst bearing false witness.

Frank J · 13 August 2010

I wrote to Mr Luskin but he said he didn’t see my angle as the way to go but it seems this stuff is very close.
— Robert Byers

OK, just a little feeding. Actually you have a much better chance at getting your "theory" taught than Luskin. All he wants to do is misrepresent evolution in science class and censor the refutations (which is quite easy, since time simply won't permit a thorough refutation of a barrage of misleading but catchy sound bites). Plus his approach takes no position on "what happened when," so it is at best useless as a potential alternate "theory." So his approach fails on many levels, not just by being what a conservative Christian judge determined to be a religious view. You, OTOH, can avoid religion altogether by avoiding the common misrepresentations of evolution, and just supporting your YE hypotheses on its own merits. Without referring to Genesis, God, etc., just make clear claims of what "kinds" originated at what times, whether in the water, dust, etc., as adults, embryos, etc. Then examine all the evidence, in context (no cherry picking) and show how it converges on your particular explanation.

Ron Okimoto · 13 August 2010

I started laughing to myself when it occurred to me that reading these old textbooks is probably what they have the boobs at the Biologic Institute doing as "research" to support intelligent design. Who can you get to read a 10 years old textbook let alone a "textbook" from 1975?

Not only that, but there are plenty of things in these old textbooks that are just flat out wrong. You don't have to quote mine and deliberatly falsify the meaning of anything. Misrepresentation is the last thing that you should do if you have taken to time to critique these old books. It just undermines the things that you may have actually found. Dishonesty is such a way of life for these guys that they probalby don't even know when they are lying to themselves.

Ron Okimoto · 13 August 2010

Dale Husband said:
Robert Byers said: I couldn't comment on the previous thread for some reason. Thers no box. anyways this stuff about Luskin is exciting. This is like the angle I.ve been pushing for several years. i have made the case here too. I wrote to Mr Luskin but he said he didn't see my angle as the way to go but it seems this stuff is very close. it is the right and excellent point to say that if creationism/religion is taught as false or banned (same thing) then the state is making a opinion on religious doctrines. This is not nuetrality but picking sides. There is no actual law controlling origin teachings in schools but if they are saying there is then the law must work both ways. They invent a law of censorship under neutral principal and then they break their own law. This is tru;y a good sign of the better thinking taking place in these small circles that realize the censorship against the bible is illegal. Of coarse the people can talk about anything they want in schools. Especially important things.
How many times must we point out that Creationist fraud and bigotry does not belong in science classes? It's not censorship to exclude such things, it's common sense.

Not only that, but teaching creationism is not banned in the public schools. It is legal to teach it in a comparative religion class. You just have to compare it to something and you can't claim that it is the one true religion and that anyone that doesn't think so is going to hell. The public schools cannot take that kind of stand on religious issues. The creationists like Byers do not want to do what is legal. They would rather lie about their beliefs and make them out as something that they are not. It is very simple. You can teach science in the science class. No scientific theory or valid scientific endeavor is banned. The ID/creationist boobs have admitted that they do not have a scientific theory. End of story. As Luskin is demonstrating all the anti-evolution boobs have is obfuscation and misrepresentation. They aren't going to generate a scientific theory based on that. They have basically given up on any real science. The ID perps have been running the bait and switch scam on their own creationist supporters for over 7 years. Do you see any of them trying to fix what is broken? I haven't heard of any efforts to figure out what is wrong so that they can work on fixing the problems. All you see out of the Discovery Institute is blaming the victims. Everytime a creationist rube that fell for the ID scam pops up and wants to teach the science of intelligent design, they have the bait and switch run on them and all they get is junk like Luskin's obfuscation scam above. It isn't the science side that is hitting the rubes up the side of the head and telling them to get with the next scam. It is the guys that perpetrated the ID scam. The ID scam should be taught in the public school sociology classes as the bogus political scam that it is. It deserves no other place in education at this time and the ID perps know it. You do not run the bait and switch scam on your own creationist support base if you really have what you claim to have. Just look at the switch scam. It doesn't even mention that intelligent design ever existed. Who is selling this switch scam? The answer is ID perps like Luskin are running the switch scam. What should that tell any competent human being?

DS · 13 August 2010

Byers wrote:

"it is the right and excellent point to say that if creationism/religion is taught as false or banned (same thing) then the state is making a opinion on religious doctrines."

Right. Pointing out that something is factually incorrect, in a science class mind you, is exactly the same as banning it! As nutty as this guy is, there is no way that he can actually believe this crap.

All right Robby boy, I have officially made evolution my religion! Nothin yall can does abouts it. Now, you cannot ban it, or even teach that it is wrong, anywheres. Not is schools, not in colleges, not even in churches. Just cause I says sos. Oh and of course since others still says its reallys still science, yall still has ta teaches it in sciences classes as wells.

(Shoot, I inadvertently included some capitals and commas in that screed. Oh well, too much work to go back and muck it up any more now. Just stick in some sentence fragments to give the right level of contempt. Especially important things.)

In any event, Luskin is grasping at straws here. The guy must really be desperate. One way to derail such a misguided strategy is to make sure that the metaphysical language is kept to a minimum in science textbooks. It really isn't necessary anyway. It is sufficient to describe diffusion as "random motion of molecules" without adding "that must mean that god isn't necessary in order for diffusion to occur". You can let the students decide that for themselves.

CJColucci · 13 August 2010

The next Wendell Bird? Early in my law school days, I read a law review piece (a student note, if memory serves -- a risky proposition at my age) by Bird making some nutball argument for the teaching of creation science. He worked on one or two significant cases in this area. I predicted then that he would crash and burn, and I chortled as his life's work crumbled about him.
I'm not a good person, am I?

stevaroni · 13 August 2010

The Founding Mothers said: A more suitable analogy would be to have religious education school classes (do you have those in the States? They sound a little unconstitutional for the US, but I had them for two compulsory high school years in Scotland) giving 'balanced' time to all supernatural and natural explanations for the origins of life and species;

Actually, that could be pretty funny if it wouldn't be so depressing. I can imagine the lesson plan now... Day 15, religions, eastern traditions, non-abrahamic -

creation myths: zorasterinism
creation myths: bhakti
creation myths: sikhism

Day 16, religions, eastern traditions, non-abrahamic (continued...)

Rich Blinne · 13 August 2010

Casey said:

On this point, the present author agrees with evolutionists [that] teaching creationism [is promoting a religious viewpoint that violates the establishment clause], but disagrees with them with respect to teaching ID.

Meanwhile, Casey's supporters have not gotten the memo. Note these candidates for Alachua County (FL) School Board in today's Gainesville Sun. Pass the popcorn. http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100813/ARTICLES/8131009/1002?p=1&tc=pg

In the beginning, there was a candidate forum at the Oak Hammock retirement community for those running for the Alachua County School Board and the topic of creationism was brought up. In the end, there were several voters who wanted to know how each candidate felt about public schools teaching creationism - the belief that a supreme being made the universe and world. "This is of interest to the members of my group," Susan Bergert, president of the Humanist Society of Gainesville, wrote in an e-mail to The Gainesville Sun. Eight of the 12 candidates running for the three seats attended the forum on Aug. 1. Two sent representatives in their stead and two did not show up. The Sun contacted the four who were not present. One who sent a representative that night - Jancie Vinson - did not return calls requesting a personal comment. "When is evolution taught - is it on the FCAT?" Bonnie Burgess jokingly asked Thursday. She is running for the District 1 seat. "To me, it seems only logical to offer creationism. What's the point of teaching? It's to teach our children how to think and we should not be prejudiced to any one thought or idea. We should be able to offer all facts and theories." "I do believe we should teach creationism as part of a well-balanced education that opens their minds to free-thinking," April Griffin said. Felicia Moss agreed. "In a well-balanced education, we need to have those things, as well, and leave it up to the parents to expound on it."

Jodi Wood, who was not at the forum, said it should be taught alongside evolution. "So long as we are teaching the theory of evolution, we should teach the other theory of creationism, too. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory."

John Kwok · 13 August 2010

That's a most apt analogy, and one I endorse. But we can stick to classical music. He's playing a Messiaen or Boulez work, while the rest of the orchestra is playing a Bruckner or Mahler symphony:

Mike Elzinga said:
Ichthyic said: an ever increasingly marginalised hotch potch of ID supporters. were you trying to predict Byers would immediately prove your point? if so, well done!
Byers is a self-absorbed saxophonist attempting to play his own badly composed jazz in the middle of a classical music concert.

SLC · 13 August 2010

John Kwok said: That's a most apt analogy, and one I endorse. But we can stick to classical music. He's playing a Messiaen or Boulez work, while the rest of the orchestra is playing a Bruckner or Mahler symphony:
Mike Elzinga said:
Ichthyic said: an ever increasingly marginalised hotch potch of ID supporters. were you trying to predict Byers would immediately prove your point? if so, well done!
Byers is a self-absorbed saxophonist attempting to play his own badly composed jazz in the middle of a classical music concert.

Bah humbug. Bruckner and Mahler, both second raters.

harold · 13 August 2010

Does anyone else notice that this "strategy" is a complete surrender?

For years we have been listening to the "ID isn't religious" weasel words. The plain purpose of ID was to "some day" be taught in public school science classes. It was always 100% would-be court-proofed creationism.

I doubt if this new strategy is offensive, more likely it's defensive. ID promoted itself so well, in the sense of making itself known, that it is now being used as an example of a wrong approach to science in text books.

So now Luskin has decided to argue that ID is religious and therefore can't be criticized in public schools. Well, therefore it can't be taught as science in public schools either, ever. It is axiomatic that if the DI is saying that it can't be criticized because it is religious, they are also saying that it can't be taught as science.

MrG · 13 August 2010

Harold: Do you honestly believe that the DI is incapable of effectively admitting that ID is religious out of one side of the mouth ... while denying that it is out of the other side of the mouth?

Mind you, it does my head hurt.

Kevin B · 13 August 2010

John Kwok said: That's a most apt analogy, and one I endorse. But we can stick to classical music. He's playing a Messiaen or Boulez work, while the rest of the orchestra is playing a Bruckner or Mahler symphony:
Mike Elzinga said:
Ichthyic said: an ever increasingly marginalised hotch potch of ID supporters. were you trying to predict Byers would immediately prove your point? if so, well done!
Byers is a self-absorbed saxophonist attempting to play his own badly composed jazz in the middle of a classical music concert.

I'd suggest Harrison Birtwistle who, indeed, has written a piece entitled "Panic" which fits the description exactly, including the use of an alto sax as the solo instrument. Given that he is frequently referred to as "Birdwhistle", I think I detect evidence of Design here. :)

Paul Burnett · 13 August 2010

Rich Blinne quoted a creationist school board candidate: Jodi Wood, who was not at the forum, said it should be taught alongside evolution. "So long as we are teaching the theory of evolution, we should teach the other theory of creationism, too. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory."

From the current Futurama thread: "Evolution is merely a theory, like gravity or the shape of the earth." I'm going to start using that one.

The Founding Mothers · 13 August 2010

Paul Burnett said:
Rich Blinne quoted a creationist school board candidate: Jodi Wood, who was not at the forum, said it should be taught alongside evolution. "So long as we are teaching the theory of evolution, we should teach the other theory of creationism, too. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory."
From the current Futurama thread: "Evolution is merely a theory, like gravity or the shape of the earth." I'm going to start using that one.

And at least the theory of evolution by natural selection is actually a theory: testable, falsifiable and mutable through the collection of evidence. Creationism/ID doesn't even make it that far. Reason enough to exclude it from a science classroom.

SWT · 13 August 2010

John Kwok said: That's a most apt analogy, and one I endorse. But we can stick to classical music. He's playing a Messiaen or Boulez work, while the rest of the orchestra is playing a Bruckner or Mahler symphony:

He's a vuvuzela player trying to perform with a string quartet.

Doc Bill · 13 August 2010

Wendell Byrd? More like Big Bird.

This is your brain on "intelligent design" brought to you by the letter I and the number D.

John Kwok · 13 August 2010

Great choice, Kevin. I strongly second it. Sounds better than mine IMHO:

Kevin B said:
John Kwok said: That's a most apt analogy, and one I endorse. But we can stick to classical music. He's playing a Messiaen or Boulez work, while the rest of the orchestra is playing a Bruckner or Mahler symphony:
Mike Elzinga said:
Ichthyic said: an ever increasingly marginalised hotch potch of ID supporters. were you trying to predict Byers would immediately prove your point? if so, well done!
Byers is a self-absorbed saxophonist attempting to play his own badly composed jazz in the middle of a classical music concert.

I'd suggest Harrison Birtwistle who, indeed, has written a piece entitled "Panic" which fits the description exactly, including the use of an alto sax as the solo instrument. Given that he is frequently referred to as "Birdwhistle", I think I detect evidence of Design here. :)

Weaver · 14 August 2010

The Founding Mothers said:
Robert Byers said: Blah blah blah. Toot, parp, prump.
A more suitable analogy would be to have religious education school classes (do you have those in the States? They sound a little unconstitutional for the US, but I had them for two compulsory high school years in Scotland)

Robert Byers is from Canada ... which makes his assertions about what's supposedly unConstitutional in the US even more absurd; he's not in the States, but he thinks he has reasons to tell us how to educate our kids in his version of Christian myth and superstition.

John Kwok · 14 August 2010

And BTW, Canada has a much higher acceptance rate of evolution than does the United States as noted in this poll whose results were released last month:

http://ncse.com/news/2010/07/polling-evolution-three-countries-005708

So Booby Byers ought to be joining with his fellow Canadians than in "driving by" here with his frequent postings replete in their breathtaking inanity.

John Kwok · 14 August 2010

Nick,

I think Casey demonstrated quite some time ago that he is the newest incarnation of Wendell Bird. And just like Bird, he will be remembered as a pathetic legal eagle replete with ample self-induced infamy, deserving of all the scorn which he can muster from those who recognize that biological evolution is a well-established scientific fact, worthy of study alongside Chemistry's Periodic Table of Elements or Physics's Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

With his rock star good looks, Casey could find himself a new occupartion. Time to rehearse Casey, so you can be a backup guitarist in the Katy Perry Band.

Ron Okimoto · 14 August 2010

MrG said: Harold: Do you honestly believe that the DI is incapable of effectively admitting that ID is religious out of one side of the mouth ... while denying that it is out of the other side of the mouth? Mind you, it does my head hurt.

It has been over a year ago that the ID perps had to run the bait and switch on all those Florida rubes. At least half a dozen county school boards and probably more legislators claimed that they wanted to teach the science of intelligent design. Does anyone know what the ID perps speel is? How do they run the bait and switch on rubes stupid enough to claim to want to teach the non existent science of intelligent design years after Dover? Heck it was over 5 years after the ID perps ran the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes before they ever lost in court. Whatever they had to tell the rubes in Florida it didn't seem to go over very well because unlike previous efforts not a single school board bent over and took the switch scam from them. All of them dropped the issue. Is that what the Discovery Institute ID perps are recommending to creationist rubes stupid enough to have botched the job by mentioning intelligent design? All the legislators dropped the issue too except for that one boob that they must have missed somehow that came back the next session and still claimed to want to teach the sciene of intelligent design. He was shut up pretty quickly and his efforts came to nothing. In Louisiana we just had Chapman blaming the victims when the rubes claimed that they wanted to teach ID/creationism. Are the ID perps resorting to going to the rubes that screw up and telling them that they have screwed up? Once the switch scam gets linked to ID or creationism the game is over. How do the ID perps get that message across to ignorant and incompetent people stupid enough to have not gotten the message that ID was just a scam and is so well known as a scam that it makes any other effort worthless if it is even mention in context of the switch scam? Does anyone know how the ID perps like Luskin handled the Florida schoolboards and legislators? None of them bent over and took the switch scam from the liars. Was that because they were ticked off or because the ID perps told them any further efforts would be a lost cause and screw up the future efforts of running the next bogus scam? Luskin was prominent in running the bait and switch on the Florida rubes, so what is the ID perp speel to rubes stupid enough to try to teach ID. Before Louisiana it had been almost a year where no rubes were stupid enough to mention teaching ID. Word must be getting out, but you also don't see much switch scam activity except out of the Discovery Institute. What is going on? It is sort of hard to believe that honesty and integrity is blocking the ID perp efforts so how are the ID perps working the creationist rubes at this time?

John Kwok · 14 August 2010

Ron, Don't you think the Dishonesty Institute is scared to death of another legal challenge, a Dover Two, which - this time - could be appealed higher up in the Federal Courts and go as far as the Supreme Court, where any ruling contrary to its interests would be sustained by the Supreme Court, as it has done so previously? Maybe that's why they're discreeting playing "bait and switch" this time:

Ron Okimoto said:
MrG said: Harold: Do you honestly believe that the DI is incapable of effectively admitting that ID is religious out of one side of the mouth ... while denying that it is out of the other side of the mouth? Mind you, it does my head hurt.
It has been over a year ago that the ID perps had to run the bait and switch on all those Florida rubes. At least half a dozen county school boards and probably more legislators claimed that they wanted to teach the science of intelligent design. Does anyone know what the ID perps speel is? How do they run the bait and switch on rubes stupid enough to claim to want to teach the non existent science of intelligent design years after Dover? Heck it was over 5 years after the ID perps ran the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes before they ever lost in court. Whatever they had to tell the rubes in Florida it didn't seem to go over very well because unlike previous efforts not a single school board bent over and took the switch scam from them. All of them dropped the issue. Is that what the Discovery Institute ID perps are recommending to creationist rubes stupid enough to have botched the job by mentioning intelligent design? All the legislators dropped the issue too except for that one boob that they must have missed somehow that came back the next session and still claimed to want to teach the sciene of intelligent design. He was shut up pretty quickly and his efforts came to nothing. In Louisiana we just had Chapman blaming the victims when the rubes claimed that they wanted to teach ID/creationism. Are the ID perps resorting to going to the rubes that screw up and telling them that they have screwed up? Once the switch scam gets linked to ID or creationism the game is over. How do the ID perps get that message across to ignorant and incompetent people stupid enough to have not gotten the message that ID was just a scam and is so well known as a scam that it makes any other effort worthless if it is even mention in context of the switch scam? Does anyone know how the ID perps like Luskin handled the Florida schoolboards and legislators? None of them bent over and took the switch scam from the liars. Was that because they were ticked off or because the ID perps told them any further efforts would be a lost cause and screw up the future efforts of running the next bogus scam? Luskin was prominent in running the bait and switch on the Florida rubes, so what is the ID perp speel to rubes stupid enough to try to teach ID. Before Louisiana it had been almost a year where no rubes were stupid enough to mention teaching ID. Word must be getting out, but you also don't see much switch scam activity except out of the Discovery Institute. What is going on? It is sort of hard to believe that honesty and integrity is blocking the ID perp efforts so how are the ID perps working the creationist rubes at this time?

David Fickett-Wilbar · 14 August 2010

DS said: One way to derail such a misguided strategy is to make sure that the metaphysical language is kept to a minimum in science textbooks. It really isn't necessary anyway. It is sufficient to describe diffusion as "random motion of molecules" without adding "that must mean that god isn't necessary in order for diffusion to occur". You can let the students decide that for themselves.

It might be fun to ask Creationists/IDers if they are suggesting that we do that. Can "random" be equated to "without divine intervention?" If so, should we insert a disclaimer every time we use the term? If not, why does it have a different meaning when it comes to evolution? Does God not care about the diffusion of molecules, but does care about evolution? How do we know what things He cares about and what He doesn't?

David Fickett-Wilbar · 14 August 2010

stevaroni said:
The Founding Mothers said: A more suitable analogy would be to have religious education school classes (do you have those in the States? They sound a little unconstitutional for the US, but I had them for two compulsory high school years in Scotland) giving 'balanced' time to all supernatural and natural explanations for the origins of life and species;
Actually, that could be pretty funny if it wouldn't be so depressing. I can imagine the lesson plan now... Day 15, religions, eastern traditions, non-abrahamic -

creation myths: zorasterinism

creation myths: bhakti

creation myths: sikhism

Day 16, religions, eastern traditions, non-abrahamic (continued...)

In my high school world history class we spent a week on religions. The teacher felt, rightly I bellieve, that you couldn't understand history without understanding religion. We spent a day on each of the major world religions. I couldn't understand the appeal of Buddhism, so freshman year of college I took a course on Asian religions to try to figure it out. It was instrumental in my becoming interested in religious studies; not in my becoming religious, but in studying religions. This shows how classes on religions could really backfire on Fundamentalists by exposing their children to options.

Rolf Aalberg · 14 August 2010

Suggested hangout for Robert Byers, with this piece of candy for a starter:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100811085416.htm

Ron Okimoto · 14 August 2010

John Kwok said: Ron, Don't you think the Dishonesty Institute is scared to death of another legal challenge, a Dover Two, which - this time - could be appealed higher up in the Federal Courts and go as far as the Supreme Court, where any ruling contrary to its interests would be sustained by the Supreme Court, as it has done so previously? Maybe that's why they're discreeting playing "bait and switch" this time:

I am sure that they don't want that Louisiana school board to persue the switch scam. Now that they have linked their intent with creationism and intelligent design the last thing that the ID perps at the Dishonesty Institute would want is for them to bend over and take the switch scam. This board could be stupid enough to do that. The rejects on the Dover board were about the last nail in the coffin for the intelligent design scam. Some people have to be hit over the head with a baseball bat before they get with the program. This board has just been told that they screwed up. Whether they can understand the message is something that even the ID perps are likely worried about. My guess is that they aren't going to take the chance and representitives of the Discovery Institute will be visiting them or calling them to make sure that they get the message. I'd like to know what they said to all the Florida school boards so that none of them tried to implement the switch scam. It is sort of hard to believe that all of them were competent enough to see how they had been scammed and how it would look if they tried to perpetrate the switch scam.

raven · 14 August 2010

Quote mining is only one of their tried and true tools of misleading.

They will also change quotes so they mean something entirely different.

And frequently, they just make them up, outright lie. Henry Morris, founder of the ICR had that one down.

More and more often, the DI is returning to its YEC roots and their endless propaganda reflects it. That will be very useful in the next court case.

raven · 14 August 2010

I am sure that they don’t want that Louisiana school board to persue the switch scam.

One of the school board members in Louisiana said it was "time to stand up for jesus." That about doomed them right there. It isn't the public schools job to stand up for jesus, who is all powerful anyway, but to teach children. And standing up and defending an all powerful, universe spanning god by teaching ID sounds a lot like...religion. The school board put themselves in the position of tossing another million bucks down the creationist rathole for no gain.

John Kwok · 14 August 2010

I would hope that people from NASA, University of Florida and Florida State University spoke up against the ID bait and switch scam. That and maybe the fact too that there are more expatriate New Yorkers and other Northerners living in Florida who could see clearly through the DI's deception:

Ron Okimoto said:
John Kwok said: Ron, Don't you think the Dishonesty Institute is scared to death of another legal challenge, a Dover Two, which - this time - could be appealed higher up in the Federal Courts and go as far as the Supreme Court, where any ruling contrary to its interests would be sustained by the Supreme Court, as it has done so previously? Maybe that's why they're discreeting playing "bait and switch" this time:
I am sure that they don't want that Louisiana school board to persue the switch scam. Now that they have linked their intent with creationism and intelligent design the last thing that the ID perps at the Dishonesty Institute would want is for them to bend over and take the switch scam. This board could be stupid enough to do that. The rejects on the Dover board were about the last nail in the coffin for the intelligent design scam. Some people have to be hit over the head with a baseball bat before they get with the program. This board has just been told that they screwed up. Whether they can understand the message is something that even the ID perps are likely worried about. My guess is that they aren't going to take the chance and representitives of the Discovery Institute will be visiting them or calling them to make sure that they get the message. I'd like to know what they said to all the Florida school boards so that none of them tried to implement the switch scam. It is sort of hard to believe that all of them were competent enough to see how they had been scammed and how it would look if they tried to perpetrate the switch scam.

Ron Okimoto · 14 August 2010

John Kwok said: I would hope that people from NASA, University of Florida and Florida State University spoke up against the ID bait and switch scam. That and maybe the fact too that there are more expatriate New Yorkers and other Northerners living in Florida who could see clearly through the DI's deception:
Ron Okimoto said:
John Kwok said: Ron, Don't you think the Dishonesty Institute is scared to death of another legal challenge, a Dover Two, which - this time - could be appealed higher up in the Federal Courts and go as far as the Supreme Court, where any ruling contrary to its interests would be sustained by the Supreme Court, as it has done so previously? Maybe that's why they're discreeting playing "bait and switch" this time:
I am sure that they don't want that Louisiana school board to persue the switch scam. Now that they have linked their intent with creationism and intelligent design the last thing that the ID perps at the Dishonesty Institute would want is for them to bend over and take the switch scam. This board could be stupid enough to do that. The rejects on the Dover board were about the last nail in the coffin for the intelligent design scam. Some people have to be hit over the head with a baseball bat before they get with the program. This board has just been told that they screwed up. Whether they can understand the message is something that even the ID perps are likely worried about. My guess is that they aren't going to take the chance and representitives of the Discovery Institute will be visiting them or calling them to make sure that they get the message. I'd like to know what they said to all the Florida school boards so that none of them tried to implement the switch scam. It is sort of hard to believe that all of them were competent enough to see how they had been scammed and how it would look if they tried to perpetrate the switch scam.

If you recall certain county school boards in Florida did not come out for teaching ID. Brevard county (NASA) was one of the hold outs. It was the ID perps that were in Florida to suppress the rubes. My guess is that science experts would have been the last people that the legislators and creationist school boards would have listened to. Wasn't Luskin there in person? They put a lot of effort into running the bait and switch on the stupid rubes. It could have been an even bigger fiasco for them if any of the rubes did take up the switch scam, so I'd just like to know what they told the rubes and if they laid it out on the line that if they did try to perpetrate the Switch scam that it would turn out badly. They are probably telling this Louisiana school board the same thing. It would pretty much kill the switch scam if a group as lost as those guys tried to implement the switch scam. It is sort of sad how the ID perps are trying to pretend that the new scam is going to work when the same guys that ran the ID scam are running the bogus switch scam. Who can they possibly fool? My guess is that they are doing everything that they can to keep from being called as witnesses when the rubes finally go to court over the switch scam. You don't see them trying to implement the switch scam in Seatle or in any of the ID perp's home towns. Shouldn't that tell any rube something?

Ron Okimoto · 14 August 2010

raven said:
I am sure that they don’t want that Louisiana school board to persue the switch scam.
One of the school board members in Louisiana said it was "time to stand up for jesus." That about doomed them right there. It isn't the public schools job to stand up for jesus, who is all powerful anyway, but to teach children. And standing up and defending an all powerful, universe spanning god by teaching ID sounds a lot like...religion. The school board put themselves in the position of tossing another million bucks down the creationist rathole for no gain.

So what do you think that the ID perps are telling this board about the switch scam? Louisiana is poised to run the creationist switch scam somewhere. The law was supposed to improve science education, but everyone knows that is a lie. My guess is that even though this board could implement something in accordance with the new law, that the ID perps are in there advising them not to. They've blown it and demonstrated how bogus the intent of the law is. They are absolutly the last group that the ID perps want as a test case.

John Kwok · 14 August 2010

When I heard about early efforts to pass a Florida "Academic Freedom Bill" along the lines of Louisiana, I did ask the executive director of my high school alumni association to bring this to the attention of the Florida chapter, whose members are actively involved in fundraising for secondary school education in Florida. Hopefully some of them became involved in challenging the DI's "bait and switch" scam:

Ron Okimoto said:
John Kwok said: I would hope that people from NASA, University of Florida and Florida State University spoke up against the ID bait and switch scam. That and maybe the fact too that there are more expatriate New Yorkers and other Northerners living in Florida who could see clearly through the DI's deception:
Ron Okimoto said:
John Kwok said: Ron, Don't you think the Dishonesty Institute is scared to death of another legal challenge, a Dover Two, which - this time - could be appealed higher up in the Federal Courts and go as far as the Supreme Court, where any ruling contrary to its interests would be sustained by the Supreme Court, as it has done so previously? Maybe that's why they're discreeting playing "bait and switch" this time:
I am sure that they don't want that Louisiana school board to persue the switch scam. Now that they have linked their intent with creationism and intelligent design the last thing that the ID perps at the Dishonesty Institute would want is for them to bend over and take the switch scam. This board could be stupid enough to do that. The rejects on the Dover board were about the last nail in the coffin for the intelligent design scam. Some people have to be hit over the head with a baseball bat before they get with the program. This board has just been told that they screwed up. Whether they can understand the message is something that even the ID perps are likely worried about. My guess is that they aren't going to take the chance and representitives of the Discovery Institute will be visiting them or calling them to make sure that they get the message. I'd like to know what they said to all the Florida school boards so that none of them tried to implement the switch scam. It is sort of hard to believe that all of them were competent enough to see how they had been scammed and how it would look if they tried to perpetrate the switch scam.

If you recall certain county school boards in Florida did not come out for teaching ID. Brevard county (NASA) was one of the hold outs. It was the ID perps that were in Florida to suppress the rubes. My guess is that science experts would have been the last people that the legislators and creationist school boards would have listened to. Wasn't Luskin there in person? They put a lot of effort into running the bait and switch on the stupid rubes. It could have been an even bigger fiasco for them if any of the rubes did take up the switch scam, so I'd just like to know what they told the rubes and if they laid it out on the line that if they did try to perpetrate the Switch scam that it would turn out badly. They are probably telling this Louisiana school board the same thing. It would pretty much kill the switch scam if a group as lost as those guys tried to implement the switch scam. It is sort of sad how the ID perps are trying to pretend that the new scam is going to work when the same guys that ran the ID scam are running the bogus switch scam. Who can they possibly fool? My guess is that they are doing everything that they can to keep from being called as witnesses when the rubes finally go to court over the switch scam. You don't see them trying to implement the switch scam in Seatle or in any of the ID perp's home towns. Shouldn't that tell any rube something?

Ron Okimoto · 15 August 2010

John Kwok said: When I heard about early efforts to pass a Florida "Academic Freedom Bill" along the lines of Louisiana, I did ask the executive director of my high school alumni association to bring this to the attention of the Florida chapter, whose members are actively involved in fundraising for secondary school education in Florida. Hopefully some of them became involved in challenging the DI's "bait and switch" scam:
I really don't think that academics have much influence on creationist rubes ignorant enough to still want to go with the ID scam. What I would be interested in is if anyone went in and tried to look into how the Discovery Institute ID perps ran the bait and switch in Florida. Did anyone interview the legislators or schoolboards and ask why they changed their minds about teaching intelligent design? Most of them would probably be too embarassed to talk about it, but there could have been a few as ticked off as Buckingham after Dover that were willing to talk about how the bait and switch was run.

John Kwok · 15 August 2010

Maybe Glenn, Genie, Steve or Josh at NCSE might know about this. Would definitely be a potentially-interesting graduate research project for someone interested in the sociology of education or the (recent) history of education policy:

Ron Okimoto said:
John Kwok said: When I heard about early efforts to pass a Florida "Academic Freedom Bill" along the lines of Louisiana, I did ask the executive director of my high school alumni association to bring this to the attention of the Florida chapter, whose members are actively involved in fundraising for secondary school education in Florida. Hopefully some of them became involved in challenging the DI's "bait and switch" scam:
I really don't think that academics have much influence on creationist rubes ignorant enough to still want to go with the ID scam. What I would be interested in is if anyone went in and tried to look into how the Discovery Institute ID perps ran the bait and switch in Florida. Did anyone interview the legislators or schoolboards and ask why they changed their minds about teaching intelligent design? Most of them would probably be too embarassed to talk about it, but there could have been a few as ticked off as Buckingham after Dover that were willing to talk about how the bait and switch was run.

harold · 15 August 2010

MrG said: Harold: Do you honestly believe that the DI is incapable of effectively admitting that ID is religious out of one side of the mouth … while denying that it is out of the other side of the mouth? Mind you, it does my head hurt.

Let me clarify. Of course I don't believe that. Obviously, we all know that this is exactly what the DI has been doing for at least fifteen years. Claim in one forum that it isn't religious, while claiming in another that it is. But there's a huge difference now. In the past, they thought they could keep the "it's really about Jesus" message relatively secret. The Wedge Document was leaked, not officially released. The strategy that they implied they were going to use was clear. 1) We claim it's science, not religion. 2) People who are creepy enough to want to sneak creationism into the schools will instantly see what we're up to. 3) Pesky people like scientists, honest science teachers, the ACLU, and honest religious leaders may figure it out, too. 4) But we'll generate a bunch of bafflegab that will serve as a fig leaf. Then we'll count on corrupt or stupid right wing judges to wink and say that they were "convinced by the arguments of irreducible specified complexified jabberwocky" that "ID represents true scientific doubt, not religion". That was always the goal. They trained the ass-kissers on UD to parrot "ID isn't religion" 24 hours a day. At least one of them declared that they were sure to win in court because - and I believe that this is a verbatim quote - Judge Jones was supposedly a "good old boy appointed by George W. hisself". They sent expert witnesses to declare that the designer might be an alien, and that the best example of his work was not the human soul, but the bacterial flagellum. And for a long, long time after the Dover decision, they railed that Judge Jones was an "activist" and a "pawn of the ACLU", and that his decision was wrong because ID has nothing to do with religion. Now, Luskin has publicly declared ID to be religious and demands protection for it. I doubt if they thought it through. In their authoritarian minds, textbooks hold a place of authority. They didn't mind being criticized in journals or on the internet, or in evil atheist books, but being criticized in textbooks drove their fragile egos into a rage, and they reacted. It won't matter. The people who give them money will continue to do so, and would no matter what they do, as long as they contradict the theory of evolution. Still, it's a most amusing development.

Frank J · 15 August 2010

But there’s a huge difference now. In the past, they thought they could keep the “it’s really about Jesus” message relatively secret. The Wedge Document was leaked, not officially released.
— harold

It's about Jesus, they sure have David "Darwin=Hitler" Klinghoffer, Michael "Bigfoot" Medved and Ben "Expelled" Stein fooled. A simpler explanation is that it's about whatever caricature of God will sell - and it just happens to be Jesus for most followers.

TomS · 15 August 2010

A simpler explanation is that it's about "I didn't descend from a monkey", and they have no qualms about manufacturing a religious justification for that.

Michael Buratovich · 15 August 2010

Nick and TIm have done us a tremendous service by bringing this to us. However, I have to ask, as disturbing as this strategy sounds, given the legal precedents that are present does this have a snowball's chance of working for the DI?

It seems to me, and please forgive oh erudite readers of PT if this seems naive, that judges will laugh these types of legal challenges right out of the courtroom. One doesn't have to listen to Eugenie Scott talk about the legal history of the Creation vs. Evolution debate for long to see that the creationists and anyone even remotely connected to them have failed every time they have tried to challenge either the teaching of evolution in the classroom or assert the right to teach something else. How could this work? Or would it be a simple case of overloading the courts, frustrating people, and intimidating school districts into acquiescence?

MrG · 15 August 2010

It wouldn't seem so, would it MB? The only thing I can think that they are expecting a sympathetic judiciary.

I observe that as far as the likes of Denyse O'Luskin and Casey Leary go, they have a certain low cleverness and resourcefulness that can ultimately never prevail over the fundamental (so to speaK) confusion of their ideas.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 15 August 2010

John Kwok said:I would hope that people from NASA, University of Florida and Florida State University spoke up against the ID bait and switch scam. That and maybe the fact too that there are more expatriate New Yorkers and other Northerners living in Florida who could see clearly through the DI's deception:

Along these lines, in the Friday Gainesville Sun (Gainesville is the home city for UF), an article appeared in which the question "should creationism be taught in schools" was asked to the 12 candidates running for 3 seats for the Alachua County School Board. Of these candidates, one each for each district came out unequivocally against teaching creationism (and I probably will be voting for these individuals as a result). Five came out in favor of teaching creationism, using a variety of the old arguments. One said, "...we should not be prejudiced." Another came out with, "... a well balanced education,..." Another: "My job is to present them with all the options out there and let them make up their minds." Another: "...we should teach the other theory of creationism, too. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory." Three said that creationism could be taught in a religion or history class, although one of these answers sounded to me to be pretty weasley. One did not attend the forum, although her representative, her pastor (!) said that "she's always had a high respect for the separation of church and state. She would not favor teaching creationism." I will point out that Gainesville is a pretty progressive city, as you might expect as the home of the Gators; Alachua county less so. Also, of the 3 letters to the editor that have appeared either in paper or online, all have been against teaching creationism. My letter, sent yesterday, has not yet appeared.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 15 August 2010

MrG said: ...Denyse O'Luskin and Casey Leary...

LOL 8^D

harold · 15 August 2010

Frank J -

It’s about Jesus, they sure have David “Darwin=Hitler” Klinghoffer, Michael “Bigfoot” Medved and Ben “Expelled” Stein fooled. A simpler explanation is that it’s about whatever caricature of God will sell - and it just happens to be Jesus for most followers.

That's not a simpler explanation, it's the SAME explanation. It was always about telling the saps that if they pay, you'll be able to tell the judge that it isn't about religion and get him to go along with it, even though we all know it's about religion. The fact that the religious right simultaneously pretends to "love Israel" while actually prophesying its destruction and hellfire for all Jews who die as Jews, and that a tiny number of extremely disturbed Jewish people associated themselves, admittedly for substantial profit, with the DI, does not change the fact that the point of ID was to get creationist claims about evolution past a judge.

A simpler explanation is that it’s about “I didn’t descend from a monkey”, and they have no qualms about manufacturing a religious justification for that.

Indeed, some white creationists are largely motivated by conscious or unconscious racism, which is what triggers that explosive "I didn't evolve from no non-human animal that I commonly refer to other human beings (whom I despise and desperately need to consider myself 'superior' to) as" rage reaction. Same difference. "Give us money and we will convince a judge to allow thinly disguised sectarian dogma in the public schools, using our specially patented bafflegab" was still the message. Exactly why the suckers wanted evolution denial/implied claims of supernatural creation in public schools is not the issue. The point is that they do want it and the DI claimed to be able to deliver. Now, Luskin signals a sharp change in philosophy, and an adoption of a far less ambitious (yet potentially equally lucrative) "we are making openly religious claims after all" strategy.

Frank J · 15 August 2010

That’s not a simpler explanation, it’s the SAME explanation.
— harold

I know. Any excuse to remind anyone who wants to think it's Christians vs. "evolutionists" that it's not that simple. If the "3 musketeers" do get the boot someday (as some have claimed) I'll have no problem saying that I was wrong.

Robert Byers is from Canada … which makes his assertions about what’s supposedly unConstitutional in the US even more absurd; he’s not in the States, but he thinks he has reasons to tell us how to educate our kids in his version of Christian myth and superstition.
— Weaver

If Byers truly believes that the earth is ~600,000x younger than science and many creationists say it is, he should have no problem believing that Canada is a state.

Henry J · 15 August 2010

If Byers truly believes that the earth is ~600,000x younger than science and many creationists say it is, he should have no problem believing that Canada is a state.

A state with ten provinces (if I remember right) and some territories? Henry J

John Kwok · 15 August 2010

Booby and Denyse have to get with the program. Most of their fellow subjects recognize that biological evolution is a well-established scientific fact. Maybe for once we can learn something profound from our Canadian "cousins":

Henry J said:
If Byers truly believes that the earth is ~600,000x younger than science and many creationists say it is, he should have no problem believing that Canada is a state.
A state with ten provinces (if I remember right) and some territories? Henry J

Oclarki · 15 August 2010

Michael Buratovich said: It seems to me, and please forgive oh erudite readers of PT if this seems naive, that judges will laugh these types of legal challenges right out of the courtroom. One doesn't have to listen to Eugenie Scott talk about the legal history of the Creation vs. Evolution debate for long to see that the creationists and anyone even remotely connected to them have failed every time they have tried to challenge either the teaching of evolution in the classroom or assert the right to teach something else. How could this work? Or would it be a simple case of overloading the courts, frustrating people, and intimidating school districts into acquiescence?

Sadly, I suspect that somewhere out there there is a judge whose brains have been sucked out of his ears and who as a consequence will rule in favor of the DI nonsense....and so that nonsense will be elevated to the next step in the judicial process. Indeed, at times when I am at my most pessimistic, I can see a weird sequence of events that end up in the legal "approval" of the nonsense by the Supremes. And alas, I am at one of those pessimistic levels right now. For some reason, the "Republicans" in my state have decided that their best candidate for governor is someone who seems to think that a bicycle-sharing program is part of a UN plot to take over the state.

TomS · 16 August 2010

There is at least one powerful judge out there who has already demonstrated that he is willing to give creationism a pass if it serves his constitutional agenda.

Frank J · 16 August 2010

Indeed, at times when I am at my most pessimistic, I can see a weird sequence of events that end up in the legal “approval” of the nonsense by the Supremes.
— Oclarki

The only one I completely trust is Florence Ballard - oh, you mean the other "Supremes." Scalia has already shown himself to be a bleeding heart for taxpayer-funded pseudoscience that has not earned the right to be taught. Thomas would likely do the same. But like you I'm not fully confident that any of them won't fall for the right "kind" of spin.

John Kwok · 16 August 2010

For the Supreme Court to rule in favor of ID or any other form of creationism now would be to go against prior precedent set in the conservative Burger and Rehnquist-led Supreme Court. Personally I am more concerned about the Dishonesty Institute trying more "bait and switch" scams than a potential legal challenge that could go all the way to the Supreme Court, and especially, a Supreme Court that I strongly doubt would set aside decades of prior legal precedent with regards to denying the teaching of creationism in schools:

Frank J said:
Indeed, at times when I am at my most pessimistic, I can see a weird sequence of events that end up in the legal “approval” of the nonsense by the Supremes.
— Oclarki
The only one I completely trust is Florence Ballard - oh, you mean the other "Supremes." Scalia has already shown himself to be a bleeding heart for taxpayer-funded pseudoscience that has not earned the right to be taught. Thomas would likely do the same. But like you I'm not fully confident that any of them won't fall for the right "kind" of spin.

Rich Blinne · 16 August 2010

Oclarki said:
Michael Buratovich said: It seems to me, and please forgive oh erudite readers of PT if this seems naive, that judges will laugh these types of legal challenges right out of the courtroom. One doesn't have to listen to Eugenie Scott talk about the legal history of the Creation vs. Evolution debate for long to see that the creationists and anyone even remotely connected to them have failed every time they have tried to challenge either the teaching of evolution in the classroom or assert the right to teach something else. How could this work? Or would it be a simple case of overloading the courts, frustrating people, and intimidating school districts into acquiescence?
Sadly, I suspect that somewhere out there there is a judge whose brains have been sucked out of his ears and who as a consequence will rule in favor of the DI nonsense....and so that nonsense will be elevated to the next step in the judicial process. Indeed, at times when I am at my most pessimistic, I can see a weird sequence of events that end up in the legal "approval" of the nonsense by the Supremes. And alas, I am at one of those pessimistic levels right now. For some reason, the "Republicans" in my state have decided that their best candidate for governor is someone who seems to think that a bicycle-sharing program is part of a UN plot to take over the state.

The other candidate was no better. When interviewed on Colorado Matters, Scott McInnis answered with a movie for the book that most informed his worldview. When Ryan Warner informed him of this -- and gave him an out by informing him that the movie was an adaptation of a book -- he replied he didn't really get into books. The Republican establishment didn't like either candidate and were trying to get the winner of the primary to drop out so that Re/Max founder, Dave Liniger, could step in, and for good reason. Post primary polling shows Maes imploding in the general. http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/hickenlooper-way-ahead.html My point for all this is to note how politics is local. So, I'll let the people who are familiar with Gainesville tell us what the conditions on the ground are. It may not be as crazy as it is here in Colorado.

tsig · 16 August 2010

David Fickett-Wilbar said:
DS said: One way to derail such a misguided strategy is to make sure that the metaphysical language is kept to a minimum in science textbooks. It really isn't necessary anyway. It is sufficient to describe diffusion as "random motion of molecules" without adding "that must mean that god isn't necessary in order for diffusion to occur". You can let the students decide that for themselves.
It might be fun to ask Creationists/IDers if they are suggesting that we do that. Can "random" be equated to "without divine intervention?" If so, should we insert a disclaimer every time we use the term? If not, why does it have a different meaning when it comes to evolution? Does God not care about the diffusion of molecules, but does care about evolution? How do we know what things He cares about and what He doesn't?

God cares About little tiny dicks Tongues when they lick And onions And god loves you too

eric · 16 August 2010

In conclusion: I don’t think Luskin has found a winning tactic here, but it could be a headache if this became a new creationist ploy.

I think Tim Sandefur provides a good teachable lesson, should this headache show up on the doorstep. Overlap and disagreement aren't illegal per se; the important legal and scientific question is how we arrive at a scientific proposition (that contradicts some religious claim):

But the bottom line is this: government may inhibit (short of censorship or compelled speech), oppose, and disapprove of any factual proposition whatsoever–including factual propositions that religious groups have taken a position on–so long as it does so from a secular background.

Propositions arrived at using the scientific methodology are science. Its legal to teach them, regardless of whether they agree with religion A, and regardless of whether they disagree with religion A. What makes something science is method, not whether it agrees with some other claim or not. You could also turn this teachable moment into a two-birds-with-one-stone opportunity, since explaining the importance of methodology can also help eliminate that other creationist misconception - that science is just a bag o' facts. Its not; science is an act of discovery. Learning science means learning how to turn the crank; memorizing what the machine spits out does no good if you don't learn how to properly turn the crank.

John Kwok · 16 August 2010

Absolutely, which is why Ken Miller recognizes that to do otherwise would be a "science stopper". As an aside, I will mention that Darwin descendant screenwriter and film maker Matthew Chapman has argued that it would be worthwhile to teach ID if only to expose its logical fallacies, but in so doing, students wouldn't be learning both scientific methodology and an understanding that by doing science they have engaged themselves into acts of discoveries:

eric said: Propositions arrived at using the scientific methodology are science. Its legal to teach them, regardless of whether they agree with religion A, and regardless of whether they disagree with religion A. What makes something science is method, not whether it agrees with some other claim or not. You could also turn this teachable moment into a two-birds-with-one-stone opportunity, since explaining the importance of methodology can also help eliminate that other creationist misconception - that science is just a bag o' facts. Its not; science is an act of discovery. Learning science means learning how to turn the crank; memorizing what the machine spits out does no good if you don't learn how to properly turn the crank.

John Kwok · 16 August 2010

typo - last sentence should conclude with: ....by doing science they have engaged themselves into performing acts of discoveries

John Kwok said: Absolutely, which is why Ken Miller recognizes that to do otherwise would be a "science stopper". As an aside, I will mention that Darwin descendant screenwriter and film maker Matthew Chapman has argued that it would be worthwhile to teach ID if only to expose its logical fallacies, but in so doing, students wouldn't be learning both scientific methodology and an understanding that by doing science they have engaged themselves into acts of discoveries:
eric said: Propositions arrived at using the scientific methodology are science. Its legal to teach them, regardless of whether they agree with religion A, and regardless of whether they disagree with religion A. What makes something science is method, not whether it agrees with some other claim or not. You could also turn this teachable moment into a two-birds-with-one-stone opportunity, since explaining the importance of methodology can also help eliminate that other creationist misconception - that science is just a bag o' facts. Its not; science is an act of discovery. Learning science means learning how to turn the crank; memorizing what the machine spits out does no good if you don't learn how to properly turn the crank.

Stanton · 16 August 2010

John Kwok said: ....by doing science they have engaged themselves into performing acts of discoveries

And it bears repeating that the typical creationist is taught that discovering things about this universe is a heinous sin, tantamount to, or worse than even murder.

eric · 16 August 2010

John Kwok said: As an aside, I will mention that Darwin descendant screenwriter and film maker Matthew Chapman has argued that it would be worthwhile to teach ID if only to expose its logical fallacies

I disagree with Chapman on that. Even as an object lesson, ID pedagogically sucks. N-rays are a good object lesson. Cold fusion is a good object lesson. Blondlot, Pons, Fleishman, we can analyze what they did wrong...because they actually did something. But IDers don't do anything at all. They merely talk about science. So there is nothing to analyze. I'll use an analogy. In sports one assesses errors by reviewing videotape of some game. Studying ID is like reviewing videotape of a guy watching sports. It might - tangentially - tell you something about the sport, but its not anywhere near as helpful as actually watching people who are doing the sport.

John Kwok · 16 August 2010

Nor do I. He devoted a chapter to this at the end of his book on the Dover trial and I thought that was the weakest section. As for your examples, I agree completely:

eric said:
John Kwok said: As an aside, I will mention that Darwin descendant screenwriter and film maker Matthew Chapman has argued that it would be worthwhile to teach ID if only to expose its logical fallacies
I disagree with Chapman on that. Even as an object lesson, ID pedagogically sucks. N-rays are a good object lesson. Cold fusion is a good object lesson. Blondlot, Pons, Fleishman, we can analyze what they did wrong...because they actually did something. But IDers don't do anything at all. They merely talk about science. So there is nothing to analyze. I'll use an analogy. In sports one assesses errors by reviewing videotape of some game. Studying ID is like reviewing videotape of a guy watching sports. It might - tangentially - tell you something about the sport, but its not anywhere near as helpful as actually watching people who are doing the sport.

harold · 16 August 2010

Eric -

I’ll use an analogy. In sports one assesses errors by reviewing videotape of some game. Studying ID is like reviewing videotape of a guy watching sports. It might - tangentially - tell you something about the sport, but its not anywhere near as helpful as actually watching people who are doing the sport.

Actually, I would say the correct analogy would be a tape of a guy lying about sports.

Rich Blinne · 16 August 2010

John Kwok said: Absolutely, which is why Ken Miller recognizes that to do otherwise would be a "science stopper". As an aside, I will mention that Darwin descendant screenwriter and film maker Matthew Chapman has argued that it would be worthwhile to teach ID if only to expose its logical fallacies, but in so doing, students wouldn't be learning both scientific methodology and an understanding that by doing science they have engaged themselves into acts of discoveries:
eric said: Propositions arrived at using the scientific methodology are science. Its legal to teach them, regardless of whether they agree with religion A, and regardless of whether they disagree with religion A. What makes something science is method, not whether it agrees with some other claim or not. You could also turn this teachable moment into a two-birds-with-one-stone opportunity, since explaining the importance of methodology can also help eliminate that other creationist misconception - that science is just a bag o' facts. Its not; science is an act of discovery. Learning science means learning how to turn the crank; memorizing what the machine spits out does no good if you don't learn how to properly turn the crank.

How Casey treats Ken Miller is instructive. First, there is Ken's biology textbook where Casey cannot let go of how it allegedly teaches materialism.

2. Textbooks that Prefer Pro-Evolution Non-Theistic or Atheistic Religious Viewpoints. During the Kitzmiller trial, the plaintiffs’ leadoff expert witness was Brown University biologist Dr. Kenneth Miller, who is also a prominent high school biology textbook author. Miller estimated that thirty-five percent of high school students use his textbooks,403 as well as “more than 200 colleges and universities around the country.”404 Yet five editions of Miller’s own textbook, Biology, described evolution as a purposeless, undirected process: “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose. . . . Evolution is random and undirected.”405 Miller further admitted during cross-examination that his popular textbook’s description of evolution would “requir[e] a conclusion about meaning and purpose that I think is beyond the realm of science.”406 At trial, Miller inaccurately testified that this theologically charged language “was not in the first edition of the book, it was not in the second edition, it was not in the fourth edition, [and] it was not in the fifth edition,”407 when in fact it does appear in all five editions of his textbook.408 Indeed, his own book Finding Darwin’s God describes Darwinian processes as “blind, random, [and] undirected evolution,”409 and other editions of Miller’s textbook have used even harsher anti-religious language. Both the 1991 and 1994 editions of Miller & Levine’s Biology: The Living Science left readers with a starkly materialist description of the implications of evolution: etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah, retch, retch, retch

But then he complains about Ken Miller as follows:

B. Preferring Pro-Evolution Theistic Religious Denominations in Public Schools 1. General Use of Religion to Advocate Evolution ... Like Coyne, Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller writes in his book, Finding Darwin’s God, how he believes evolution coheres with his Catholic faith: “Given evolution’s ability to adapt, to innovate, to test, and to experiment, sooner or later it would have given the Creator exactly what He was looking for—a creature who, like us, could know Him, and love Him . . . .”252 Miller also seems to explicitly endorse the common evolutionary view that “personal existence might not have been preordained by God”253 and that “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.”254

So, our schools are prefering Catholicism because it's a pro-evolution denomination? Maybe so, since Pope John Paul II had made statements friendly to evolution. So, how do the schools promote pro-evolution Catholicism? Through "Textbooks that Prefer Pro-Evolution Non-Theistic or Atheistic Religious Viewpoints." That's one example of a pro-evolution denomination. What's another?

Unlike Miller and Coyne, some theistic evolutionists purport to take a more traditional religious view that attempts to retain the omniscience and omnipotence of God. In his volume Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, evolutionary paleontologist and evangelical Christian Keith Miller writes, “Seeing the history of life unfolding with each new discovery is exciting to me. How incredible to be able to look back through the eons of time and see the panorama of God’s evolving creation! God has given us the ability to see into the past and watch his creative work unfold.”255 Similarly, Olivet Nazarene University professor of biology Richard Colling makes the following statements at various points in his book Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with the Creator:

So evangelicals are a pro-theistic evolutionary denomination? I wish. By throwing arguments and seeing what sticks and adding the concept of the theistic evolution "denomination" Casey Luskin adds to the self-contradiction we know and love in him.

John Kwok · 16 August 2010

I find Nick Matzke's take on this more insightful, especially when Nick was the "go-to-guy" with regards to documents at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial as the onsite NCSE information specialist. It was Nick who found the term "cdesign proponentsis". As for Ken, he has said that those who embrace faiths hostile to science should reject them (Just for the record, I heard Ken say this when he gave the annual faculty lecture to the Brown University Club in New York in May 2009.). Hardly a reassuring comment from someone who could be seen as bending over backwards to fence-sitting Evangelical Christians or by some who think he is the preeminent example of a Christian "accomodationist":

Rich Blinne said:
John Kwok said: Absolutely, which is why Ken Miller recognizes that to do otherwise would be a "science stopper". As an aside, I will mention that Darwin descendant screenwriter and film maker Matthew Chapman has argued that it would be worthwhile to teach ID if only to expose its logical fallacies, but in so doing, students wouldn't be learning both scientific methodology and an understanding that by doing science they have engaged themselves into acts of discoveries:
eric said: Propositions arrived at using the scientific methodology are science. Its legal to teach them, regardless of whether they agree with religion A, and regardless of whether they disagree with religion A. What makes something science is method, not whether it agrees with some other claim or not. You could also turn this teachable moment into a two-birds-with-one-stone opportunity, since explaining the importance of methodology can also help eliminate that other creationist misconception - that science is just a bag o' facts. Its not; science is an act of discovery. Learning science means learning how to turn the crank; memorizing what the machine spits out does no good if you don't learn how to properly turn the crank.

How Casey treats Ken Miller is instructive. First, there is Ken's biology textbook where Casey cannot let go of how it allegedly teaches materialism.
2. Textbooks that Prefer Pro-Evolution Non-Theistic or Atheistic Religious Viewpoints. During the Kitzmiller trial, the plaintiffs’ leadoff expert witness was Brown University biologist Dr. Kenneth Miller, who is also a prominent high school biology textbook author. Miller estimated that thirty-five percent of high school students use his textbooks,403 as well as “more than 200 colleges and universities around the country.”404 Yet five editions of Miller’s own textbook, Biology, described evolution as a purposeless, undirected process: “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose. . . . Evolution is random and undirected.”405 Miller further admitted during cross-examination that his popular textbook’s description of evolution would “requir[e] a conclusion about meaning and purpose that I think is beyond the realm of science.”406 At trial, Miller inaccurately testified that this theologically charged language “was not in the first edition of the book, it was not in the second edition, it was not in the fourth edition, [and] it was not in the fifth edition,”407 when in fact it does appear in all five editions of his textbook.408 Indeed, his own book Finding Darwin’s God describes Darwinian processes as “blind, random, [and] undirected evolution,”409 and other editions of Miller’s textbook have used even harsher anti-religious language. Both the 1991 and 1994 editions of Miller & Levine’s Biology: The Living Science left readers with a starkly materialist description of the implications of evolution: etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah, retch, retch, retch
But then he complains about Ken Miller as follows:
B. Preferring Pro-Evolution Theistic Religious Denominations in Public Schools 1. General Use of Religion to Advocate Evolution ... Like Coyne, Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller writes in his book, Finding Darwin’s God, how he believes evolution coheres with his Catholic faith: “Given evolution’s ability to adapt, to innovate, to test, and to experiment, sooner or later it would have given the Creator exactly what He was looking for—a creature who, like us, could know Him, and love Him . . . .”252 Miller also seems to explicitly endorse the common evolutionary view that “personal existence might not have been preordained by God”253 and that “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.”254
So, our schools are prefering Catholicism because it's a pro-evolution denomination? Maybe so, since Pope John Paul II had made statements friendly to evolution. So, how do the schools promote pro-evolution Catholicism? Through "Textbooks that Prefer Pro-Evolution Non-Theistic or Atheistic Religious Viewpoints." That's one example of a pro-evolution denomination. What's another?
Unlike Miller and Coyne, some theistic evolutionists purport to take a more traditional religious view that attempts to retain the omniscience and omnipotence of God. In his volume Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, evolutionary paleontologist and evangelical Christian Keith Miller writes, “Seeing the history of life unfolding with each new discovery is exciting to me. How incredible to be able to look back through the eons of time and see the panorama of God’s evolving creation! God has given us the ability to see into the past and watch his creative work unfold.”255 Similarly, Olivet Nazarene University professor of biology Richard Colling makes the following statements at various points in his book Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with the Creator:
So evangelicals are a pro-theistic evolutionary denomination? I wish. By throwing arguments and seeing what sticks and adding the concept of the theistic evolution "denomination" Casey Luskin adds to the self-contradiction we know and love in him.

MrG · 16 August 2010

Rich Blinne said: How Casey treats Ken Miller is instructive.

Ah, Casey "Sleaze Factor" Luskin: "No stone left unthrown." "Heads I win tails you lose heads I win."

John Kwok · 16 August 2010

Not only Casey Luskin, but the other Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers too, with special mentions going out to Mikey Behe and Bill Dembski. What Blinne is pointing out is nothing new, and, in fact, has been covered much better by Nick Matzke, Barbara Forrest, Wesley Elsberry and others:

MrG said:
Rich Blinne said: How Casey treats Ken Miller is instructive.
Ah, Casey "Sleaze Factor" Luskin: "No stone left unthrown." "Heads I win tails you lose heads I win."

TomS · 17 August 2010

How about listening to a sports commentator talking about things like "momentum" and "the law of averages"? Just like "intelligent design", those are capable of "explaining" anything that happens in a game, including non-existent patterns in random events.

IanW · 17 August 2010

This is entirely unsurprising since creation "research" consists entirely and solely of trying to engineer new ways of sneaking inane lies into schools.

Rich Blinne · 17 August 2010

John Kwok said: Not only Casey Luskin, but the other Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers too, with special mentions going out to Mikey Behe and Bill Dembski. What Blinne is pointing out is nothing new, and, in fact, has been covered much better by Nick Matzke, Barbara Forrest, Wesley Elsberry and others:
MrG said:
Rich Blinne said: How Casey treats Ken Miller is instructive.
Ah, Casey "Sleaze Factor" Luskin: "No stone left unthrown." "Heads I win tails you lose heads I win."

Sure, go ahead and give each other high fives. Yes, they gave a pitch perfect argument if all you are doing is looking at this from the narrow angle of creationism. As long as we are recommending books to understand what's going on I'd recommend The Nine reading for how Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ steered away from religious arguments and successfully argued based on free speech. Also, look at Toobin's analysis of the effects of the conservative/libertarian Federalist Society and it's insistence on "original intent" and corporations as persons. Before I return to considering what Casey is doing, we must see the the anti-science threat coming from corporations and the Citizens United decision. They have deep pockets that cash-strapped school boards don't. Justice Sandra Day OConner warned of corporations buying the court and this NPR piece from yesterday illustrates how corporations can capture the robes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129178835 See also how Massey Energy, a global warming denialist company has done the same: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/04/massey_energy_blankenship.html Back to Casey now. The reason why the Federalist Society's influence on the court is important is original intent can be more easily distorted than the text through the distortion of history. The key word in Luskin's treatise is denomination. According to the distortion promoted by Beck University "professor" David Barton the establishment clause was to promote neutrality between denominations but a generic promotion of religion is OK. Rehnquist took this position over and against your history prof correct assessment of the New York State blasphemy decision that I discussed here earlier. If you look at the decisions of establishment clause decisions outside of creationism proper you see the conservatives on the court amenable to such historic revisionism. Toobin notes that Scalia hates the Lemon test. So, Luskin is trying to make TE into denomination so that his anti-evolutionary "denomination" can be treated "neutrally". The counter argument I was giving was to show there is no real mapping to real religious denominations and that TEs like Ken Miller don't teach their religious position to the point that they get confused with atheists and materialists. Finally, independent of whether Luskin really wants this tested in the courts he's trying to get back in the spotlight. The Religious Right has moved on from ID and is focusing on David Barton's Christian America. The Irreligious Right has moved on to giving 14th Amendment rights to U.S corporate subsidiary anchor babies and having the corporate merchants of doubt flood the airwaves with anti-science messages. These approaches have a much greater chances of winning over and against the failed Dover strategy and everybody loves a winner.

MrG · 17 August 2010

Rich Blinne said: Sure, go ahead and give each other high fives. Yes, they gave a pitch perfect argument if all you are doing is looking at this from the narrow angle of creationism.

RB, I get this impression that you are trying to argue with me over something, but I can't figure out what.

John Kwok · 17 August 2010

What makes you think you know more than Nick Matzke or Barbara Forrest? Barbara, along with her colleague, self-admitted conservative biologist Paul Gross, have delved into tangential issues not directly pertaining to creationism. Gross has devoted much time examining liberal bias in academia. That's a fair observation to make (above) since you seem incapable of distinguishing between a valid hypotethical example I made to make a useful point on interpreting polling data recently at another PT discussion thread and what would be regarded legitimately as a "creationist trick". Last, but not least, don't think you're in the same league as Steve Matheson and David Heddle as Evangelical Christians who have confronted delusional Xian Dishonesty Institute IDiots like Steve Meyer and Bill Dembski. They have, and you haven't:

Rich Blinne said: Sure, go ahead and give each other high fives. Yes, they gave a pitch perfect argument if all you are doing is looking at this from the narrow angle of creationism. As long as we are recommending books to understand what's going on I'd recommend The Nine reading for how Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ steered away from religious arguments and successfully argued based on free speech. Also, look at Toobin's analysis of the effects of the conservative/libertarian Federalist Society and it's insistence on "original intent" and corporations as persons.

John Kwok · 17 August 2010

Nor can I. Rich Blinne is simply trying to impress us all with his knowledge:

MrG said:
Rich Blinne said: Sure, go ahead and give each other high fives. Yes, they gave a pitch perfect argument if all you are doing is looking at this from the narrow angle of creationism.
RB, I get this impression that you are trying to argue with me over something, but I can't figure out what.

Rich Blinne · 17 August 2010

MrG said:
Rich Blinne said: Sure, go ahead and give each other high fives. Yes, they gave a pitch perfect argument if all you are doing is looking at this from the narrow angle of creationism.
RB, I get this impression that you are trying to argue with me over something, but I can't figure out what.

I'm not arguing with you nor Nick et al. To the extent that Casey retains the failed Dover argument what they argue still buries him over five years out. I was focusing on Nick's new question.

MrG · 17 August 2010

Rich Blinne said: I was focusing on Nick's new question.

Well, if you want to comment on Nick, no need to respond I said, right?

MrG · 17 August 2010

correction: "to what I said"

John Kwok · 17 August 2010

Absolutely. Blinne is just being contentious and wishes to demonstrate his erudition, when it pales in comparison to the likes of Nick Matzke, Barbara Forrest, Paul Gross, Keith Miller and Steve Matheson (I'm mentioning those two since they are fellow Evangelical Christians who have demonstrated that they are credible opponents of evolution denialism, and especially so, in Keith's case, since he was actively involved in the Kansas public school science standards wars.):

MrG said:
Rich Blinne said: I was focusing on Nick's new question.
Well, if you want to comment on Nick, no need to respond I said, right?

Rich Blinne · 17 August 2010

MrG said: correction: "to what I said"

I'll trim my quotes better next time. My point was and is not everything relates to proving ID is creationism or the DI. Anti-science forces were and are larger than that. John interprets that as either my picking a fight with or a failure to understand all that Nick and company did. Quite the contrary.

John Kwok · 17 August 2010

No, you are misinterpreting me again as you did when you risibly claimed that I had performed a creationist "trick":

Rich Blinne said: John interprets that as either my picking a fight with or a failure to understand all that Nick and company did. Quite the contrary.

Quite the contrary, I merely observed that you are not nearly as knowledgeable as those I mentioned (Or do I need to define the word erudition.). Nor do I take seriously one who is too quick to dub someone else a "creationist" (or at least allude to that since you had accused me of performing a "creationist trick") when you opined at Uncommonly Dense back in April 2007 that Intelligent Design had "stronger arguments" than its anti-evolutionary ones in contending with yet another condemnation of Christianity by Richard Dawkins. Don't dare considering yourself the equal of your fellow Evangelicals Keith Miller, Steve Matheson and David Heddle since you haven't accomplished anything remotely resembling what they have done against evolution denialism. It is also a mistake to conclude that I see science denialism strictly from the metaphorical prisms of Intelligent Design and other forms so "scientific" cretinism. I've commented here extensively on global warming denialism and other forms too, including the anti-vaccination movement.

John Kwok · 17 August 2010

Some typos, so am reposting this - No, you are misinterpreting me again as you did when you risibly claimed that I had performed a creationist "trick":

Rich Blinne said: John interprets that as either my picking a fight with or a failure to understand all that Nick and company did. Quite the contrary.

Quite the contrary, I merely observed that you are not nearly as knowledgeable as those I mentioned (Or do I need to define the word erudition.). Nor do I take seriously one who is too quick to dub someone else a "creationist" (or at least allude to that since you had accused me of performing a "creationist trick") when you opined at Uncommonly Dense back in April 2007 that Intelligent Design had "stronger arguments" than its anti-evolutionary ones in contending with yet another condemnation of Christianity by Richard Dawkins. Don't dare consider yourself the equal of your fellow Evangelicals Keith Miller, Steve Matheson and David Heddle since you haven't accomplished anything remotely resembling what they have done against evolution denialism. It is also a mistake to conclude that I see science denialism strictly from the metaphorical prisms of Intelligent Design and other forms of "scientific" cretinism. I've commented here extensively on global warming denialism and other forms too, including the anti-vaccination movement (Incidentally, some of my harshest condemnation has been aimed not only at fellow Republicans and Conservatives, but even fellow Brunonians, like the ever delusional Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer David Klinghoffer. Maybe if you opted to read more rather than comment, you might notice.).

Rich Blinne · 18 August 2010

John Kwok said: No, you are misinterpreting me again as you did when you risibly claimed that I had performed a creationist "trick":
Rich Blinne said: John interprets that as either my picking a fight with or a failure to understand all that Nick and company did. Quite the contrary.
Quite the contrary, I merely observed that you are not nearly as knowledgeable as those I mentioned (Or do I need to define the word erudition.). Nor do I take seriously one who is too quick to dub someone else a "creationist" (or at least allude to that since you had accused me of performing a "creationist trick") when you opined at Uncommonly Dense back in April 2007 that Intelligent Design had "stronger arguments" than its anti-evolutionary ones in contending with yet another condemnation of Christianity by Richard Dawkins. Don't dare considering yourself the equal of your fellow Evangelicals Keith Miller, Steve Matheson and David Heddle since you haven't accomplished anything remotely resembling what they have done against evolution denialism. It is also a mistake to conclude that I see science denialism strictly from the metaphorical prisms of Intelligent Design and other forms so "scientific" cretinism. I've commented here extensively on global warming denialism and other forms too, including the anti-vaccination movement.

I am not an expert nor ever claimed to be one. One of the reasons I have been hesitant to go tell off Dembski and company is because I'm not an expert. It should be of particular interest of the NCSE of why people like me exist because I am so rare and quite frankly they are not getting through to the larger evangelical community. Recently, Michael Behe and Eugenie Scott both visited Colorado State University at different times. Both had reasonably large crowds but both consisted mostly of cheerleaders for their side. Steve Matheson's and Keith Miller's positions are easier to explain because they are experts in biology and geology respectively. See my ASA poll analysis that shows no difference for acceptance of evolution with respect to whether you go to a Christian or secular university but a large difference if you happen to be a full-time biologist or geologist. http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/07/16/asa-origins-survey-with-correction/ So, I'll answer the question that should have been asked of me here. Who changed your mind and how did he do it? The who was Dr. Terry Gray who transferred to Colorado State University after being a professor at Calvin. Somewhere around 1995 Terry wrote a critical review of Behe's Darwin's Black Box for the OPC denominational magazine. This got him an ecclesiastical trial all way up to their General Assembly where he was indefinitely suspended from office. His membership transfer and trial transcripts dropped on my lap since I was on the Session of the church he was joining. (We have both since moved on to different churches.) Even though the church was predominantly YEC we unanimously approved his membership. (Harold if you are reading my answer to your straight up question to Ray should be obvious. When membership is conferred it is a statement that we believe the person is credibly a Christian.) What convinced me was Terry's humble demeanor and his obvious pursuit of the truth wherever it leads. This lead me to eventually read, understand, and finally accept what he wrote about the science. After this happened Terry recruited me into the ASA. What I did in the mid-90s is much easier than now. I hadn't heard of Michael Behe until I read Terry's trial transcripts. My observations is that the hostility of science ebbed and flowed to the degree partisan politics influenced the church. Several years ago when it wasn't as politically heated I was able to present on global warming and Terry on evolution at the church I currently attend. I don't think we could do this now because of the political environment. The biggest reason to accept mainstream science is to be in actual contact with an expert like Terry. As part of my being on the board of the local section of the ASA we are seeing to provide opportunities for such contact in churches. I don't have any relationships with any of the big wigs in ID but I have many with just plain folk inside evangelical churches. So, that's where my focus is. What I find disturbing in the new strategy above is the change in focus from attacking atheists to attacking TEs as part of an "apostate" denomination. Previously we could use our Christian credentials as an entrance to discuss this and this will take that away. (I find this all very ironic since Jonathan Wells is a Moonie.) This could make the task we are trying to do more difficult. Knowing my friends like I do the returning in kind as John Kwok recommends will just continue and deepen the poisoning ID has created inside the evangelical community. One final note, this is not a criticism of Steve Matheson because there is a huge difference of an expert being critical of his colleagues and being out and out obnoxious. In fact, I think we need both kinds of approaches. As long as it's done respectfully, polemic and irenic approaches can be done hand in glove.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

Your comments do not justify your bizarre accusations of accusing me of using "creationist tricks" when it was clear to me that you did not really understand polling data or the statistical methodology use to analyze them properly. Had you known beforehand that I was trained in evolutionary biology in graduate school (primarily in invertebrate paleobiology), had worked in epidemiological research, and last, but not least, had assisted Ken Miller in his very first debate against a creationist (held decades ago at our undergraduate alma mater, Brown University), you would have thought twice before trying to smear me. Nor do they, by themselves, justify your advice to Dembski and others over at Uncommonly Dense back in April 2007 that you thought Intelligent Design had "stronger arguments" for contending with yet another harsh condemnation by Richard Dawkins of Christianity. I fully expect a public retraction of your smear and an apology to be posted at the PT discussion thread where you stated it (Or here if it is no longer possible to do so at that other thread):

Rich Blinne said:
John Kwok said: No, you are misinterpreting me again as you did when you risibly claimed that I had performed a creationist "trick":
Rich Blinne said: John interprets that as either my picking a fight with or a failure to understand all that Nick and company did. Quite the contrary.
Quite the contrary, I merely observed that you are not nearly as knowledgeable as those I mentioned (Or do I need to define the word erudition.). Nor do I take seriously one who is too quick to dub someone else a "creationist" (or at least allude to that since you had accused me of performing a "creationist trick") when you opined at Uncommonly Dense back in April 2007 that Intelligent Design had "stronger arguments" than its anti-evolutionary ones in contending with yet another condemnation of Christianity by Richard Dawkins. Don't dare considering yourself the equal of your fellow Evangelicals Keith Miller, Steve Matheson and David Heddle since you haven't accomplished anything remotely resembling what they have done against evolution denialism. It is also a mistake to conclude that I see science denialism strictly from the metaphorical prisms of Intelligent Design and other forms so "scientific" cretinism. I've commented here extensively on global warming denialism and other forms too, including the anti-vaccination movement.
I am not an expert nor ever claimed to be one. One of the reasons I have been hesitant to go tell off Dembski and company is because I'm not an expert. It should be of particular interest of the NCSE of why people like me exist because I am so rare and quite frankly they are not getting through to the larger evangelical community. Recently, Michael Behe and Eugenie Scott both visited Colorado State University at different times. Both had reasonably large crowds but both consisted mostly of cheerleaders for their side. Steve Matheson's and Keith Miller's positions are easier to explain because they are experts in biology and geology respectively. See my ASA poll analysis that shows no difference for acceptance of evolution with respect to whether you go to a Christian or secular university but a large difference if you happen to be a full-time biologist or geologist. http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/07/16/asa-origins-survey-with-correction/ So, I'll answer the question that should have been asked of me here. Who changed your mind and how did he do it? The who was Dr. Terry Gray who transferred to Colorado State University after being a professor at Calvin. Somewhere around 1995 Terry wrote a critical review of Behe's Darwin's Black Box for the OPC denominational magazine. This got him an ecclesiastical trial all way up to their General Assembly where he was indefinitely suspended from office. His membership transfer and trial transcripts dropped on my lap since I was on the Session of the church he was joining. (We have both since moved on to different churches.) Even though the church was predominantly YEC we unanimously approved his membership. (Harold if you are reading my answer to your straight up question to Ray should be obvious. When membership is conferred it is a statement that we believe the person is credibly a Christian.) What convinced me was Terry's humble demeanor and his obvious pursuit of the truth wherever it leads. This lead me to eventually read, understand, and finally accept what he wrote about the science. After this happened Terry recruited me into the ASA. What I did in the mid-90s is much easier than now. I hadn't heard of Michael Behe until I read Terry's trial transcripts. My observations is that the hostility of science ebbed and flowed to the degree partisan politics influenced the church. Several years ago when it wasn't as politically heated I was able to present on global warming and Terry on evolution at the church I currently attend. I don't think we could do this now because of the political environment. The biggest reason to accept mainstream science is to be in actual contact with an expert like Terry. As part of my being on the board of the local section of the ASA we are seeing to provide opportunities for such contact in churches. I don't have any relationships with any of the big wigs in ID but I have many with just plain folk inside evangelical churches. So, that's where my focus is. What I find disturbing in the new strategy above is the change in focus from attacking atheists to attacking TEs as part of an "apostate" denomination. Previously we could use our Christian credentials as an entrance to discuss this and this will take that away. (I find this all very ironic since Jonathan Wells is a Moonie.) This could make the task we are trying to do more difficult. Knowing my friends like I do the returning in kind as John Kwok recommends will just continue and deepen the poisoning ID has created inside the evangelical community. One final note, this is not a criticism of Steve Matheson because there is a huge difference of an expert being critical of his colleagues and being out and out obnoxious. In fact, I think we need both kinds of approaches. As long as it's done respectfully, polemic and irenic approaches can be done hand in glove.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

Your friends need to know that Dembski is a liar (falsely accused eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka of being a bioterrorist to the Federal Department of Homeland Security), a thief (He stole $20,000 from the Dover Area School District board after promising - then reneging - to serve as one of their key defense witnesses at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. He also stole from Harvard University a cell animation video which mysteriously wound up in a preliminary cut of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"), a harsh - and often quite immature - critic of his critics, and a censor (tried to have Amazon.com remove a review of one of his books until I issued him an ultimatum to have it restored or else, and he had to comply). Tell them the truth about Dembski and his colleagues. If it hurts, then so be it:

Rich Blinne said: Knowing my friends like I do the returning in kind as John Kwok recommends will just continue and deepen the poisoning ID has created inside the evangelical community. One final note, this is not a criticism of Steve Matheson because there is a huge difference of an expert being critical of his colleagues and being out and out obnoxious. In fact, I think we need both kinds of approaches. As long as it's done respectfully, polemic and irenic approaches can be done hand in glove.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

This is not meant as a direct criticism, but since the Dishonesty Institute's agitprop "division" went into warp speed in response to Steve Matheson's open letter to Stephen Meyer, then how do you think you can persuade your friends of Steve's good intentions, when he has been smeared already from the Dishonesty Institute. Regrettably sometimes you must fight fire with fire:

Rich Blinne said: One final note, this is not a criticism of Steve Matheson because there is a huge difference of an expert being critical of his colleagues and being out and out obnoxious.

I know you're reading this, so would and do expect an immediate retraction and an apology. It's bad enough I have to contend with delusional New Atheists, especially when I have found myself in the difficult position of defending you and your fellow co-religionists. Would expect both the retraction and an apology at the very least as a professional courtesy.

Rich Blinne · 18 August 2010

John Kwok said: Your comments do not justify your bizarre accusations of accusing me of using "creationist tricks" when it was clear to me that you did not really understand polling data or the statistical methodology use to analyze them properly. Had you known beforehand that I was trained in evolutionary biology in graduate school (primarily in invertebrate paleobiology), had worked in epidemiological research, and last, but not least, had assisted Ken Miller in his very first debate against a creationist (held decades ago at our undergraduate alma mater, Brown University), you would have thought twice before trying to smear me. Nor do they, by themselves, justify your advice to Dembski and others over at Uncommonly Dense back in April 2007 that you thought Intelligent Design had "stronger arguments" for contending with yet another harsh condemnation by Richard Dawkins of Christianity. I fully expect a public retraction of your smear and an apology to be posted at the PT discussion thread where you stated it (Or here if it is no longer possible to do so at that other thread):

No can do. First of all, the creationist trick was not how you analyze the polling data but was substituting hypothetical data when real datasets were available. Interestingly enough, you also questioned Gallup's abilities too so I figure I am in good company. Specifically, you questioned Gallup's sample size when you could have looked it up and could see it was the same size as the poll you were pushing. The second part of the creationist trick was to set up a straw man. No one ever said that Republican ascendency caused an increase in denialism because there was no increase, at least in evolutionary denialism. Here's what was being argued: Republicans in 2007 were a plurality of young earth creationists and when you add leaning Republicans they form a heavy majority. (I calculated this by combining Gallup's poll with partisan crosstabs with Gallup's records of the sizes of partisan groups. This simple calculation does not require you to be an expert but just the ability to do arithmetic.) The poll you quoted back had no partisan crosstabs and thus were not relavent to the discussion. The links to these polls were posted and then you denied that they were demanding an apology in your same heavy-handed style. In fact, SWT posted those links for me. So he could find them when you seemed to have trouble doing so. I showed all my work so you could have used your expertise showing where I made an error but you never did. If you can show any specific errors in arriving at the bolded statement above I will gladly make a retraction here. (You will note that the ASA poll analysis above includes such a retraction because an error was found and I corrected it.) This actually is a helpful thing to consider. Science doesn't use an argument from authority like religion often does. While we lean on experts it's to do peer review so that errors are eliminated and retracted. It's not sufficient to say "I'm an expert, trust me." The experts need to point out the specific error which because they are experts they can see more easily. If non-experts like myself want to go into the deep end of the pool getting the errors skewered should be expected part of the experience. However, being condescending and name-dropping etc. etc. is completely counterproductive if your goal is bring on board non-experts who are trying to understand the issues. So, when a non-expert like myself makes a mistake note the error and move on. If I'm too dense to understand it, that's my problem. This insistent for an apology is completely unbecoming and reminds me of all the arguments from authority I experience inside of my conservative religious and political environment. As for your second accusation, this is even more bizarre and shows your seeming inability to parse the English language. First a short bit of history. The following post was put on Uncommon Descent: http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/american-scientific-affiliation-whatever-happened-to-its-mission/ When we saw this I was asked to get on the blog to see if we could address this. This is what I addressed to Bill Dembski personally on his blog:

Bill, I find it utterly ironic that the thread Denyse misquoted was started by a young geologist who found the ASA after almost losing her faith reading Lee Strobel’s the Case for Creation and finding his utterly weak arguments slaughtered by infidels.org. This is at the core of many of our concerns.

Here's what John quoted in context which was a response to the comment above:

"Dawkins is more fruitful than their "warfare" model. . . Dawkins is not merely going after the bad science of ID. You say we should engage in Dawkins et al with love etc. and fine. You're right. Then you come here knowing full well most of us have a strong opinion that ID is good science (or at least better science than Darwinism) and spit on floor.” [Note: That doesn't sound like I was giving aid and comfort does it?] No, that’s not what I am saying. I am saying address Dawkins with the best arguments available. Dawkins believes just because he slices through your weak arguments that he has conquered Christianity. Note carefully what I am saying. Some of ID’s arguments are much stronger than others. The anti-evolutionary ones are its weakest. Focus on the stronger arguments you already have. When I talk of warfare that’s warfare between science and faith and not between faith and unbelief.

Then I commented about a creationist trick where my actual words were replaced with more convenient ones.

“Dawkins is not merely going after the (quite reasonable) science of ID. He is going after all Christians: What gave you the right to misquote me? Since when did bad get changed to quite reasonable? It’s precisely this kind of debating technique that gives Christians a bad name.

John did the same creationist trick when he replaced my word stronger with the word strong. An argument that is stronger than an utterly weak one is not necessarily strong. What I was trying to do was to move ID proponents away from their anti-evolutionary ones to other more benign ones. Since I made this comment my views have changed somewhat and I have been critical of arguments based on things such as fine tuning, abiogenesis, the moral nature of mankind, etc. A common theological argument against ID is that it promotes a God of the gaps. The arguments above have their own gaps in them and while there is less scientific evidence against them than the classical ID arguments it doesn't mean there won't be in the future. Therefore, while many of us may be persuaded by any or all of them we should be congnizent that to use these in the context of apologetics is really, really, stupid.

Rich Blinne · 18 August 2010

John Kwok said: This is not meant as a direct criticism, but since the Dishonesty Institute's agitprop "division" went into warp speed in response to Steve Matheson's open letter to Stephen Meyer, then how do you think you can persuade your friends of Steve's good intentions, when he has been smeared already from the Dishonesty Institute. Regrettably sometimes you must fight fire with fire:

Despite all our disgreements, I agree with this. My "friends" are not the DI but are mostly regular folk. Given their sympathy for persecuted scientists coming from Expelled I believe I can redirect this on Steve's behalf.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

Thanks for demonstrating why you shouldn't be regarded as credible. Others here at Panda's Thumb have posted hypothetical examples to illustrate various points but they haven't been smeared for performing "creationist tricks" unless such crticism was valid. In your case it wasn't. Your refusal to acknwoledge this gives me ample reason to treat with ample incredulity anything you will post further (That and your refusal to admit that you were mistaken to suggest at Uncommonly Dense to Dembski and his delusional goons that ID had "stronger arguments" to rebut Richard Dawkins's condemnation of Christianity. You can't legitimately argue that you did it for metaphysical reasons, since there was ample literature by April 2007 - of which the most notable may be Judge Jones's ruling at the close of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial that clearly demonstrate that Intelligent Design had no "strong arguments" for anything period. I don't have time to file formally any complaints about your conduct to ASA but they will be forthcoming unless you retract your comment and apologize for it:

Rich Blinne said:
John Kwok said: Your comments do not justify your bizarre accusations of accusing me of using "creationist tricks" when it was clear to me that you did not really understand polling data or the statistical methodology use to analyze them properly. Had you known beforehand that I was trained in evolutionary biology in graduate school (primarily in invertebrate paleobiology), had worked in epidemiological research, and last, but not least, had assisted Ken Miller in his very first debate against a creationist (held decades ago at our undergraduate alma mater, Brown University), you would have thought twice before trying to smear me. Nor do they, by themselves, justify your advice to Dembski and others over at Uncommonly Dense back in April 2007 that you thought Intelligent Design had "stronger arguments" for contending with yet another harsh condemnation by Richard Dawkins of Christianity. I fully expect a public retraction of your smear and an apology to be posted at the PT discussion thread where you stated it (Or here if it is no longer possible to do so at that other thread):
No can do. First of all, the creationist trick was not how you analyze the polling data but was substituting hypothetical data when real datasets were available. Interestingly enough, you also questioned Gallup's abilities too so I figure I am in good company. Specifically, you questioned Gallup's sample size when you could have looked it up and could see it was the same size as the poll you were pushing. The second part of the creationist trick was to set up a straw man. No one ever said that Republican ascendency caused an increase in denialism because there was no increase, at least in evolutionary denialism. Here's what was being argued: Republicans in 2007 were a plurality of young earth creationists and when you add leaning Republicans they form a heavy majority. (I calculated this by combining Gallup's poll with partisan crosstabs with Gallup's records of the sizes of partisan groups. This simple calculation does not require you to be an expert but just the ability to do arithmetic.) The poll you quoted back had no partisan crosstabs and thus were not relavent to the discussion. The links to these polls were posted and then you denied that they were demanding an apology in your same heavy-handed style. In fact, SWT posted those links for me. So he could find them when you seemed to have trouble doing so. I showed all my work so you could have used your expertise showing where I made an error but you never did. If you can show any specific errors in arriving at the bolded statement above I will gladly make a retraction here. (You will note that the ASA poll analysis above includes such a retraction because an error was found and I corrected it.) This actually is a helpful thing to consider. Science doesn't use an argument from authority like religion often does. While we lean on experts it's to do peer review so that errors are eliminated and retracted. It's not sufficient to say "I'm an expert, trust me." The experts need to point out the specific error which because they are experts they can see more easily. If non-experts like myself want to go into the deep end of the pool getting the errors skewered should be expected part of the experience. However, being condescending and name-dropping etc. etc. is completely counterproductive if your goal is bring on board non-experts who are trying to understand the issues. So, when a non-expert like myself makes a mistake note the error and move on. If I'm too dense to understand it, that's my problem. This insistent for an apology is completely unbecoming and reminds me of all the arguments from authority I experience inside of my conservative religious and political environment. As for your second accusation, this is even more bizarre and shows your seeming inability to parse the English language. First a short bit of history. The following post was put on Uncommon Descent: http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/american-scientific-affiliation-whatever-happened-to-its-mission/ When we saw this I was asked to get on the blog to see if we could address this. This is what I addressed to Bill Dembski personally on his blog:
Bill, I find it utterly ironic that the thread Denyse misquoted was started by a young geologist who found the ASA after almost losing her faith reading Lee Strobel’s the Case for Creation and finding his utterly weak arguments slaughtered by infidels.org. This is at the core of many of our concerns.
Here's what John quoted in context which was a response to the comment above:
"Dawkins is more fruitful than their "warfare" model. . . Dawkins is not merely going after the bad science of ID. You say we should engage in Dawkins et al with love etc. and fine. You're right. Then you come here knowing full well most of us have a strong opinion that ID is good science (or at least better science than Darwinism) and spit on floor.” [Note: That doesn't sound like I was giving aid and comfort does it?] No, that’s not what I am saying. I am saying address Dawkins with the best arguments available. Dawkins believes just because he slices through your weak arguments that he has conquered Christianity. Note carefully what I am saying. Some of ID’s arguments are much stronger than others. The anti-evolutionary ones are its weakest. Focus on the stronger arguments you already have. When I talk of warfare that’s warfare between science and faith and not between faith and unbelief.
Then I commented about a creationist trick where my actual words were replaced with more convenient ones.
“Dawkins is not merely going after the (quite reasonable) science of ID. He is going after all Christians: What gave you the right to misquote me? Since when did bad get changed to quite reasonable? It’s precisely this kind of debating technique that gives Christians a bad name.
John did the same creationist trick when he replaced my word stronger with the word strong. An argument that is stronger than an utterly weak one is not necessarily strong. What I was trying to do was to move ID proponents away from their anti-evolutionary ones to other more benign ones. Since I made this comment my views have changed somewhat and I have been critical of arguments based on things such as fine tuning, abiogenesis, the moral nature of mankind, etc. A common theological argument against ID is that it promotes a God of the gaps. The arguments above have their own gaps in them and while there is less scientific evidence against them than the classical ID arguments it doesn't mean there won't be in the future. Therefore, while many of us may be persuaded by any or all of them we should be congnizent that to use these in the context of apologetics is really, really, stupid.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

See my latest comment. I put more stock in what Steve, Keith Miller and David Heddle may and can do than anything you can possibly do, especially in light of your recent behavior here. Moreover, I should note that even an avowed New Atheist like physicist Lawrence Krauss often speaks to Evangelical Christian - especially creationist - audiences, and while that may be a most odd pairing, he doesn't hesitate to pull punches, while resorting to excessively hostile rhetoric from his New Atheist allies:

Rich Blinne said:
John Kwok said: This is not meant as a direct criticism, but since the Dishonesty Institute's agitprop "division" went into warp speed in response to Steve Matheson's open letter to Stephen Meyer, then how do you think you can persuade your friends of Steve's good intentions, when he has been smeared already from the Dishonesty Institute. Regrettably sometimes you must fight fire with fire:
Despite all our disgreements, I agree with this. My "friends" are not the DI but are mostly regular folk. Given their sympathy for persecuted scientists coming from Expelled I believe I can redirect this on Steve's behalf.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

Typo - should read, "while NOT resorting to excessively hostile rhetoric":

John Kwok said: See my latest comment. I put more stock in what Steve, Keith Miller and David Heddle may and can do than anything you can possibly do, especially in light of your recent behavior here. Moreover, I should note that even an avowed New Atheist like physicist Lawrence Krauss often speaks to Evangelical Christian - especially creationist - audiences, and while that may be a most odd pairing, he doesn't hesitate to pull punches, while resorting to excessively hostile rhetoric from his New Atheist allies:
Rich Blinne said:
John Kwok said: This is not meant as a direct criticism, but since the Dishonesty Institute's agitprop "division" went into warp speed in response to Steve Matheson's open letter to Stephen Meyer, then how do you think you can persuade your friends of Steve's good intentions, when he has been smeared already from the Dishonesty Institute. Regrettably sometimes you must fight fire with fire:
Despite all our disgreements, I agree with this. My "friends" are not the DI but are mostly regular folk. Given their sympathy for persecuted scientists coming from Expelled I believe I can redirect this on Steve's behalf.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

Do me a favor and just cut the crap. When you opt to act responsibly, I'll return the favor.

eric · 18 August 2010

Rich Blinne said: What I find disturbing in the new strategy above is the change in focus from attacking atheists to attacking TEs as part of an "apostate" denomination.

. Attacks on TE by Ken Ham, AIG, Jack Chick, etc... are not new. Heck any attack on evolution has an anti-TE flavor practically by definition, going back 150 years. I'd agree with you that the DI has shifted towards a more YEC focus recently. But frankly I think this particular Luskinism is not focused on TE. The goal seems to be to litigate any text language, no matter how minor, that they find objectionable in order to shut down mainstream science textbook use. TE-like statements are included in that language, but its not the target, if you get what I mean. Preventing kids from learning evolution is the target.

Rich Blinne · 18 August 2010

John Kwok said: Do me a favor and just cut the crap. When you opt to act responsibly, I'll return the favor.

All I was doing was responding because you kept demanding a response. If you don't like my responses there's a simple solution to the problem. As for bringing someone in I would bring in Terry Gray. He's local, known, and trusted.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 18 August 2010

John Kwok said: Do me a favor and just cut the crap. When you opt to act responsibly, I'll return the favor.

Glad to hear you admitting to not acting responsibly.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

Au contraire, idiot. Blinne is being a bit pompous and sanctimonious, especially after I tried teaching him something about statisical analysis of polling data. But I suppose this is typical behavior for many delusional Evangelical Christian IDiots and other creos:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:
John Kwok said: Do me a favor and just cut the crap. When you opt to act responsibly, I'll return the favor.
Glad to hear you admitting to not acting responsibly.

Rich Blinne · 18 August 2010

eric said:
Rich Blinne said: What I find disturbing in the new strategy above is the change in focus from attacking atheists to attacking TEs as part of an "apostate" denomination.
. Attacks on TE by Ken Ham, AIG, Jack Chick, etc... are not new. Heck any attack on evolution has an anti-TE flavor practically by definition, going back 150 years. I'd agree with you that the DI has shifted towards a more YEC focus recently. But frankly I think this particular Luskinism is not focused on TE. The goal seems to be to litigate any text language, no matter how minor, that they find objectionable in order to shut down mainstream science textbook use. TE-like statements are included in that language, but its not the target, if you get what I mean. Preventing kids from learning evolution is the target.

Luskin is using a dog whistle. When he uses the phrase anti-evolutionary denominations he's whispering liberal. This is to undercut such things as the clergy letter project because they can't be trusted since they are just Presbyterians, mainline Lutherans, UCC and the like. One of the problems we have in the evangelical community is we don't distinguish between liberal politics and liberal Christianity. Liberal is just a poorly defined epithet meaning anything I disagree with. I do agree with you that Luskin's end goal is targeting teaching evolution in the schools but the possible effect is to turn up the temperature that's already white hot.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

Agreed on all of these counts. Looks like YEC focus is designed for two reasons and two reasons only: 1) Counter objections to DI from ICR, AiG and other YEC organizations 2) Broaden the "Big Tent" as much as possible Will be fascinating to see how much success DI will have amongst the Evangelical Christian and Xian creos:

eric said: Attacks on TE by Ken Ham, AIG, Jack Chick, etc... are not new. Heck any attack on evolution has an anti-TE flavor practically by definition, going back 150 years. I'd agree with you that the DI has shifted towards a more YEC focus recently. But frankly I think this particular Luskinism is not focused on TE. The goal seems to be to litigate any text language, no matter how minor, that they find objectionable in order to shut down mainstream science textbook use. TE-like statements are included in that language, but its not the target, if you get what I mean. Preventing kids from learning evolution is the target.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

Still doesn't leave you off the hook for giving metaphorical aid and comfort to Dembski at Uncommonly Dense or to post your absurd comments regarding a hypothetical example I was using to try to teach you something about polling data, sampling methodology and how to analyze that data using statistical analysis. As I noted to SWT in the other thread, the data he claimed to show increased public rejection of anthropogenic global warming as a response to increasing Republican rejection of it did not in fact show this. It just show two different curves that had to be unified in some multivariate "space" first before seeking to demonstrate some statistically significant positive correlation via a multivariate statistical technique such as multiple regression analysis. Now granted, his assertion could be true. But it would have to be demonstrably shown via adequate sampling of polling data and the usage of an appropriate statistical technique. In a similar vein I was reminding you that just because most Republicans may be evolution denialists, it does not mean that they are the most important segment demographically of the population of American evolution denialists. That's why I thought of my hypothetical example, moron, to emphasize this. That's why you had no right to smear me. I still expect a retract and an apoiogy from you:

Rich Blinne said:
John Kwok said: Do me a favor and just cut the crap. When you opt to act responsibly, I'll return the favor.
All I was doing was responding because you kept demanding a response. If you don't like my responses there's a simple solution to the problem. As for bringing someone in I would bring in Terry Gray. He's local, known, and trusted.

SWT · 18 August 2010

John Kwok said: As I noted to SWT in the other thread, the data he claimed to show increased public rejection of anthropogenic global warming as a response to increasing Republican rejection of it did not in fact show this.

Thanks for demonstrating why you shouldn't be regarded as credible. I noted repeatedly on the embryonic development thread that I did not post any links to data on either trends in global warming acceptance or comment on possible correlations of science denialism with shifts in which political party has more power. You never refuted my assertion that I did not post the things you claim I posted; instead, you asserted it more insistently and tried to change the subject to my competence in statistics. You have two responsible choices: (1) Admit that you made a mistake and stop falsely attributing these statements to me ... or (2) Provide a link to the posts where you think I wrote the words you're putting in my mouth.

Ichthyic · 18 August 2010

Thanks for demonstrating [yet again] why you shouldn’t be regarded as credible.

fixed.

don't bother arguing with the insane. An obvious lesson that is still hard to balance against SIWOTI syndrome.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

I was wondering what your problem is. Now I know. You're a pathological liar (confusing Gallup Poll data from 1996 with 2007, when I had pointed out that the person who cited the polling data cited the 1996 poll, NOT the 2007) and probably insane as well:

Ichthyic said: Thanks for demonstrating [yet again] why you shouldn’t be regarded as credible. fixed. don't bother arguing with the insane. An obvious lesson that is still hard to balance against SIWOTI syndrome.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

And Ichthyic, even if the person did cite the 2007 Gallup Poll she would have had to use a TARDIS or some other time travel device, since the letter was written in 1998 not 2008. How I am certain of this is because the letter mentions a CUNY philosopher I met who was a graduate student at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville at the time the letter was written:

John Kwok said: I was wondering what your problem is. Now I know. You're a pathological liar (confusing Gallup Poll data from 1996 with 2007, when I had pointed out that the person who cited the polling data cited the 1996 poll, NOT the 2007) and probably insane as well:
Ichthyic said: Thanks for demonstrating [yet again] why you shouldn’t be regarded as credible. fixed. don't bother arguing with the insane. An obvious lesson that is still hard to balance against SIWOTI syndrome.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

And now you're sounding delusional SWT. Early on in that discussion you cited this poll which you cited as proof of increased public acceptance and identification with Republicans: http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com[…]4snjxqdg.gif At the same time you also offered this poll on increasing public denial of global warming: http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com[…]rivhb5jq.gif I pointed out correctly that, as constituted, the data can't demonstrate that increasing public denial of global warming can be tied to increasing public identification with Republicans. There is nothing in the information that you provided that this is indeed the exact same polling population sample tracked over the same interval of time. Moreover, as I pointed out to both you and Rich Blinne earlier, for one to test the proposition that greater public acceptance of global warming denialism is due to greater public identification with Republicans and their issues, one would need to have the data analyzed by some multivariate statistical technique - most likely multiple regression - and the hypothesis would be accepted (I prefer to use the term failed to reject) if the result was a statistically signficant result. I am not making this observation because I wish to save my fellow Republicans from further ignomity. I am merely stating the facts with respect to analyzing polling data and subjecting it to statistical analysis. If you want to take this up further, look at a stats book, of which one of the best I can think of is Sokal and Rohlf's Principles of Biometry (while it doesn't discuss multivariate statistics, it will still give you a firmer understanding as to what I have been trying to teach you and Rich Blinne):

SWT said:
John Kwok said: As I noted to SWT in the other thread, the data he claimed to show increased public rejection of anthropogenic global warming as a response to increasing Republican rejection of it did not in fact show this.
Thanks for demonstrating why you shouldn't be regarded as credible. I noted repeatedly on the embryonic development thread that I did not post any links to data on either trends in global warming acceptance or comment on possible correlations of science denialism with shifts in which political party has more power. You never refuted my assertion that I did not post the things you claim I posted; instead, you asserted it more insistently and tried to change the subject to my competence in statistics. You have two responsible choices: (1) Admit that you made a mistake and stop falsely attributing these statements to me ... or (2) Provide a link to the posts where you think I wrote the words you're putting in my mouth.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

In the hope of getting this thread back on track, just got this from the Dishonesty Institute Nota Bene samizdat agitprop e-mail newsletter. Poor DI is still smarting over anti-Intelligent Design bias exhibited by some evil Darwinist scientists (curators) and administrators at the California Science Center:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/08/documents_reveal_intolerance_t037441.html

No doubt I detect the invisible hand of Casey Luskin behind this latest risible DI screed.

SWT · 18 August 2010

John Kwok said: And now you're sounding delusional SWT. Early on in that discussion you cited this poll which you cited as proof of increased public acceptance and identification with Republicans: http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com[…]4snjxqdg.gif At the same time you also offered this poll on increasing public denial of global warming: http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com[…]rivhb5jq.gif

If you truly believe that I introduced this element of the discussion, you can easily prove your point by linking to the post where I introduced those links. That's right: all you have to do to prove me wrong is provide a link to support your statement. The fact that you maintain this without providing evidence that would be trivially simple to obtain (if you're correct!) strongly suggests that you are unable to admit that you made a simple error in attributing this to me, that you're trolling, or both.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

I give up. You posted both of these graphs and told me to look at them as though they proved your point that increased public denial of global warming is due to greater public support and identification with Republicans. I did. ANd I realized that, as presented, the data could not support your conclusions unless they were tested via some rigorous statistical method such as multiple regression. As I said earlier read a stats book and when you do, come back with questions. I just have zero time or patience with further delusional nonsense from you:

SWT said:
John Kwok said: As I noted to SWT in the other thread, the data he claimed to show increased public rejection of anthropogenic global warming as a response to increasing Republican rejection of it did not in fact show this.
Thanks for demonstrating why you shouldn't be regarded as credible. I noted repeatedly on the embryonic development thread that I did not post any links to data on either trends in global warming acceptance or comment on possible correlations of science denialism with shifts in which political party has more power. You never refuted my assertion that I did not post the things you claim I posted; instead, you asserted it more insistently and tried to change the subject to my competence in statistics. You have two responsible choices: (1) Admit that you made a mistake and stop falsely attributing these statements to me ... or (2) Provide a link to the posts where you think I wrote the words you're putting in my mouth.

SWT · 18 August 2010

John Kwok said: I give up. You posted both of these graphs and told me to look at them as though they proved your point that increased public denial of global warming is due to greater public support and identification with Republicans.

No, John, I did not post those links. This is not hard: to prove me wrong, all you have to do is post a link.

Rich Blinne · 18 August 2010

SWT said:
John Kwok said: I give up. You posted both of these graphs and told me to look at them as though they proved your point that increased public denial of global warming is due to greater public support and identification with Republicans.
No, John, I did not post those links. This is not hard: to prove me wrong, all you have to do is post a link.

Here's the link. I've been holding off for a long time now to give John a chance to think maybe he was wrong about the attribution of this to SWT. But as you all can see he just goes on and on and on never once doubting his infallibility. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/08/randomly-growin.html#comment-228321 He's absolutely right that you need to do a multivariate analysis to prove the point but I provided that with a quote from the Pew Center.

In an exception to the pessimism about the environment, the poll found a ten-point drop in the percentage of respondents who say the earth will get warmer: from 76 percent in 1999 to 66 percent in 2010. That trend “is very consistent with data we’ve gathered on the issue of global warming more generally,” Keeter said. “There are many possible explanations, but one thing is quite clear: there is a strong partisan and ideological pattern to the decline in belief in global warming.” The vast majority of the change since 1999, he said, has occurred among Republicans and independents who lean Republican.

MrG · 18 August 2010

Rich Blinne said: I've been holding off for a long time now to give John a chance to think maybe he was wrong ...

That would require holding off until hell froze over.

Mike Elzinga · 18 August 2010

MrG said:
Rich Blinne said: I've been holding off for a long time now to give John a chance to think maybe he was wrong ...
That would require holding off until hell froze over.

The stress of having been proven wrong or of even the possibility of being wrong leads to an explosion of more words. It’s a well-known symptom.

John Kwok · 18 August 2010

Very funny, Mike:

Mike Elzinga said:
MrG said:
Rich Blinne said: I've been holding off for a long time now to give John a chance to think maybe he was wrong ...
That would require holding off until hell froze over.
The stress of having been proven wrong or of even the possibility of being wrong leads to an explosion of more words. It’s a well-known symptom.

I just give up trying to teach someone (Rich Blinne) about interpreting long-term trends in poll data (Don't think he understands the word erudition yet, since he's been busy pontificating here) and another (SWT) in trying to understand how one can't reach a certain conclusion statistically regarding similar poll data - even if it might be shown to be true - unless you have suitable data and sufficient sample size and the right statistical technique that one could use to verify your hypothesis. Has nothing to do with whether or not you passionately believe in a particular political point of view. If the statistical analysis doesn't substantiate it (or you don't have data suitable for such a statistical analysis), then it is rather meaningless to continue arguing. As for Blinne he seems incapable of acknowledging his error, by falsely accusing me of committing some kind of creationist trick when I tried to show him hypothetically how one could obtain a polling result consistent with long-term trends in polling on that very issue. As the Klingons might say, he has no honor. WIsh him well when he finally reaches his well deserved destination of Gre'thor.

Oclarki · 18 August 2010

Forgibve me for intruding into this love fest, but....

As it turns out, SWT did not actually provide the links that you accuse him(?) of providing. The real source has stepped forward. Rather than ignoring this, perhaps the rational and civil thing to do would be to acknowledge the erroneous attribution.

And even more civil...and rational...would be to realize that maybe...just maybe...the folks who you so readily vilify in these posts are allies (not enemies) in the constant battle to maintain accurate science education.

SWT · 18 August 2010

Oclarki said: Forgibve me for intruding into this love fest, but.... As it turns out, SWT did not actually provide the links that you accuse him(?) of providing. The real source has stepped forward. Rather than ignoring this, perhaps the rational and civil thing to do would be to acknowledge the erroneous attribution. And even more civil...and rational...would be to realize that maybe...just maybe...the folks who you so readily vilify in these posts are allies (not enemies) in the constant battle to maintain accurate science education.

Indeed. I think John and I agree on the validity of modern evolutionary theory. Some might wonder why I've chosen to engage in this particular discussion. I am perfectly aware that nobody here really cares what I think about this. I'm not posting here under my name. I'm not a biologist. I'm in no way prominent in the struggle to maintain the integrity of science and science education, except in my own small Presbyterian congregation. What is important is how we who support science and science education behave. We vilify those who misrepresent us, who refuse to admit error, who change the subject, who don't look at the evidence when it's provided, who make up hypotheticals when actual data are available, etc. We need to adhere to the standards we espouse.

Rich Blinne · 19 August 2010

SWT said:
Oclarki said: Forgibve me for intruding into this love fest, but.... As it turns out, SWT did not actually provide the links that you accuse him(?) of providing. The real source has stepped forward. Rather than ignoring this, perhaps the rational and civil thing to do would be to acknowledge the erroneous attribution. And even more civil...and rational...would be to realize that maybe...just maybe...the folks who you so readily vilify in these posts are allies (not enemies) in the constant battle to maintain accurate science education.
Indeed. I think John and I agree on the validity of modern evolutionary theory. Some might wonder why I've chosen to engage in this particular discussion. I am perfectly aware that nobody here really cares what I think about this. I'm not posting here under my name. I'm not a biologist. I'm in no way prominent in the struggle to maintain the integrity of science and science education, except in my own small Presbyterian congregation. What is important is how we who support science and science education behave. We vilify those who misrepresent us, who refuse to admit error, who change the subject, who don't look at the evidence when it's provided, who make up hypotheticals when actual data are available, etc. We need to adhere to the standards we espouse.

What you said above is the perfect definition of what I call a "creationist trick". Regardless of whether we are creationists, ID, New Atheists, or whatever we need to get back to why I got on this web site in the first place. We may be experts in statistics but not what the other person believes or feels. John refused to accept that you didn't say or believe what he attributed to you. The reasoning that follows may be perfectly OK but the initial wrongful attribution produces a host of errors in its trail. Earlier, John and I had an argument on whether you should take people's own self-description of their beliefs at face value. This is what you get when you don't. As for the substance of John's comments, he rightly noted that the trend I presented needs to be statistically tested. Since I am not an expert I found an expert opinion in the head of Pew Research, Scott Skeeter. His statistically tested conclusions are scarier than mine. Namely, it's not that Republicans are becoming more dominant and thus there is more denialism but rather Republicans are becoming less rational with time over the last decade. When Republicans become dominant the crazy gets amplified and that is what I saw in the graphs. There is a heavy religious component to Republicanism so is it the creationists and evangelicals that are driving the crazy? No, because the very point John was so quick to state, evolutionary denialism has been static. Further, I agree with John that it is more likely evolutionary denialism is driven by religion than politics. It's a shame that he hasn't run the numbers on this since the data is available and this is an interesting and significant question and he purports to have the technical chops to do such an analysis. But let's assume he's right here since he's the expert. Combining all this we have two possibilities: 1. Evangelicals are being converted to global warming denialism since evolutionary denialism is fully saturated in that group and evangelicals are almost all Republicans. This causes the increase in such denialism. 2. Or the more scary non-creationist Republicans are becoming increasingly anti-science. The reason why this is scarier is because white evangelicals are not a growing demographic and eventually their influence will diminish as they die off. Again this needs to be statistically tested and I haven't seen a poll on global warming denialism that simultaneously polls for religious and political demographics but I'll be looking for it. Furthermore, what the polls cannot measure is something else I've seen in both the religious and political conservative communities, an increase in the intensity of anti-science fervor, though again it has a distinct political flavor. My apolitical evangelical friends could care less about an anti-science agenda. My evangelical friends who are Republican and Tea Party activists are very intense on this. I take the back. If there was a poll that used a likely voter screen and we compared it against the all adults polls we have already looked at, then we could test what I am seeing anecdotally. Again, I haven't seen any likely voter screen polls on either kind of denialism. I will be on the look out for both. For the past several years I have been working on ameliorating possibility number 1 since my background is in the physical sciences and not the biological ones. Ignoring possibility number 2 is a dangerous tactic for pro-science individuals and organizations. Since we don't know to what extent these possibilities exist, the precautionary principle tells us we need to work on both.

eric · 19 August 2010

Rich Blinne said: There is a heavy religious component to Republicanism so is it the creationists and evangelicals that are driving the crazy? No, because the very point John was so quick to state, evolutionary denialism has been static.

"No" is an invalid conclusion that assumes voting demographics consistently reflect population demographics. A perfectly reasonable "yes" answer (i.e. creationists do drive the crazy) can be arrived at if we hypothesize that while the number of creationists per capita hasn't changed, more of them have started voting and actively participating in politics. I say 'perfectly reasonable' because I think everyone will agree that vocal minorities (of all stripes) can have political weight higher than their per capita numbers, and I'd suggest that in the specific case of creationists there's at least anecdotal evidence that they have become more politically active in the last decade or so. What would be nice is if in these surveys like the PEW ones, they asked "Did you vote in the last presidential election." That would help determine how the demographics of voters is changing over time, because that is what drives the political parties and determines their platforms.

John Kwok · 19 August 2010

Thanks for chiming in here, eric. Probably the most thoughtful comments I have seen here in this thread with respect to voting demographics:

eric said:
Rich Blinne said: There is a heavy religious component to Republicanism so is it the creationists and evangelicals that are driving the crazy? No, because the very point John was so quick to state, evolutionary denialism has been static.
"No" is an invalid conclusion that assumes voting demographics consistently reflect population demographics. A perfectly reasonable "yes" answer (i.e. creationists do drive the crazy) can be arrived at if we hypothesize that while the number of creationists per capita hasn't changed, more of them have started voting and actively participating in politics. I say 'perfectly reasonable' because I think everyone will agree that vocal minorities (of all stripes) can have political weight higher than their per capita numbers, and I'd suggest that in the specific case of creationists there's at least anecdotal evidence that they have become more politically active in the last decade or so. What would be nice is if in these surveys like the PEW ones, they asked "Did you vote in the last presidential election." That would help determine how the demographics of voters is changing over time, because that is what drives the political parties and determines their platforms.

John Kwok · 19 August 2010

I'm not ready to villify either SWT and Rich Blinne. Am only criticizing them for not understanding the vaagaries of statistical sampling and interpreting polls via the usage of appropriate statistical techniques. You can't just point too the two graphs that I thought SWT had provided (Thanks for the correction Oclarki) and say with utmost certainty that the increasing trend in global warming denialism from 2004 to the present is due to the public's greater identification with Republicans. First, the data doesn't show that the same polls were taken using the same sampled population. Two, you would have to plot both curves simultaneously in a multivariate plot in which the common x axis is time. Three, for the hypothesis to be true (or more correctly to demonstrate that it is one that you can fail to reject) you need an appropriate multivariate statistical technique, which would most likely be some form of multiple regression. Fourth, the result of such a statistical analysis would have to be significant at at least the .05 level of significance. I've simply lost patience with SWT who doesn't quite seem ready to understand this and have advised him to look at stats books. As for Rich, he doesn't understand why I would choose to use a hypothetical example mainly to illusrate that under the worst case scenario (that at least 90% of all Republicans are evolution denialists), you can't say that Republicans are the most important segment accounting for the long-term trend in evolution denialism in the United States when there are substantial numbers of Democrats and Independents too. All you can say is that there is a slight majority now. I think the civil and reasonable thing for Rich to do is to acknowledge my rationale for doing this and to retract his creationist trick remark and apologize for it. Until then I won't take him as a credible opponent of evolution denialism, especially when he had the temerity to suggest to Dembski and Dembski's equally delusional Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective drones back in April 2007 at Uncommonly Dense that Intelligent Design had strong or stronger arguments to refute Richard Dawkins's latest condemnation fo Christianity (At least Rich recognized that the anti-evolutionary arguments were the weakest ones.). He had no business to suggest even this, especially when he should have been aware of Dembski's ongoing history of deceitful and larcenous behavior (of which then the most notorius example was his theft of $20,000 from the Dover Area School District board, which Rich should have known by then). So if Rich thinks that is excusable - and I frankly don't - then he should excuse my hypothetical example:

Oclarki said: Forgibve me for intruding into this love fest, but.... As it turns out, SWT did not actually provide the links that you accuse him(?) of providing. The real source has stepped forward. Rather than ignoring this, perhaps the rational and civil thing to do would be to acknowledge the erroneous attribution. And even more civil...and rational...would be to realize that maybe...just maybe...the folks who you so readily vilify in these posts are allies (not enemies) in the constant battle to maintain accurate science education.

John Kwok · 19 August 2010

Oclarki, of course my points two to four would require polling data sampled from the same participants; in plain English the same individuals would have to be asked these two different, but related, questions:

John Kwok said: I'm not ready to villify either SWT and Rich Blinne. Am only criticizing them for not understanding the vaagaries of statistical sampling and interpreting polls via the usage of appropriate statistical techniques. You can't just point too the two graphs that I thought SWT had provided (Thanks for the correction Oclarki) and say with utmost certainty that the increasing trend in global warming denialism from 2004 to the present is due to the public's greater identification with Republicans. First, the data doesn't show that the same polls were taken using the same sampled population. Two, you would have to plot both curves simultaneously in a multivariate plot in which the common x axis is time. Three, for the hypothesis to be true (or more correctly to demonstrate that it is one that you can fail to reject) you need an appropriate multivariate statistical technique, which would most likely be some form of multiple regression. Fourth, the result of such a statistical analysis would have to be significant at at least the .05 level of significance. I've simply lost patience with SWT who doesn't quite seem ready to understand this and have advised him to look at stats books. As for Rich, he doesn't understand why I would choose to use a hypothetical example mainly to illusrate that under the worst case scenario (that at least 90% of all Republicans are evolution denialists), you can't say that Republicans are the most important segment accounting for the long-term trend in evolution denialism in the United States when there are substantial numbers of Democrats and Independents too. All you can say is that there is a slight majority now. I think the civil and reasonable thing for Rich to do is to acknowledge my rationale for doing this and to retract his creationist trick remark and apologize for it. Until then I won't take him as a credible opponent of evolution denialism, especially when he had the temerity to suggest to Dembski and Dembski's equally delusional Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective drones back in April 2007 at Uncommonly Dense that Intelligent Design had strong or stronger arguments to refute Richard Dawkins's latest condemnation fo Christianity (At least Rich recognized that the anti-evolutionary arguments were the weakest ones.). He had no business to suggest even this, especially when he should have been aware of Dembski's ongoing history of deceitful and larcenous behavior (of which then the most notorius example was his theft of $20,000 from the Dover Area School District board, which Rich should have known by then). So if Rich thinks that is excusable - and I frankly don't - then he should excuse my hypothetical example:
Oclarki said: Forgibve me for intruding into this love fest, but.... As it turns out, SWT did not actually provide the links that you accuse him(?) of providing. The real source has stepped forward. Rather than ignoring this, perhaps the rational and civil thing to do would be to acknowledge the erroneous attribution. And even more civil...and rational...would be to realize that maybe...just maybe...the folks who you so readily vilify in these posts are allies (not enemies) in the constant battle to maintain accurate science education.

SWT · 19 August 2010

If there's some sort of PT award for totally missing the point, I think John Kwok just earned it.

John Kwok · 19 August 2010

Think you earned yours a while ago:

SWT said: If there's some sort of PT award for totally missing the point, I think John Kwok just earned it.

Science Avenger · 19 August 2010

My personal anecdotal experience supports Rich Blinne's scary option #2. Having been a nonreligious Republican for most of my life, I know many Republicans who range from nonreligious (my father) to deists and cafeteria Catholics. And despite the fact that every one of them would join us in fighting creationists, they toe the GOP party line on all other issues: they reject global warming, oppose gay marriage, think Obama is a closet Muslim and a communist, believe in the Laffer curve, think Bush the Lesser was right to attack Iraq, and think we have the best medical system in the world. And better yet, they'll tell you science supports them in all those places where it is relevant. I've actually been laughed at for suggesting science has nothing to say about whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry other than to point out that GOP arguments against it are unscientific crap. My hypothesis is that GOPism has become a de facto religion for many people. Partisanship is the new piety. "I'll vote for an ignorant idiot like Palin any day before a communist like Obama" is what I'm told. Seriously. SWT's comment here hit home with a vengeance:

SWT said: We vilify those who misrepresent us, who refuse to admit error, who change the subject, who don't look at the evidence when it's provided, who make up hypotheticals when actual data are available, etc.

I run into every one of these behaviors any time I attempt to persuade them that their trust and loyalty to the GOP is misplaced. My arguments are always misrepresented. I say "GOP idiots are more numerous and more in error than Dem idiots". They hear "Only GOPers are stupid". When I point out a mistake they make, they bring up someone else's mistake, or declare it unimportant. "Who cares?" refutes all claims. Rebuttals are gallops that would make Gish proud: "How can you not see that Obama's destroying the country with his economic collapse and his hiring all these communist Czars to put Mosques on Ground Zero to placate his Muslim brothers?" Any evidence presented to the contrary is dismissed as "coming from liberals" without even a glance. And of course, no data matters when speculation will do. "McCain would have won had the press not been so biased against him. Had a Democrat been in Palin's position, they'd not have been so critical". I'm sure most of you can think of another blatant example of this here, but I'll not name him, or his high school. Republicanism is no longer polluted by religion. It has become a religion.

SWT · 19 August 2010

John Kwok said: Think you earned yours a while ago:
SWT said: If there's some sort of PT award for totally missing the point, I think John Kwok just earned it.

Not so much. You've told me I need to review statistics because you disagree with an argument I didn't make and have not expressed agreement with. All I have asked you to do -- repeatedly -- is not attribute to me statements I did not make. Perhaps you just need to work on reading comprehension.

Malchus · 19 August 2010

John Kwok said:

I’m not ready to villify either SWT and Rich Blinne.

But you've already villified them. You've accused them of things they haven't done; refused to apologize when you called them liars; failed to address the points at hand. John, I would suggest you back off posting for a bit until you can get a handle on yourself: you're becoming almost incoherent.

John Kwok · 19 August 2010

Malchus - There's a big difference between criticizing them correctly for not trying to understand the statistical arguments I have been making. Am glad eric chimed in, since he raised some very useful points in his most recent comment (which I replied to). The only one I "vilified" is Rich Blinne and rightly so for having the chutzpah for accusing me of performing "creationist tricks" when he offered in writing aid and comfort to Dembski and Dembski's delusional drones over at Uncommonly Dense back in April 2007 (I wasn't serious about my "Gre'thor" comment. The thought of Rich Blinne spending an eternity with Bill Dembski - who DOES belong in Gre'thor - is a fate I don't wish for anyone, except only in sarcastic jest.). Think Blinne needs to adhere to the wisdom voiced once by his own mentor Christ, "Let he without sin be the first to cast a stone" (might be paraphrasing the New Testament quote). So I think Blinne ought to own up to it, retract what he said, and apologize for it. Again I am not trying to defend or to exonerate fellow Republicans and Conservatives who reject the well-established scientific data behind biological evolution and anthropogenic global warming. But if someone else were to point to poll data that could not be subjected to a rigorous statistical analysis of the kind I have suggested, then it is meaningless to say that the polling data in question does support that person's own preconceptions. As I noted in the other thread, if we are going to castigate Dembski for his poor knowledge and expertise in probability theory and statistics - and this is in spite of his graduate degrees in statistics and mathematics - then we ought to be careful when we, ourselves, make sloppy inferences based on polling data if only becauee we think that data does support our own personal biases:

Malchus said: John Kwok said:
I’m not ready to villify either SWT and Rich Blinne.
But you've already villified them. You've accused them of things they haven't done; refused to apologize when you called them liars; failed to address the points at hand. John, I would suggest you back off posting for a bit until you can get a handle on yourself: you're becoming almost incoherent.

Malchus · 19 August 2010

John,

There’s a big difference between criticizing them correctly for not trying to understand the statistical arguments I have been making. Am glad eric chimed in, since he raised some very useful points in his most recent comment (which I replied to).

But that's not what you accused SWT of; you accused him of posting material that he DID NOT POST, and accusing him of lying when he pointed that fact out. Nor did you retract your accusations when it was demonstrated that you were completely wrong. Admitting that you have made a mistake is the adult thing to do, John. Denying it, as you are doing, is childish.

Science Avenger · 19 August 2010

Science Avenger said: ...think Bush the Lesser was right to attack Iraq...

I should clarify that I was specifically and only referring to the justifications given by Bush of Iraq's supposed possession of biological weapons, and it's supposed role in 9/11. As to whether the attack was right, the abject lack of clear right and wrong in political decisions should be added to the list of things GOPers seem to not grasp these days. To them, AGW is mere opinion, but resistence to socialism is objectively right.

Malchus · 19 August 2010

John,

The only one I “vilified” is Rich Blinne and rightly so for having the chutzpah for accusing me of performing “creationist tricks” when he offered in writing aid and comfort to Dembski and Dembski’s delusional drones over at Uncommonly Dense back in April 2007 (I wasn’t serious about my “Gre’thor” comment. The thought of Rich Blinne spending an eternity with Bill Dembski - who DOES belong in Gre’thor - is a fate I don’t wish for anyone, except only in sarcastic jest.). Think Blinne needs to adhere to the wisdom voiced once by his own mentor Christ, “Let he without sin be the first to cast a stone” (might be paraphrasing the New Testament quote). So I think Blinne ought to own up to it, retract what he said, and apologize for it.

So, having first denied villifying anyone, you now admit that you villified Blinne?

John Kwok · 19 August 2010

Knock it off. I mean it. He was referring to data I should look at that supported his contention that public rejection of global warming has risen since 2004 as a result of the public's perceived agreement or identification with Republicans. As I have said more than once, that may be true. But the data, as presented, does not demonstrate this, nor has he cited a published report in which a rigorous statistical analysis of the kind I suggested, multiple regression, was done and the results were statistically significant at least at the .05 level. And no I did not vilify SWT but told him to read a suitable Stats book. I finally had enough of his nonsense and told him he was delusional. If that is how I "vilified" him then you're way, way, off base. The one I've been criticizing harshly has been Rich Blinne and I believe for the right reasons as I just noted in my most recent comment (By training Rich is an electrical engineer and I doubt - as evidenced by his comments - whether he has any appreciation of statistical sampling, statistical methodology, or the need to use the appropriate statistical test(s) to justify his own substantial preconceived biases. Is it probable that many Republicans are motivated for religous reasons to being evolution denialists? Anecdotally, I would agree. But if you are going to pursue this line of reasoning without pointing to any published data that has been subjected to rigorous statistical analysis, then you're no better than Bill Dembski playing with his Explanatory Filter:

Malchus said: John,
There’s a big difference between criticizing them correctly for not trying to understand the statistical arguments I have been making. Am glad eric chimed in, since he raised some very useful points in his most recent comment (which I replied to).
But that's not what you accused SWT of; you accused him of posting material that he DID NOT POST, and accusing him of lying when he pointed that fact out. Nor did you retract your accusations when it was demonstrated that you were completely wrong. Admitting that you have made a mistake is the adult thing to do, John. Denying it, as you are doing, is childish.

John Kwok · 19 August 2010

I am preoccupied now in remembering my favorite teacher, who would have been eighty today had he lived. I also have ample work that needs to be done.

It's not my problem if SWT or Blinne are incapable of understanding my arguments with regards to sampling poll data, interpreting it and then subjecting it to rigorous statistical analysis. If you and others insist on defending them further, then it would be analogous to supporting such scientific illiterates as Robert Byers, Ray Martinez, Steve P. or Sal Cordova.

While I am surprised Nick is allowing this to continue unmoderated, you should know that I had reminded Nick a few weeks back here that morphometrics was done prior to the advent of digitizing equipment (And he thanked me for that observation here.).

SWT · 19 August 2010

Oddly, this whole discussion is almost on topic, since the Nick's original post was actually about Luskin's misrepresentations of things other people have written.

Ichthyic · 19 August 2010

It’s not my problem if SWT or Blinne are incapable of understanding my arguments with regards to sampling poll data, interpreting it and then subjecting it to rigorous statistical analysis. If you and others insist on defending them further, then it would be analogous to supporting such scientific illiterates as Robert Byers, Ray Martinez, Steve P. or Sal Cordova.

one, we understood them. They were misapplied.

two, your constant attempts at ad hominem by comparing those who disagree with you to various creationists/ ID supporters is pathetic.

are you SURE you can't at least get some glimmer that you need help?

none at all?

seriously, you don't do this blog, or any other, any intellectual service in your current state.

You're really not that far gone though, I'm sure a minor scrip would clear up a lot of it.

DavidK · 19 August 2010

Remember the controversy regarding the California Science Center and the Dihonesty Institute's creation film?

Luskin has posted his summary. I've included an excerpt here:

"This past June, Discovery Institute announced it was settling its public documents lawsuit against the California Science Center (CSC). The lawsuit had been filed last December after CSC refused to disclose public documents pertaining to its cancellation of a rental contract with American Freedom Alliance (AFA) to allow AFA to show a pro-intelligent design video at CSC's facilities. Per the terms of the settlement, CSC was to deliver to Discovery Institute many of the documents which we originally requested. Those documents have now been delivered, and combined with other previously known documents, they reveal striking evidence of CSC's viewpoint discrimination against intelligent design (ID) in AFA's case.

For starters, multiple individuals within CSC expressed animus towards ID:

I personally have a real problem with anything that elevates the concept of intelligent design to a level that makes it appear as though it should be considered equally alongside Darwinian theory as a possible alternative to natural selection. In other words, I see us getting royally played by the Center for Science and Culture resulting in long term damage to our credibility and judgment for a very long time.That's Ken Phillips, a curator at the California Science Center, claiming that allowing a showing of Darwin's Dilemma is somehow getting "royally played," because ID (for one evening at the CSC IMAX) could then be considered as a possible alternative to Darwinism. Phillips' words are significant: He has a problem with "anything" that makes ID appear to be considered equal with Darwinism. Of course he has the right to disagree with ID, but he doesn't even want anyone or "anything" to have the opportunity to hold or express a different view."

-----

So basically the CSC knew that contracting to show this film was a screw job, and to cancel the film was opening themselves to a screw job. Either way, they would get had by the Dishonesty Institute and the mighty Luskin, who have their lawsuits in their hip pockets waiting in the wings as Plan B.

Any time anyone naively gives access to these meatheads screws with the Dishonesty Institute and will themselves get the royal shaft, e.g., the Smithsonian, the CSC. What unsuspecting entity will be next????

Ichthyic · 19 August 2010

What unsuspecting entity will be next????

why are there even "unsuspecting" entities remaining at this point?

I'm sorry the CSC got themselves into this crap, but seriously, shouldn't they have vetted it properly to begin with?

Malchus · 20 August 2010

First you denied villifying Blinne; then you admitted you did villify Blinne. You accused SWT of lying, then when it was proved that he did not lie, you changed the subject. You continue to respond to positions that no one has advocated, and make false accusations against those who point out your errors. You behave exactly like a creationist, so I'm not surprised by Blinne's pointing this fact out. And now you take refuge in name-dropping. John, I would suggest you take a good long break from posting, until such time as you can calmly and rationally deal with what others are posting. I do not feel that your current behavior is at all healthy for you.

John Kwok said: Knock it off. I mean it. He was referring to data I should look at that supported his contention that public rejection of global warming has risen since 2004 as a result of the public's perceived agreement or identification with Republicans. As I have said more than once, that may be true. But the data, as presented, does not demonstrate this, nor has he cited a published report in which a rigorous statistical analysis of the kind I suggested, multiple regression, was done and the results were statistically significant at least at the .05 level. And no I did not vilify SWT but told him to read a suitable Stats book. I finally had enough of his nonsense and told him he was delusional. If that is how I "vilified" him then you're way, way, off base. The one I've been criticizing harshly has been Rich Blinne and I believe for the right reasons as I just noted in my most recent comment (By training Rich is an electrical engineer and I doubt - as evidenced by his comments - whether he has any appreciation of statistical sampling, statistical methodology, or the need to use the appropriate statistical test(s) to justify his own substantial preconceived biases. Is it probable that many Republicans are motivated for religous reasons to being evolution denialists? Anecdotally, I would agree. But if you are going to pursue this line of reasoning without pointing to any published data that has been subjected to rigorous statistical analysis, then you're no better than Bill Dembski playing with his Explanatory Filter:
Malchus said: John,
There’s a big difference between criticizing them correctly for not trying to understand the statistical arguments I have been making. Am glad eric chimed in, since he raised some very useful points in his most recent comment (which I replied to).
But that's not what you accused SWT of; you accused him of posting material that he DID NOT POST, and accusing him of lying when he pointed that fact out. Nor did you retract your accusations when it was demonstrated that you were completely wrong. Admitting that you have made a mistake is the adult thing to do, John. Denying it, as you are doing, is childish.

Malchus · 20 August 2010

If no other point moves you, John - you should consider the fact that virtually every forum you post at has banned you. Shouldn't this be a hint that perhaps you need to examine your behavior a bit more closely?

Pharyngula, ERV, even The Intersection. You've been banned from all of them. Think about what you're doing before you get banned from more blogs.

Michael Roberts · 20 August 2010

Can't John Kwok lay off it.

The discussion is boring and irrelevant

Ichthyic · 20 August 2010

Pharyngula, ERV, even The Intersection. You’ve been banned from all of them. Think about what you’re doing before you get banned from more blogs.

I'm guessing, not much of a reach, really, that John thinks this is somehow all a vast consipiracy of inferior minds.

If that IS what you think, John...

try, *just for a second* to see what that is symptomatic of.

having a mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of. Doing nothing about it will only make it worse, however.

this is not a poke, not a joke. I've been saying the same thing to you for a LONG time now.

get yourself checked out.

what could it hurt?

Dale Husband · 20 August 2010

Ichthyic said: Pharyngula, ERV, even The Intersection. You’ve been banned from all of them. Think about what you’re doing before you get banned from more blogs. I'm guessing, not much of a reach, really, that John thinks this is somehow all a vast consipiracy of inferior minds. If that IS what you think, John... try, *just for a second* to see what that is symptomatic of. having a mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of. Doing nothing about it will only make it worse, however. this is not a poke, not a joke. I've been saying the same thing to you for a LONG time now. get yourself checked out. what could it hurt?

When you have opinion polls indicating that one-fifth of all Americans believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim, despite the total lack of evidence for this, you have to wonder if John Kwok is not so insane compared to most other right-wing extremists. Indeed, we voted out Republicans in 2006 and 2008, yet they seriously expect to be voted back into power this year and in 2012 because of Obama? THAT is insanity!

John Kwok · 20 August 2010

If that was my sole consideration, I would have shut up already. Anyway, I stand completely behind what I said to you yesterday. Blinne needs to react accordingly per what I stated to you:

Malchus said: If no other point moves you, John - you should consider the fact that virtually every forum you post at has banned you. Shouldn't this be a hint that perhaps you need to examine your behavior a bit more closely? Pharyngula, ERV, even The Intersection. You've been banned from all of them. Think about what you're doing before you get banned from more blogs.

John Kwok · 20 August 2010

Today is the 152nd anniversary of the publication of this seminal paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Tendency_of_Species_to_form_Varieties;_and_on_the_Perpetuation_of_Varieties_and_Species_by_Natural_Means_of_Selection

Certainly one of the most important scientific papers published in the last two hundred years. It will be fascinating to see how the Dishonesty Institute and, in particular, Casey Luskin, react to this anniversary.

John Kwok · 20 August 2010

Obama remains quite popular as a person. It is his policies, however, that are despised by most Americans and may result in an American political landslide in favor of the Republicans this November. Now I'll be the first to admit that it is batshit crazy for a sizeable minority to think Obama is a Muslim. But acknowledging this doesn't mean that either my own opposition to the Axelrod - Obama Regime (I think Obama isn't as smart as my fellow Stuyvesant alumni David Axelrod and Eric Holder. IMHO Obama is Axelrod's puppet. But that's just my opinion.) or those by many others should be regarded as either ludicrous or insane:

Dale Husband said:
Ichthyic said: Pharyngula, ERV, even The Intersection. You’ve been banned from all of them. Think about what you’re doing before you get banned from more blogs. I'm guessing, not much of a reach, really, that John thinks this is somehow all a vast consipiracy of inferior minds. If that IS what you think, John... try, *just for a second* to see what that is symptomatic of. having a mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of. Doing nothing about it will only make it worse, however. this is not a poke, not a joke. I've been saying the same thing to you for a LONG time now. get yourself checked out. what could it hurt?
When you have opinion polls indicating that one-fifth of all Americans believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim, despite the total lack of evidence for this, you have to wonder if John Kwok is not so insane compared to most other right-wing extremists. Indeed, we voted out Republicans in 2006 and 2008, yet they seriously expect to be voted back into power this year and in 2012 because of Obama? THAT is insanity!

Malchus · 20 August 2010

John, you really to spend time addressing what is actually written to you; I pointed this out because your creationist style postings hurt your own cause. And Blinne owes you nothing - not even a camera - because he is right.

John Kwok said: If that was my sole consideration, I would have shut up already. Anyway, I stand completely behind what I said to you yesterday. Blinne needs to react accordingly per what I stated to you:
Malchus said: If no other point moves you, John - you should consider the fact that virtually every forum you post at has banned you. Shouldn't this be a hint that perhaps you need to examine your behavior a bit more closely? Pharyngula, ERV, even The Intersection. You've been banned from all of them. Think about what you're doing before you get banned from more blogs.

John Kwok · 20 August 2010

No, Blinne is not right. I was willing for the discussion to continue as long as it did merely to teach him something about interpreting polling data and how it has to be done on the basis of rigorous statistical analysis of the data in question, not by saying, "Oh Gee whiz. The polling seems to point to X and since it points to X, then I must conclude Y." Look I'm not denying that many Republicans are evolution deniers. But if you're insistant on saying that they're not only evolution deniers but also those most responsible for that denialism, then you better have the published data on hand that's been subjected to rigorous statistical analysis of the kind I suggested. Otherwise, you're no better than Dembski pointing to his Explanatory Filter and claiming that a mere incident that lies outside the Explanatory Filter's statistical parameters proves that the incident demonstrates Intelligent Design. Not only is that flawed logical thinking, but from both a probabilistic and statistical perspective, it runs counter to well-established assumptions and laws pertaining to both. As for owing me camera equipment, the only one who does is Dembski (Though if Ichthyic doesn't shut up I may remind him again and again that he owes me equipment too.):

Malchus said: John, you really to spend time addressing what is actually written to you; I pointed this out because your creationist style postings hurt your own cause. And Blinne owes you nothing - not even a camera - because he is right.
John Kwok said: If that was my sole consideration, I would have shut up already. Anyway, I stand completely behind what I said to you yesterday. Blinne needs to react accordingly per what I stated to you:
Malchus said: If no other point moves you, John - you should consider the fact that virtually every forum you post at has banned you. Shouldn't this be a hint that perhaps you need to examine your behavior a bit more closely? Pharyngula, ERV, even The Intersection. You've been banned from all of them. Think about what you're doing before you get banned from more blogs.

John Kwok · 21 August 2010

Malchus,

Courtesy of Greg Laden, this is worth viewing:

http://networkedblogs.com/74qoT

In this 2007 lecture by Barbara Forrest, she not only recounts the origins of the ID movement and of the events leading up to the 2005 Kitmziller vs. Dover Area School District trial, she emphasizes the importance of the "Christian" Dominionist movement and other fringe right-wing movements in aiding the Dishonesty Institute's effort at promoting Intelligent Design. Blinne has gone on a tear here emphasizing how important Libertarian thought and think tanks have been in promoting science denialism, ignoring the well-documented research by Barbara Forrest, Paul Gross and others. Have told him more than once to look at that research, but he seems more interested in spouting his opinions.

Blinne is not offering accurate information and unfortunately, you and others, have been all too willing to give him a pass, looking for yet another means to criticize me, especially when I have been consistently among those critical of my fellow Conservatives and Republicans in embracing various forms of science denialism.

I'm not going to state this again. He needs to retract and to apologize for his projecting, accusing me of creationist tricks, when he himself has been ignorant of some aspects of American Evangelical history (which I've provided courtesy through the writings of Donald Prothero, for example) as well as trying to understand and interpret polling data via rigorous statistical methodology.

Malchus · 21 August 2010

John, you once again are failing to engage the actual point I am making. I will try one last time, since I believe your heart is in the right place, even if your ability to read and/or communicate has some serious problems. I'm not discussing Blinne's analysis of the statistical data - though you are wrong and he is approximately right. I am discussing the fact that he correctly identifies your habit of arguing like a creationist. We see that very issue in evidence here in this set of posts - you continue to misinterpret what I'm saying; you continue to respond to points I haven't made; you continue to ignore the issues I am raising. Creationists do this; rational folk - among whom you certainly number yourself - do not. Since Blinne's characterization of you is accurate, he owes you nothing. In fact, no one owes you anything. It is the height of irrationality to go around the internet demanding apologies and expensive camera equipment and whatnot from people simply because you feel slighted by them. I read your exchange with PZ Myers, for instance on the whole "unfriending on Facebook" and "you owe me a camera" fiasco. No reasonable, rational adult would behave the way you did. Myers owes you nothing. Dembski owes you nothing. Blinne doesn't even owe you an apology, since he rightly characterized your actions. You are hurting your own cause, John. You are damaging your own reputation. You are making yourself look like a, well, a fool, to use an emotionally laden word. Which is a pity, since you are clearly very bright, and very sound on the question of evolution vs. creationism. But your odd narcissism and irrational sense of entitlement prevent people from taking you seriously - even on the subjects most dear to your heart.

John Kwok said: Malchus, Courtesy of Greg Laden, this is worth viewing: http://networkedblogs.com/74qoT In this 2007 lecture by Barbara Forrest, she not only recounts the origins of the ID movement and of the events leading up to the 2005 Kitmziller vs. Dover Area School District trial, she emphasizes the importance of the "Christian" Dominionist movement and other fringe right-wing movements in aiding the Dishonesty Institute's effort at promoting Intelligent Design. Blinne has gone on a tear here emphasizing how important Libertarian thought and think tanks have been in promoting science denialism, ignoring the well-documented research by Barbara Forrest, Paul Gross and others. Have told him more than once to look at that research, but he seems more interested in spouting his opinions. Blinne is not offering accurate information and unfortunately, you and others, have been all too willing to give him a pass, looking for yet another means to criticize me, especially when I have been consistently among those critical of my fellow Conservatives and Republicans in embracing various forms of science denialism. I'm not going to state this again. He needs to retract and to apologize for his projecting, accusing me of creationist tricks, when he himself has been ignorant of some aspects of American Evangelical history (which I've provided courtesy through the writings of Donald Prothero, for example) as well as trying to understand and interpret polling data via rigorous statistical methodology.

John Kwok · 21 August 2010

Malchus -

Blinne isn't a statistician nor trained as one. I'm not a statistician either, but I am aware of some of the vagaries involved with polling data since I have met some who do work as polling data statisticians. But I was trained in evolutionary biology and have ample understanding with regards to population dynamics, and that has also helped informed my thinking with regards to reading polling data.

I just spent an hour watching Barbara's talk and soon realized how wrong Blinne was in promoting his bias against Libertarians (which I had suspected already, having read Barbara and Paul Gross's "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design".

I suggest you stop defending Blinne and spend your time instead watching Barbara's talk or reading her papers (and Gross's too).

John Kwok · 21 August 2010

Nick,

Watching that video of Barbara lecturing corrected one mistake I have made. Thinking you were the one who had found cdesign proponentsis. It was actually Barbara. I stand corrected.

Cheers,

John

Dale Husband · 21 August 2010

John Kwok said: Obama remains quite popular as a person. It is his policies, however, that are despised by most Americans and may result in an American political landslide in favor of the Republicans this November. Now I'll be the first to admit that it is batshit crazy for a sizeable minority to think Obama is a Muslim. But acknowledging this doesn't mean that either my own opposition to the Axelrod - Obama Regime (I think Obama isn't as smart as my fellow Stuyvesant alumni David Axelrod and Eric Holder. IMHO Obama is Axelrod's puppet. But that's just my opinion.) or those by many others should be regarded as either ludicrous or insane:

John, the Republicans failed us in Bush Jr's Presidency. Thus they were rejected in 2006 and 2008. There was a time in American politics when the people would reject a party and NEVER allow it to take power again. That happened to the Federalist Party starting in 1800. By the 1820s it was no more, and the Democratic-Republican (D-R) Party (later, just the Democratic Party) was the only strong party in the USA. Then the Whig Party challenged the D-R Party for a few decades, but it too failed and finally the Republican Party under Abraham Lincoln displaced the Democratic Party up north, resulting in the Civil War. But ever since the Civil War, Americans have constantly flip-flopped between the Democratic and the Republican Parties. WHY? Instead of ever allowing Republicans back into power, why not vote in the Libertarians and let the Republican Party die out? Or when the Democrats were thrown out of power in 2001, couldn't they have been replaced with the Green Party? If you keep voting for what you did years or even decades ago, you will get what you've always gotten: more corruption, incompetence and waste.

John Kwok · 21 August 2010

The only way that might happen now is if the Tea Party Movement opted to become its own political party. But I don't need to tell you if that would happen, simply because the Republicans and Democrats are too well-entrenched:

Dale Husband said:
John Kwok said: Obama remains quite popular as a person. It is his policies, however, that are despised by most Americans and may result in an American political landslide in favor of the Republicans this November. Now I'll be the first to admit that it is batshit crazy for a sizeable minority to think Obama is a Muslim. But acknowledging this doesn't mean that either my own opposition to the Axelrod - Obama Regime (I think Obama isn't as smart as my fellow Stuyvesant alumni David Axelrod and Eric Holder. IMHO Obama is Axelrod's puppet. But that's just my opinion.) or those by many others should be regarded as either ludicrous or insane:
John, the Republicans failed us in Bush Jr's Presidency. Thus they were rejected in 2006 and 2008. There was a time in American politics when the people would reject a party and NEVER allow it to take power again. That happened to the Federalist Party starting in 1800. By the 1820s it was no more, and the Democratic-Republican (D-R) Party (later, just the Democratic Party) was the only strong party in the USA. Then the Whig Party challenged the D-R Party for a few decades, but it too failed and finally the Republican Party under Abraham Lincoln displaced the Democratic Party up north, resulting in the Civil War. But ever since the Civil War, Americans have constantly flip-flopped between the Democratic and the Republican Parties. WHY? Instead of ever allowing Republicans back into power, why not vote in the Libertarians and let the Republican Party die out? Or when the Democrats were thrown out of power in 2001, couldn't they have been replaced with the Green Party? If you keep voting for what you did years or even decades ago, you will get what you've always gotten: more corruption, incompetence and waste.

John Kwok · 21 August 2010

And of course Dale it is mere wish fulfillment on anyone's part that the Tea Party Movement could become powerful enough to emerge as a credible independent party. I will admit though that I was secretly rooting for the Green Party candidate for Governor of New York back in 2006 (one Malachy McCourt):

John Kwok said: The only way that might happen now is if the Tea Party Movement opted to become its own political party. But I don't need to tell you if that would happen, simply because the Republicans and Democrats are too well-entrenched:
Dale Husband said:
John Kwok said: Obama remains quite popular as a person. It is his policies, however, that are despised by most Americans and may result in an American political landslide in favor of the Republicans this November. Now I'll be the first to admit that it is batshit crazy for a sizeable minority to think Obama is a Muslim. But acknowledging this doesn't mean that either my own opposition to the Axelrod - Obama Regime (I think Obama isn't as smart as my fellow Stuyvesant alumni David Axelrod and Eric Holder. IMHO Obama is Axelrod's puppet. But that's just my opinion.) or those by many others should be regarded as either ludicrous or insane:
John, the Republicans failed us in Bush Jr's Presidency. Thus they were rejected in 2006 and 2008. There was a time in American politics when the people would reject a party and NEVER allow it to take power again. That happened to the Federalist Party starting in 1800. By the 1820s it was no more, and the Democratic-Republican (D-R) Party (later, just the Democratic Party) was the only strong party in the USA. Then the Whig Party challenged the D-R Party for a few decades, but it too failed and finally the Republican Party under Abraham Lincoln displaced the Democratic Party up north, resulting in the Civil War. But ever since the Civil War, Americans have constantly flip-flopped between the Democratic and the Republican Parties. WHY? Instead of ever allowing Republicans back into power, why not vote in the Libertarians and let the Republican Party die out? Or when the Democrats were thrown out of power in 2001, couldn't they have been replaced with the Green Party? If you keep voting for what you did years or even decades ago, you will get what you've always gotten: more corruption, incompetence and waste.

John Kwok · 21 August 2010

Anyway, as you are aware now, I've been preoccupied with the Ground Zero Mosque issue. I predicted that I would find myself strongly opposing a certain famous cousin of mine, and sadly, that prediction has been borne out.

SWT · 21 August 2010

Malchus said: John, you once again are failing to engage the actual point I am making. I will try one last time, since I believe your heart is in the right place, even if your ability to read and/or communicate has some serious problems. ... your odd narcissism and irrational sense of entitlement prevent people from taking you seriously - even on the subjects most dear to your heart.

Malchus, after reading your quite charitable post and John's response to it, I'm beginning to wonder if we're seeing an example of what James Downard calls a "tortucan rut." It certainly appears that John is for some reason unable either to see or respond to our principal point, which is about rhetoric rather than statistics.

John Kwok · 21 August 2010

And before you apply the rhetoric, you need the statisical data to support that rhetoric. Otherwise, as I have noted here more than once you are no better than Bill Dembski or Robert Marks in claiming that they're reached such probablistic and statistical "breakthroughs" when their "proof" runs counter to everything we know regarding both probability and statistics. Maybe if you opted to read some stat books SWT, you might understand where I am coming from. Under no circumstances am I trying to defend both my fellow Conservatives and Republicans (And I am saying this for the umpteenth time). But you have to be careful of making spurious correlations that, while real on paper, are not substantiated by rigorous statistical analyses. You're almost as bad as Blinne going on his Liberatarian = Science Denialism rant, when I have pointed out Barbara Forrest, Paul Gross and others who have documented extensively that Christian Dominionists and other fringe Xian groups have been far more influential in advancing both the Dishonesty Institute's agenda and, in general, Intelligent Design:

SWT said:
Malchus said: John, you once again are failing to engage the actual point I am making. I will try one last time, since I believe your heart is in the right place, even if your ability to read and/or communicate has some serious problems. ... your odd narcissism and irrational sense of entitlement prevent people from taking you seriously - even on the subjects most dear to your heart.
Malchus, after reading your quite charitable post and John's response to it, I'm beginning to wonder if we're seeing an example of what James Downard calls a "tortucan rut." It certainly appears that John is for some reason unable either to see or respond to our principal point, which is about rhetoric rather than statistics.

John Kwok · 21 August 2010

This is basic Statistics 101 with regards to Type I and Type II errors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors

Again, without offering any published statistical analysis in support of the polling data in question, you can't really leap toward making grandiose conclusions such as increasing public acceptance of global warming denialism is due to their increasing identification with (or approval of) Republicans and their policies. While such a conclusion may be true, the polling data originally provided by Oclarki - that I had mistakenly attributed to you - shows only an increase in the public's acceptance of anthropogenic global warming and an increase in the public's identification (or approval) with Republicans. You need to demonstrate that both are correlated positively with a statistically significan result at at least the .05 level before you can assert that the null hypothesis is rejected:

SWT · 21 August 2010

John Kwok said: And before you apply the rhetoric, you need the statisical data to support that rhetoric.

John, you have falsely attributed to me statements I did not make. This false attribution is not a problem of statistics, it is a problem of rhetoric. I don't tolerate this sort of behavior from creationists. I see no reason to tolerate it from you.

Miguel · 22 August 2010

"and where authors are responsible for producing a huge amount of material on a huge number of topics, not all of which they have huge expertise on, might be less than perfect about telling history in a way that is utterly impossible for a creationist to quote-mine and turn into an endorsement of materialism, cosmic hopelessness, or whatnot. Most people, most of the time, are not armoring their writing against creationist misinterpretation."

It's almost impossible to 'quote-mine proof' what one writes.
One cannot prevent people from selectively extracting innocent (and often disparate) parts of a text and cobbling them together as a whole in order to fit their own agendas.

Education is the real key here.
Teach children early to love learning and how to be critical.

I do admit that people should watch how they use the terms 'I believe' or 'I feel' when making statements regarding science.

eddie · 22 August 2010

Miguel said: It's almost impossible to 'quote-mine proof' what one writes. One cannot prevent people from selectively extracting innocent (and often disparate) parts of a text and cobbling them together as a whole in order to fit their own agendas.

Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species... (Charles Darwin)

Malchus · 22 August 2010

John, I am finding this baffling. I am not discussing the statistics. The matter is much simpler. You accused SWT of doing something HE DID NOT DO. To put it quite bluntly, YOU LIED ABOUT SOMETHING. Second, Blinne's characterization of your 'creationist' technique is quite accurate - you are even now behaving precisely like a creationist - you are failing to engage in any way with the argument I am making. That is a creationist tactic. Therefore, you are demonstrably behaving like a creationist. That is what Blinne was, quite rightly, pointing out. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

John Kwok said: Malchus - Blinne isn't a statistician nor trained as one. I'm not a statistician either, but I am aware of some of the vagaries involved with polling data since I have met some who do work as polling data statisticians. But I was trained in evolutionary biology and have ample understanding with regards to population dynamics, and that has also helped informed my thinking with regards to reading polling data. I just spent an hour watching Barbara's talk and soon realized how wrong Blinne was in promoting his bias against Libertarians (which I had suspected already, having read Barbara and Paul Gross's "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design". I suggest you stop defending Blinne and spend your time instead watching Barbara's talk or reading her papers (and Gross's too).

Malchus · 22 August 2010

I find it baffling. John is clearly intelligent; he's certainly capable of dealing with a simple matter of error on his part. But he seems incapable of both acknowledging the error and more importantly, of even understanding what his error is. A gentle hint, John. It has nothing to do with statistics.

SWT said:
Malchus said: John, you once again are failing to engage the actual point I am making. I will try one last time, since I believe your heart is in the right place, even if your ability to read and/or communicate has some serious problems. ... your odd narcissism and irrational sense of entitlement prevent people from taking you seriously - even on the subjects most dear to your heart.
Malchus, after reading your quite charitable post and John's response to it, I'm beginning to wonder if we're seeing an example of what James Downard calls a "tortucan rut." It certainly appears that John is for some reason unable either to see or respond to our principal point, which is about rhetoric rather than statistics.

Dale Husband · 23 August 2010

This tennis match between John Kwok and his opponents has gone on long enough. Too bad I'm not a moderator here, or I would have closed the thread by now and put at least one person on a temporary suspension.

Remember, we are being watched by the Creationists and ID promoters. And they take note of what we do:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/john-kwok-the-jekyll-and-hyde-of-paleobiology/

Just Bob · 23 August 2010

Miguel said: It's almost impossible to 'quote-mine proof' what one writes. One cannot prevent people from selectively extracting innocent (and often disparate) parts of a text and cobbling them together as a whole in order to fit their own agendas.

...there is no God... Psalm 14:1 AND Psalm 53:1 !

Robin · 23 August 2010

Just Bob said:
Miguel said: It's almost impossible to 'quote-mine proof' what one writes. One cannot prevent people from selectively extracting innocent (and often disparate) parts of a text and cobbling them together as a whole in order to fit their own agendas.
...there is no God... Psalm 14:1 AND Psalm 53:1 !

Wait...so some clown has an opinion that gets chronicled in a book and you think THAT is somehow evidence that the subject of the opinion is valid? Hmmm...good luck with that...

Rolf Aalberg · 25 August 2010

The most prominent aspect of this thread reminds me of some discussions I've had with a certain person. I am myself a rational and very logical person, and always try to address the issue raised, to pull the discussion back on track. That may be very difficult at times. Some persons have a problem with staying on the track. My own brothers were some of the best discussion partners I've experienced; they could stay on topic in a way that I found very comfortable..

May I suggest that in the case at hand, one of the participants is adhering closely to the subject under discussion, and doesn't consider it relevant or necessary to admit an error irrelevant to the issue of the debate, like whether another person posted a certain link or not.

All right, I do of course understand that one may be offended at being accused of posting links that one evidently did not post, but in the end, it doesn't matter - at least not WRT the subject being debated.

People have a tendency of not being willing to admit to errors. For some it may be a question of intolerable loss of face; for others it may be an idiosyncrasy they can't help.

If one side of the debate persist in ignoring requests for admitting to false claims about actions of little or no relevance for the issue being discussed, we might all be better served if the other side left the personal controversies aside in the interest of a more productive debate.

That's the best I can do with the English language. I am no Joseph Conrad.

Ichthyic · 25 August 2010

Remember, we are being watched by the Creationists and ID promoters.

I got two werds fer ya:

who.

cares.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKMD0bxyAR0

Alvin · 26 August 2010

New to the Forum,

Can't help but notice lots of one-sidedness in the arguments against Casey

First ID is demonstrated to be falsifiable
Consider KEn Miller/ Michael Ruses' debates vs Michael Behe on Flagellum's Design or the inherent flaws of the human eye. These are not theological discussions, but biological ones. Not to mention, the question as to why there were reactions and presented evidence by naturalistic scientists against ID. IF it was purely metaphysics then shouldn't philosophers object to the arguments, instead of scientists, shouldn't they ignore the evidence and claims of ID as irrelevant? rather than encouraging further ruckus by reacting

Also, the post commented about the arbitrariness of belief, and goes on to cite cases where racism, disease were justified assumingly by christianity. Such notions are falsely interpreted. There are established facts within Christian Tradition on proper exegesis of scripture and a Creed to define What christianity stands for. Ok, you guys would react hogwash but..

if I were to apply your standards to evolution, it can be shown that interpretations of it: (Haeckel, Hitler), lead to Racist notions, Destructive Eugenics and forced sterilizations of thousands of people. As usual, you'll say that it wasn't evolution but a misinterpretation of it. I'm assuming you've heard it all before. But its worth stating the Truth all over again.

I fail to see why commentators didn't consider this a double-standard on their beliefs, at least Christianity, had 'beware false doctrine' signs meant to warn believers of incoming kooky interpreters and wanna-be christs; Darwin never gave any caveats on his theory being used for nasty stuff. This gives the theory its malleability, evolution can be used for racism, slavery or it can be used to be anti-racist or abolitionist. all such consequences are right, since Darwin though a liberal do-gooder, never gave any instructions on how to properly use the facts.

btw, I'm a deist and am supporting ID; so you then prove Pavlov and knee-jerk to burn me on the stake for my beliefs or censor my comments?

Mike Elzinga · 26 August 2010

Alvin said: ... at least Christianity, had 'beware false doctrine' signs meant to warn believers of incoming kooky interpreters and wanna-be christs; ...

And my how well this has worked for “Christianity”, or “Islam”, or any number of other religions. The thousands of sects within Christianity alone testify to how well this built-in “beware of false doctrine” works. Most of the sectarians in those thousands of sects will certify that all other sects but their own are “false doctrines.” Nice criterion you have there for what constitutes “truth.”

SWT · 26 August 2010

Alvin said: First ID is demonstrated to be falsifiable

Excellent news! Can you state for us how ID can be falsified, perhaps by actually articulating an objectively testable, falsifiable statement that is actually a result of ID? I've asked this of ID proponents again and again with no success -- perhaps you'll be the one who actually answers this question. With great anticipation, SWT

Mike Elzinga · 26 August 2010

Alvin said: IF it was purely metaphysics then shouldn't philosophers object to the arguments, instead of scientists, shouldn't they ignore the evidence and claims of ID as irrelevant? rather than encouraging further ruckus by reacting

It’s neither metaphysics nor science. It is politics; the politics of injecting sectarian dogma into the public school curriculum. ID/creationism is a pseudo-science designed to gussy up a sectarian world view and smuggle it into the biology curriculum because the sectarians doing this object to evolution. You should look at the history of the creationist/scientific creationism/intelligent design/ cdesignproponentsist shtick that started back in the 1960s.

Alvin · 26 August 2010

Well so does scientific thought..

There has been a number of pseudo-scientific ideologies that have been promulgated during the Soviet Union. Lysenkoism for instance or Aristotlean Science. Even, Social Darwinism have all have claimed that their philosophical stance on what science should be ought to be the rule to which facts should be interpreted.

So what if Christianity has a thousand sects? Most of the sects differ on superficials like what days of worship, or sacramental rites to emphasize, and yes, there had been bitter disagreements on these issues. But its more of a spirit of politics and egotism than true christian teachings. And what about the Fringe segments like Positive Christianity or the European cultural religion? I would say they were wrong, because even they blatantly disregarded facts, They say Christ is Aryan or German, it's simply bull. It has been known historically that Jesus is a Jew. And then from that starting point, they then build a theology on it, but its unreliable since they built an entire theology on mistaken facts.

Contemporary science now has been refined and re-defined by so many discoveries and break-throughs that have rendered the previous systems of thought untenable. We just don't dismiss science as a fickle and unstable idea, just because there has been bitter disagreements and splintering of groups promoting their own version of science justified by their own interpretation of evidence.

Likewise with Christianity, Canon and Creed has been established by consensus with the truth about Christ's teachings in mind as reported by those who were closest to him. This is so in order to check and evaluate claims of heretical groups that were making up what he said. Its not that consensus was formed based on subjective interpretations of Jesus life, on the contrary, these truths were established based on historical and literal facts reported by eyewitness accounts.

Alvin · 26 August 2010

SWT,

I did, Ken Miller and Doolittle's work to show Irreducible complexity can be alternatively explain using evolutionary forces in particular the flagellum rotors, blood clotting.

Not to mention, disteleology, because an intelligent designer would be purposeful, so Ken Miller tries to show that there are hints of unintelligent planning on how the eye is even positioned. That's his alternative hypothesis to TEST ID's claim of purpose in design

What do you think of this by the way? does these tests count in attempts to falisify ID?

Btw, What do you guys think of Creationist classification of Science as both Operational and Origins?

SWT · 26 August 2010

Alvin said: SWT, I did, Ken Miller and Doolittle's work to show Irreducible complexity can be alternatively explain using evolutionary forces in particular the flagellum rotors, blood clotting.

No, you did not, for a couple of reasons. First, H.J. Muller argued in the first half of the 20th century that we should expect evolutionary processes to produce what he called "interlocking complexity," so the existence of what Behe calls "irreducbly complex" systems is in no way an indication of a failure of evolutionary theory. Second, the ID argument is not stated as "'design' implies the existence of irreducibly complex systems," and for good reason -- systems designed by humans are often redundant to improve reliability. The existence of irreducibly complex systems is simply not a consequence of any "design hypothesis." Third, arguments about the sufficiency of evolutionary processes are challenges to evolutionary theory, not intelligent design. Let me restate my question: what possible evidence could you find that would convince you that intelligent design was NOT true?

Alvin · 26 August 2010

Its not politics Mike,

ID proponents including myself want an honest re-evaluation of the facts. It does not want to deny the teaching of natural sciences, but we want to have our say in how life came to be.

Why does evolution matter anyway?, if one wants to learn human anatomy for its functions, intricacies and processes. They can do so on its own terms. Why do they need evolution for?

DS · 26 August 2010

Alvin,

To the extent that ID makes specific claims, it might indeed be falsifiable. To the extent that it does not, i.e. refuses to make any claim as to the identity, motives or methods of the designer, it is not falsifiable. Unfortunately, most of the major ID proponents refuse to make any testable claims, since everyone would then be able to see that what they were actually trying to promote was religion instead of science.

How about this. How about the claim that any intelligent designer would not design any eye that was deliberately inefficient, indeed wired for maximum inefficiency, with no evidence of any planning or forethought and many suboptimal features that made it prone to all sorts of problems that could have been easily avoided with just a little planning. If you are willing to stipulate that as a claim of ID, then you must consider ID falsified. IF you are not willing to stipulate that, then you must consider ID unfalsifiable. Either way, ID is useless scientifically. Deal with it.

Also, the fact that science can reach a consensus and the thousands of religions of the world cannot, should tell you something about the relative merit of each approach to finding the Truth.

DS · 26 August 2010

Alvin said: Its not politics Mike, ID proponents including myself want an honest re-evaluation of the facts. It does not want to deny the teaching of natural sciences, but we want to have our say in how life came to be. Why does evolution matter anyway?, if one wants to learn human anatomy for its functions, intricacies and processes. They can do so on its own terms. Why do they need evolution for?

There is absolutely no way that anyone can ever understand human anatomy outside of an evolutionary framework. If you think otherwise, please explain wisdom teeth without any reference to change over time. Is this "intelligent design"? What about the human pelvis? Is this "intelligent design"? Why do humans get scurvy? Is this "intelligent design"? Explain the structure of the human genome. Is this "intelligent design"? A wise man once said that nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution. He was right, you are dead wrong. Deal with it.

Rich Blinne · 26 August 2010

Alvin said: Its not politics Mike, ID proponents including myself want an honest re-evaluation of the facts. It does not want to deny the teaching of natural sciences, but we want to have our say in how life came to be.

You want your say on how life came to be. So how did life come to be? What testable hypotheses are related to this? What "facts" need to be re-evaluated given that evolution deals with life once it already exists? Origin of life research is still pretty immature so here's your chance for a Nobel Prize. You have the floor.

phhht · 26 August 2010

Alvin said: Irreducible complexity

What's that? Do you mean Kolmogorov complexity? Organized or disorganized complexity a la Weaver? Computational complexity? Complexity as in complex adaptive systems? Krohn-Rhodes complexity? How do you tell irreducible complexity from almost irreducible complexity? What is a measure of irreducible complexity? How is it measured? Is there a maximum irreducible complexity? A minimum? Is irreducible complexity unidimensional or multidimensional? Is there such a thing as "reducible complexity?" What's the difference between irreducible and reducible complexity? Can you transform a system of "reducible complexity" to one of "irreducible complexity" Vice versa?

Alvin · 26 August 2010

SWT, Are you concept switching again?

ID is on the block here, not evolutionary theory. I wasn't saying evo systems are insufficient. its the opposite, tests done by Miller and Doolittle, how they went about it in documentation and analysis will attempt to show irreducibly complex systems can be naturally selected. Instead of being intelligently designed by an agent. They are challenging thus falsifying through experimentation ID's claims that a system like this could not have come from chance processes but only through purposeful engineering.

If ID cannot be scientifically falsified. Why was a reactionary experiment with work citations made by theistic evolutionist and Biologist Ken Miller? (see:http://www.discovery.org/a/441) Shouldn't atheistic philosophers like Quentin Smith be more appropriate in generating a critique more on the level of ID as philosophy not science?

You're attempting to gobbledygook me by changing topics or unfairly assuming that I was arguing against evolution's insufficiency, but its ID's claims that are being put on the crucible here.

stevaroni · 26 August 2010

Alvin said: ID proponents including myself want an honest re-evaluation of the facts. It does not want to deny the teaching of natural sciences, but we want to have our say in how life came to be.

Fine. Give me some reasonable explanation of how life came to be. With some kind, any kind, of testable evidence that somehow backs up this claim. Note that I pointedly did not ask you to criticize evolution. That's not evidence for a non-evolutionary answer. Just pretend evolution doesn't exist. Pretend that 150 years ago the Beagle capsized just outside the Portsmouth breakwater, and in the years since Darwin was killed nobody else managed to put the increasingly obvious pieces together. Please tell me, with some degree - any degree - of detail, the ID theory, and tell me how the available evidence supports it.

Ichthyic · 26 August 2010

ID is on the block here, not evolutionary theory.

*yawn*

creationism was killed centuries ago.

you clowns are zombie worshipers.

Mike Elzinga · 26 August 2010

Alvin said: Its not politics Mike, ID proponents including myself want an honest re-evaluation of the facts. It does not want to deny the teaching of natural sciences, but we want to have our say in how life came to be. Why does evolution matter anyway?, if one wants to learn human anatomy for its functions, intricacies and processes. They can do so on its own terms. Why do they need evolution for?

Evidently you are absolutely clueless about the history of the ID/creationist movement. There are some of us here (myself included) who have been tracking this political movement since the late 1960s. If you don’t think it is political, you are far more naive than you think you are. And you certainly underestimate what we know about this movement. Not once in over 40 years have any of the ID/creationists ever backed up their claims with supporting research. All, I repeat, all their efforts have gone into political actives and propaganda in their attempts to get evolution out of the schools. I am stunned that you don’t know this. This is easily discovered history. You can go over the website the National Center for Science Education and pull up every court case, every piece of legislation introduced into state legislatures, every attempt at bullying school districts and state boards of education. NCSE has been tracking and documenting ID/creationism for years. I have in my files the original writings from Duane Gish, Henry Morris, and a host of others. You can find those very same writings on the websites of the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis right now. You can track - as I and many others have done over the years – the genetic linkages of misconceptions and misrepresentations of science right through everything creationists have done from the 1960s up to today. These misconceptions remain. They involve everything from thermodynamics, to the fossil record, to the relationships on the evolutionary tree, to the biochemistry of cells and living organisms. This stuff is well-documented; and you can find that documentation anywhere. You will not find creationist thermodynamics being taught in physics departments because creationist thermodynamics has nothing to do with the real universe. It doesn’t work in the lab. You will not find creationist paleontology taught in departments of paleontology because creationist paleontology has nothing to do with the real world. You will not find creationist biochemistry taught in chemistry or biology departments because creationist biochemistry has nothing to do with the real world. There is no such thing as creationist biophysics. You will not find Dembski’s “complex specified information” taught in any computer science department because Dembski has not established any meaning to his invention. You will not find Behe’s irreducible complexity anywhere in any biology curriculum on any campus that does legitimate research in biological systems. You will not find any papers in the scientific journals anywhere that reference ID/creationist claims as a foundation for further scientific research. You can look through the all the major works of every ID/creationist – including Dembski, Behe, Myers, Abel, Gish Morris, Ham, and all the big talkers over at AiG - and you will find the same misconceptions and misrepresentations about scientific concepts. It’s easy to trace when you know something about science. So just why is it that someone such as you, who knows absolutely nothing about science, waltzes into a forum with a bunch of scientists and starts arguing that ID/creationism needs a closer look? Just what knowledge do you have that would counter nearly 50 years of well-documented sham on the part of the ID/creationists? You don’t know, do you? You are a camp follower of the ID/creationists. You wouldn’t know reality from slight-of hand. What attracts you to ID/creationism when you are unable to differentiate real science from pseudo-science? Do you know anything about Edwards v. Aguillard? Do you know anything about McLean v. Arkansas State Board of Education? Do you know anything about Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District? Are you telling us that the political nature of ID/creationism is unknown to you? Are you denying it? If so, on what basis? If you are thinking you have some unique insights on this stuff, you are in for a rude awakening. Hundreds of ID/creationists have come up with all sorts of patter and “gotchas” thinking they can take down the science community. Not one has ever, ever provided any evidence whatsoever in support of ID. Nor will you. You don’t know any, and you haven’t checked.

SWT · 26 August 2010

Alvin said: SWT, Are you concept switching again? ID is on the block here, not evolutionary theory. I wasn't saying evo systems are insufficient. its the opposite, tests done by Miller and Doolittle, how they went about it in documentation and analysis will attempt to show irreducibly complex systems can be naturally selected. Instead of being intelligently designed by an agent. They are challenging thus falsifying through experimentation ID's claims that a system like this could not have come from chance processes but only through purposeful engineering. If ID cannot be scientifically falsified. Why was a reactionary experiment with work citations made by theistic evolutionist and Biologist Ken Miller? (see:http://www.discovery.org/a/441) Shouldn't atheistic philosophers like Quentin Smith be more appropriate in generating a critique more on the level of ID as philosophy not science? You're attempting to gobbledygook me by changing topics or unfairly assuming that I was arguing against evolution's insufficiency, but its ID's claims that are being put on the crucible here.

What, specifically would you consider to be a testable claim of ID? As I asked before, what possible evidence could you find that would convince you that intelligent design was NOT true?

Cubist · 26 August 2010

Alvin said: Can't help but notice lots of one-sidedness in the arguments against Casey...

Well, yes. When a person is simply wrong, there is a certain degree of sameness, even one-sidedness, in the responses that one could make to that wrong person. So if you want to demonstrate that Casey Luskin is, in fact, right rather than wrong, perhaps you might want to address the content of those 'one-sided' responses to Luskin? As opposed to, you know, just saying Hey, you're one-sided! and sorta-kinda implying that the 'one-sidedness' is somehow a Bad Thing...

First ID is demonstrated to be falsifiable

It is? When did that happen? As far as I can tell, ID can be accurately summed up in seven words: Somehow, somewhere, somebody intelligent did something. You think that's falsifiable? Not!
Of course, my seven-word summary of ID could be wrong; I'm not infallible, after all. So if you think my seven-word summary of ID is, in fact, not accurate, could you tell me where it goes wrong?

What, if anything, does ID have to say about the 'somehow' -- what tools/methods/etc did the Designer use when It was doing... whatever the heck It did?
What, if anything, does ID have to say about the 'somewhere' -- at which location, or set of locations, did the Designer do whatever the heck It did?
What, if anything, does ID have to say about the 'somewhen' -- at which moment in time, or set of moments in time, did the Designer do whatever the heck It did?
What, if anything, does ID have to say about the 'somebody intelligent' which ID supposes to have done, um, something or other? Okay, ID says that its Designer is a Designer. And ID says that this Designer is Intelligent. But aside from those two words...
What, if anything, does ID have to say about the 'something' -- what did the Designer do?

The problem with ID, scientifically speaking, is simple: There's no 'there' there. ID just isn't a scientific theory, end of discussion -- and anyone who disagrees is hereby invited to demonstrate how wrong I am, by showing me where my seven-word summary of ID goes wrong.

Dave Luckett · 26 August 2010

Mike's absolutely on the money on this, and if some of his reasonable and righteous indignation leaks through, it's only to be expected. He has been dealing with this for forty years and counting.

In all creationism's forms - including "intelligent design" - creationists have shown not the slightest interest in advancing human knowledge of living things. They don't do research; they do propaganda. They don't observe nature; they do sound-bites. They don't propose hypotheses; they propose legislation. They don't find facts; they find donors and agents. They don't test hypotheses; they get on the media.

To be different, you will need to act differently.

To start with, you must do as stevaroni suggests, that is, lay down the details of the hypothesis of intelligent design of life so that those details can be tested. Until you do that, there is no hypothesis of intelligent design of life. It doesn't exist.

When you've done that - and it hasn't been done yet by anybody, not Behe, not Dembski, not Wells, not any of them - then you get to state what empirical observations would support that hypothesis, and then after that you get to test whether those observations are made under rigorously controlled conditions, and then you report them in the scientific literature, and then they get tested and retested by other researchers.

You haven't even started that process. Evolutionary theory has been going through it for a hundred and fifty years. It has, as we say in my country, the runs on the board. ID hasn't even walked out to bat.

Henry J · 26 August 2010

by showing me where my seven-word summary of ID goes wrong.

You left out one of the words ("somewhen") from the summary. ;)

Oclarki · 26 August 2010

Alvin said: Its not politics Mike, ID proponents including myself want an honest re-evaluation of the facts. It does not want to deny the teaching of natural sciences, but we want to have our say in how life came to be.

If that is what you want, then perhaps you should insist that ID proponents actually come up with substantive, testable explanations that support their (or your) claims. So far, it seems that ID proponents are using ID as a default explanation..."we don't know why that happened so it must be ID". Unfortunately for them (and perhaps you), the real default explanation in science is "we do not yet know". Period. No other default position needed.

SWT · 27 August 2010

Alvin said: SWT, Are you concept switching again? ID is on the block here, not evolutionary theory. I wasn't saying evo systems are insufficient. its the opposite, tests done by Miller and Doolittle, how they went about it in documentation and analysis will attempt to show irreducibly complex systems can be naturally selected. Instead of being intelligently designed by an agent. They are challenging thus falsifying through experimentation ID's claims that a system like this could not have come from chance processes but only through purposeful engineering. If ID cannot be scientifically falsified. Why was a reactionary experiment with work citations made by theistic evolutionist and Biologist Ken Miller? (see:http://www.discovery.org/a/441) Shouldn't atheistic philosophers like Quentin Smith be more appropriate in generating a critique more on the level of ID as philosophy not science? You're attempting to gobbledygook me by changing topics or unfairly assuming that I was arguing against evolution's insufficiency, but its ID's claims that are being put on the crucible here.

Alvin, as I checked in on this discussion this morning, it occurred to me that you might have a misconception about the way scientific endeavors proceed. Thus, I'm posting an addendum to my previous response to your post. Normally, the way science works is (in a simplified, idealized form) as follows. A set of observations are made, and a hypothesis is established to explain the available data. The hypothesis is used to establish what additional data could be obtained to help us reject the hypothesis, modify the hypothesis, or increase our confidence in the hypothesis. As an example: common descent was inferred from data available in the mid-19th century; we can use the hypothesis of common descent to make a wide range of objectively testable predictions. You seem to misunderstand the nature of the debate between Behe and Miller, so let's look a little more closely at that. Behe (incorrectly) asserts that the existence of "irreducibly complexity" (IC) in living organisms cannot be the result of evolutionary processes, and that those systems must therefore be designed. The premise of Behe's assertion (IC cannot be the result of evolutionary processes) is a claim about evolution, not about ID. Miller's response to Behe is two-fold. First, many of the systems that Behe claims are IC are in fact not IC because they have function even when parts are removed. Second, as I noted in a previous post, evolution is expected to produce IC systems. Regardless, ID claims to have a hypothesis -- that biological systems observed in nature are designed, or have designed elements, or something like that. The next step in the process is to articulate that hypothesis clearly enough that one could determine its logical consequences in terms of objectively observable phenomena. What data could one obtain, even in principle, that would require rejection of intelligent design?

DS · 27 August 2010

Alvin,

No answers huh? Guess you really can't explain anything about humans anatomy without evolution. Imagine that.

OK, what about human skin color? What is the ancestral condition? What is the reason for the distribution of human skin colors in indigenous populations? What are some problems that are caused by this in modern societies? Is this an example "intelligent design"? How could someone with a modicum of intelligence improve on the "design"? Does this falsify ID? Why not?

A wise man once said that unintelligent design doesn't get you anywhere. Once again, I was right.

Cubist · 27 August 2010

Henry J said:
by showing me where my seven-word summary of ID goes wrong.
You left out one of the words ("somewhen") from the summary. ;)

Hmmm. Henry J. has just asserted that I screwed up, by leaving out a word. Now, I hope you're reading this, Alvin, because I'm going to perform an act which is, in my experience, utterly foreign to Creationists:
You're right, Henry J -- I did manage to omit the word 'somewhen' from my seven-word summary of ID. Clearly, I didn't, um, count the words or anything before I hit 'submit'... Thank you for bringing my error to my attention!

See how that works, Alvin? When somebody asserts that you've made a mistake, you don't just reflexively shout "Did not!" (which is what you Creationists tend to do when your scientific errors are pointed out to you). Rather, you examine the content of said assertion, and you give different replies depending on whether the assertion is true of false. And in this case, well, Henry J. got me dead to rights; I had made the error he asserted I'd made. So I acknowledgted my error, rather than respond with an unrelated accusation of error on Henry J's part, or a pile of obfuscatory verbiage which seems to justify my error without actually saying anything, or any of the myriad other rhetorical gambits you Creationists routinely employ instead of acknowledging your errors.
It's really quite simple, Alvin: When someone goes around making noise about "2 plus 2 equals 5", other people are going to notice there's something wrong there. And when the person who made noise about "2 plus 2 equals 5" goes on to be rigidly resistant to all attempts to correct their error (in much the same way that you Creationists are rigidly resistant to attempts to correct your errors), other people will notice that, too. And they're going to wonder whether Mr. Two-plus-two-equals-five is stupid or ignorant or insane or just lying... just as people wonder whether you Creationists are stupid or ignorant or insane or just lying.

And with the above said and acknowledged, here's my celebrated seven-word summary of ID, this time actually including seven words: Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something.
And here, once again, are the questions I'd like you to take a shot at, in the event that you feel my seven-word summary does not do justice to ID:

What, if anything, does ID have to say about the 'somehow' -- what tools/methods/etc did the Designer use when It was doing... whatever the heck It did?
What, if anything, does ID have to say about the 'somewhere' -- at which location, or set of locations, did the Designer do whatever the heck It did?
What, if anything, does ID have to say about the 'somewhen' -- at which moment in time, or set of moments in time, did the Designer do whatever the heck It did?
What, if anything, does ID have to say about the 'somebody intelligent' which ID supposes to have done, um, something or other? Okay, ID says that its Designer is a Designer. And ID says that this Designer is Intelligent. But aside from those two words...
What, if anything, does ID have to say about the 'something' -- what did the Designer do?

fnxtr · 27 August 2010

"ID is not a mechanistic theory."

What the hell does that even mean?

Henry J · 27 August 2010

To answer that, first figure out what "intelligent" means, then "design", and then "mechanistic" - then put them together. ;)

Stanton · 27 August 2010

fnxtr said: "ID is not a mechanistic theory." What the hell does that even mean?

That Intelligent Design proponents want Intelligent Design ~~Theory~~ to be held as more scientific and more sacred than actual science, but with absolutely none of that awful, awful work or explanation.

DS · 27 August 2010

Cubist wrote:

"And with the above said and acknowledged, here’s my celebrated seven-word summary of ID, this time actually including seven words: Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something."

Excellent. I would add the word "somewhat" between the words somebody and intelligent, but maybe that's just me.

Now if Alvin can tell us what predictions are made by this most excellent hypothesis, or how such an excellent hypothesis might be made even more predictive, I'm sure he could get onto the real business of actually, you know, testing it. Until then, it remains unpredictive, uninformative and unfalsifiable.

stevaroni · 27 August 2010

fnxtr said: "ID is not a mechanistic theory." What the hell does that even mean?

It means that unlike those old-school "traditional" scientific theories that need the "mechanisms" of details, equations and pesky, pesky correlation with evidence to work, ID is better because it works just fine with none of those.

Ichthyic · 27 August 2010

“ID is not a mechanistic theory.” What the hell does that even mean?

ask William Dembski.

DS · 27 August 2010

Alvin,

What's the matter boy, cat got your tongue? No answers yet? All right, I'll make this real easy for you. You don't have to answer any of the other questions I asked if you can just explain the prostate. Come on man, explain to us how intelligent this design is. Explain to us how it shows so much evidence of planning and foresight. Explain to us how this alone does not conclusively falsify any ID hypothesis. Shoot man, any six year old should have known better. If god did that, he's an idiot. If an alien did it, he's just plain mean.

eddie · 27 August 2010

DS said: You don't have to answer any of the other questions I asked if you can just explain the prostate. Come on man, explain to us how intelligent this design is. Explain to us how it shows so much evidence of planning and foresight. Explain to us how this alone does not conclusively falsify any ID hypothesis.

I would have thought that the prostate was excellent proof not only of a very considerate designer, but that He thoroughly approves of sodomy. To my mind, if anything proved we were designed (and designed to be sexually experimental) it would be the prostate. On the other hand, of course, I can't rule out that Satan introduced the prostate after the Fall. But either way, it was kind of whichever one put it there for me.

DS · 27 August 2010

Eddie,

You are younger than fifty, aren't you? You will learn my son.

eddie · 28 August 2010

DS said: Eddie, You are younger than fifty, aren't you? You will learn my son.

Pah! A pathetic attempt to claim that age and experience trumps youthful denial. In any case, science proves that I am right. When the urethra is blocked, the semen has to go somewhere and so attempts to exit through the anus, thus causing pressure to build up on the prostate. This new directional flow of the semen causes sexual desire to be relocated from the genitals to the prostate and from thence to the rectum. This is well known to scientists, and I'm surprised you didn't mention it. Especially as simply unblocking the urethra will cure homosexuality. (On Saturdays I reject all so-called 'science' from the post-Medieval era. We all know that most of it is rubbish anyway.)

Dave Luckett · 28 August 2010

Much pleasure may you have from it. My own physician advises me that I have a prostate the size of a well-grown grapefruit, and wonders what I have been doing with it to cause this. I protested that the size of the internal appointments has apparently been caused by diverting materials meant for the external ones, but she discounts this explanation.

SWT · 28 August 2010

Well this discussion certainly took a turn I had not anticipated ...

DS · 28 August 2010

Eddie,

I don't know what sort of weed you have been smoking, but when you are over fifty years old you have to get a prostate exam every year. In the words of Dr Becker, it is the mother of all invasive procedures. Over one third of all men eventually have problems with enlarged prostates and many develop prostate cancer which is life threatening. The placement of the urethra is definitely not an intelligent design, since it causes all sorts of problems with urination when the prostate becomes enlarged.

This is not intelligent design. If you want to engage in buggery (with some one else), please be my guest. If you want to blame god for your predilections, again, please be my guest. What you can't do is claim that there is any evidence for the existence of god in the design of biological systems. This is what one would expect of chance and historical contingency, not intelligence.

SWT · 28 August 2010

[aside]

pssst ... DS ... I think eddie is having a bit of fun with us ...

[/aside]

stevaroni · 28 August 2010

SWT said: Well this discussion certainly took a turn I had not anticipated ...

Let's just say it's swelled to new dimensions...

Mike Elzinga · 28 August 2010

SWT said: [aside] pssst ... DS ... I think eddie is having a bit of fun with us ... [/aside]

He’s flirting with aprostacy.

fnxtr · 28 August 2010

Mike Elzinga said:
SWT said: [aside] pssst ... DS ... I think eddie is having a bit of fun with us ... [/aside]
He’s flirting with aprostacy.

Is she related to Gwen Stacy?