This [TIME PERIOD] in Intelligent Design - 10/02/12

Posted 10 February 2012 by Jack Scanlan

Intelligent design news, commentary and discussion from the 17th of December, 2011 to the 10th of February, 2012.

Huh? Intelligent design, what's that? Oh, oh, yes. Yes, you're quite right. I'm sorry, I've been out of the loop a bit and I'd forgotten this little movement I like to keep an eye on from time to time. Well, it's actually supposed to be a weekly thing, but... things have been crazy around here. Leave me alone, I'm a university student on holidays, I have no time to do anything.

Anyway, what has the intelligent design community been up to online since we last saw them? Not a huge amount, actually, although certainly more stuff than is feasibly possible to fit into one blog post. So, like normal, I'll skim off the cream floating at the top of this ID think-tank and have a peer into the beaker I used to do it.

This time we'll be looking at speciation, the glowing past and future of ID, ID as a default assumption in science, appeals to historical authority, and the Discovery Institute distancing themselves from a creationist bill in Indiana.

115 Comments

Helena Constantine · 10 February 2012

In one of Luskin's tirades you re-posted there, I was stuck by this:

"First, it’s highly improbable: getting a chain of 100 left-handed amino acids for a small protein without design would be like tossing a coin and getting 100 heads in a row...Even one wrong-handed amino acid can destroy a protein’s function. Accordingly, living cells actively maintain homochirality by repairing wrong-handed chiral molecules or rejecting them."

So living cells are the designer? Or does he lack basic reading comprehension?

W. H. Heydt · 10 February 2012

Helena Constantine said: In one of Luskin's tirades you re-posted there, I was stuck by this: So living cells are the designer? Or does he lack basic reading comprehension?

Yes. /snark --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Paul Burnett · 10 February 2012

Now that Santorum has floated to the surface of Rethuglican politics (and if you're in on the joke, you know how disgusting that particular word-picture is), I am happily writing comments to internet news items about him reminding folks about the infamous "Santorum Amendment" - about how his support for the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism renders his candidacy (for anything!) utterly inappropriate for the 21st century. (Or the 20th or 19th or 18th centuries...) I would urge all of you to do the same.

TomS · 10 February 2012

Helena Constantine said: In one of Luskin's tirades you re-posted there, I was stuck by this: "First, it’s highly improbable: getting a chain of 100 left-handed amino acids for a small protein without design would be like tossing a coin and getting 100 heads in a row...Even one wrong-handed amino acid can destroy a protein’s function. Accordingly, living cells actively maintain homochirality by repairing wrong-handed chiral molecules or rejecting them." So living cells are the designer? Or does he lack basic reading comprehension?

What is there about gods/intelligent designers that makes it more probable that they would choose left-handed amino acids? Couldn't they accomplish their purposes with a mixture of right- and left-handed amino acids (or, for that matter, with any chemicals - let's say amino acids with helium atoms replacing carbon atoms - is God constrained by the laws of chemical bonds)?

Just Bob · 10 February 2012

TomS said: ... is God constrained by the laws of chemical bonds)?

Apparently so--in all circumstances, in all aspects of nature. One has to wonder why that must be so when miracles are so readily available.

Mike Elzinga · 10 February 2012

Paul Burnett said: Now that Santorum has floated to the surface of Rethuglican politics ...

In achieving top management positions, this is sometimes referred to as “The Septic Tank Convection Principle of Successful Managers.”

Henry J · 10 February 2012

Is that why grass is greener over the septic tank?

DavidK · 10 February 2012

Luskin said:
"...ID should be the default position till demonstrated otherwise."

I.e., God did it, so let's go backwards in time and disregard anything that's been discovered since, say, 4004 BC(E). So kids, bring your Bibles to science class.

Robert Byers · 11 February 2012

Little movement?
Here in Toronto I talked with a new student in York university in biology class who mentioned to me that ID (I don't think YEC) came up and was addressed completly by the teacher.
The teacher was hostile and made the usual main points of why ID is not true and not science and not true etc etc.
Yet the point is they must introduce this and deal with it in entry classes on biology when they could avoid it.

No way around it. iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time.
Its a great idea and greatly shaken the roots of the old guard.
It really is famous despite the fewness of those who reach large audiences promoting it.
The power must be that it gives "scientific" legs to very popular creationist opinions and tendencies and general skepticism of evolution etc.
ID works upon existing creationist ideas and is not just the achievement of a few people.

Truly either ID and YEC will prevail or fail to prevail or be squashed and this in our time.
Therefore its very possible in our time evolutionary biology or anything denying a creators fingerprints in nature will be overthrown by this movement and some these names behind it.
They may be the future celebrated agents of change in these 'sciences".
Not their critics.
Gentlemen place your bets.

Joel · 11 February 2012

Robert Byers said: Little movement? Here in Toronto I talked with a new student in York university in biology class who mentioned to me that ID (I don't think YEC) came up and was addressed completly by the teacher. The teacher was hostile and made the usual main points of why ID is not true and not science and not true etc etc. Yet the point is they must introduce this and deal with it in entry classes on biology when they could avoid it. No way around it. iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time. Its a great idea and greatly shaken the roots of the old guard. It really is famous despite the fewness of those who reach large audiences promoting it. The power must be that it gives "scientific" legs to very popular creationist opinions and tendencies and general skepticism of evolution etc. ID works upon existing creationist ideas and is not just the achievement of a few people. Truly either ID and YEC will prevail or fail to prevail or be squashed and this in our time. Therefore its very possible in our time evolutionary biology or anything denying a creators fingerprints in nature will be overthrown by this movement and some these names behind it. They may be the future celebrated agents of change in these 'sciences". Not their critics. Gentlemen place your bets.

LOL! Great creationist/ID parody, Robert! You have a great ear for their baffelgab.

nasty.brutish.tall · 11 February 2012

Robert Byers said: Truly either ID and YEC will prevail or fail to prevail or be squashed and this in our time...Gentlemen place your bets.

There is an easy way to keep track of the progress of ID and YEC, and to know when they have prevailed. You won't find out by watching academic debates, or by keeping track of the bills introduced in legislative bodies, or by following court cases, or by reading public opinion polls. No, the real way keep track is by going to Monster.com. The wonderful thing about looking at job openings is that business and industry are completely unbiased. They have no incentive to stifle YEC and ID. They have no reason to take sides in ideological debates. Their only incentive is to make a profit. And any idea that will help them make a profit is, to them, a good idea. That's really the bottom line. Does an idea work? Can we put it to use to turn a buck? So how are YEC and ID doing in business and industry? Well, if you go to websites like Monster.com, and you put in keywords like "biology" or "geology" you will find there are literally thousands of jobs available for people in those fields. Those jobs are at pharmaceuticals companies, agribusiness firms, biomedical companies, petrochemical companies, mining firms, environmental firms, and so forth. But if you search on the terms "creationism", "creation science", and "intelligent design", you will not find a single job anywhere with any company for anyone with expertise in those areas. There are no petroleum company advertisements saying "Need Young Earth geologist to use Flood Geology for oil exploration." There are no pharmaceutical company advertisements saying "Need experienced Intelligent Design scientist to apply ID Theory to cancer drug development." There are also no venture capitalists seeking to invest in Creation Science-based biotech start-up companies. So far, ID and YEC have borne no fruit for anyone who actually applies science for the purpose of economic productivity. And you know what they say: "Watch out for false prophets...by their fruit you will recognize them...and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." Keep your eye on Monster.com.

TomS · 11 February 2012

Robert Byers said: iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time.

Please describe this idea in positive, substantive terms. Other than, that is, "something, somehow, is wrong with evolutionary biology." Tell us what happens, when and where an ID action takes place, and what, where and when it does not. (How about an example of something which we can tell is not "intelligently designed"? Maybe the precursors of vertebrates with eyes or of bacteria with flagella?) I'm also curious about the fact that the change in anti-evolution over the last several decades has been in the direction of saying ever less. ID is different from its predecessors in not making any commitment about the age of life on Earth, and insisting on not identifying the "intelligent designer(s)". Some of the ID advocates even tell us that ID is fully compatible with common descent.

Ron Okimoto · 11 February 2012

Paul Burnett said: Now that Santorum has floated to the surface of Rethuglican politics (and if you're in on the joke, you know how disgusting that particular word-picture is), I am happily writing comments to internet news items about him reminding folks about the infamous "Santorum Amendment" - about how his support for the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism renders his candidacy (for anything!) utterly inappropriate for the 21st century. (Or the 20th or 19th or 18th centuries...) I would urge all of you to do the same.

You can tell if it cream floating to the surface by the color and smell.

Ron Okimoto · 11 February 2012

DavidK said: Luskin said: "...ID should be the default position till demonstrated otherwise." I.e., God did it, so let's go backwards in time and disregard anything that's been discovered since, say, 4004 BC(E). So kids, bring your Bibles to science class.

For hundreds of years ID was the default position in Western science, and it never amounted to anything. There hasn't been a single ID success in the entire history of science. If this were not the case we would already be teaching the junk and science would have a modified set of rules. Laws of nature are based on less data than that. You can't go to the Discovery Institute and get a list of ID scientific successes because there hasn't been a single one. This is one fact that the ID perps can't deny, or if they do they can't put up the example when they are lying about it.

co · 11 February 2012

nasty.brutish.tall said:
Robert Byers said: Truly either ID and YEC will prevail or fail to prevail or be squashed and this in our time...Gentlemen place your bets.
There is an easy way to keep track of the progress of ID and YEC, and to know when they have prevailed. You won't find out by watching academic debates, or by keeping track of the bills introduced in legislative bodies, or by following court cases, or by reading public opinion polls. No, the real way keep track is by going to Monster.com. The wonderful thing about looking at job openings is that business and industry are completely unbiased. They have no incentive to stifle YEC and ID. They have no reason to take sides in ideological debates. Their only incentive is to make a profit. And any idea that will help them make a profit is, to them, a good idea. That's really the bottom line. Does an idea work? Can we put it to use to turn a buck? So how are YEC and ID doing in business and industry? Well, if you go to websites like Monster.com, and you put in keywords like "biology" or "geology" you will find there are literally thousands of jobs available for people in those fields. Those jobs are at pharmaceuticals companies, agribusiness firms, biomedical companies, petrochemical companies, mining firms, environmental firms, and so forth. But if you search on the terms "creationism", "creation science", and "intelligent design", you will not find a single job anywhere with any company for anyone with expertise in those areas. There are no petroleum company advertisements saying "Need Young Earth geologist to use Flood Geology for oil exploration." There are no pharmaceutical company advertisements saying "Need experienced Intelligent Design scientist to apply ID Theory to cancer drug development." There are also no venture capitalists seeking to invest in Creation Science-based biotech start-up companies. So far, ID and YEC have borne no fruit for anyone who actually applies science for the purpose of economic productivity. And you know what they say: "Watch out for false prophets...by their fruit you will recognize them...and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." Keep your eye on Monster.com.

Very, VERY good point, and well stated.

SensuousCurmudgeon · 11 February 2012

nasty.brutish.tall said: The wonderful thing about looking at job openings is that business and industry are completely unbiased. They have no incentive to stifle YEC and ID. They have no reason to take sides in ideological debates. Their only incentive is to make a profit. And any idea that will help them make a profit is, to them, a good idea. That's really the bottom line. Does an idea work? Can we put it to use to turn a buck? [...] There are also no venture capitalists seeking to invest in Creation Science-based biotech start-up companies.

Very nice indeed. I don't mind when people use my arguments. That's why I post them. Most of the ideas in your comment were posted almost four years ago, here: Debating Creationists: The Big Lie. It's in the section titled "Follow the money." The only "new" element in your comment is your mention of searching monster.com, and I think that argument comes from Zack Kopplin's post here: “Sorry There are Zero Creationist Jobs”–My Dec. 7 Testimony at BESE. There's nothing wrong with the ideas in your comment, and it's fine that you're on the right side of the issue; but next time you should give credit for such things -- or at least say that you've seen them somewhere.

John_S · 11 February 2012

Luskin said: “…ID should be the default position till demonstrated otherwise.”

If this were true, we'd still be back in the Stone Age. Important discoveries and advances have come from rejecting "Goddidit" and searching for a natural explanation. People thought the Plague was a "Goddidit". Pope Gregory even led an elaborate procession around the city praying for God to spare them, which is commemorated in the Trés Riche Heures. Today, we can cure it with a few dollars worth of streptomycin because people didn't accept that it was God's curse. People thought lightning was God's judgment. Then we found it was just static electricity and could be defeated with a simple copper rod and some wire. Churches continued to resist using the lightning rod for fear of showing a lack of trust in God. Needless to say, as the tallest building in town, the church was the first to be hit, while the brothel down the street was spared. In any event, it has been "demonstrated otherwise" to the satisfaction of anyone without a religious ax to grind.

Robert Byers · 11 February 2012

nasty.brutish.tall said:
Robert Byers said: Truly either ID and YEC will prevail or fail to prevail or be squashed and this in our time...Gentlemen place your bets.
There is an easy way to keep track of the progress of ID and YEC, and to know when they have prevailed. You won't find out by watching academic debates, or by keeping track of the bills introduced in legislative bodies, or by following court cases, or by reading public opinion polls. No, the real way keep track is by going to Monster.com. The wonderful thing about looking at job openings is that business and industry are completely unbiased. They have no incentive to stifle YEC and ID. They have no reason to take sides in ideological debates. Their only incentive is to make a profit. And any idea that will help them make a profit is, to them, a good idea. That's really the bottom line. Does an idea work? Can we put it to use to turn a buck? So how are YEC and ID doing in business and industry? Well, if you go to websites like Monster.com, and you put in keywords like "biology" or "geology" you will find there are literally thousands of jobs available for people in those fields. Those jobs are at pharmaceuticals companies, agribusiness firms, biomedical companies, petrochemical companies, mining firms, environmental firms, and so forth. But if you search on the terms "creationism", "creation science", and "intelligent design", you will not find a single job anywhere with any company for anyone with expertise in those areas. There are no petroleum company advertisements saying "Need Young Earth geologist to use Flood Geology for oil exploration." There are no pharmaceutical company advertisements saying "Need experienced Intelligent Design scientist to apply ID Theory to cancer drug development." There are also no venture capitalists seeking to invest in Creation Science-based biotech start-up companies. So far, ID and YEC have borne no fruit for anyone who actually applies science for the purpose of economic productivity. And you know what they say: "Watch out for false prophets...by their fruit you will recognize them...and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." Keep your eye on Monster.com.

This is a monster of errors. First business and industry are INDEED biased. I say it, and everyone has and has been saying it forever. Affirmative action, presumptions behind it, and ceilings, and presumptions behind it and constant accusation about bias in hiring/promoting/firing has ruling North America since WW11. Creationism is full of stories, and more suspicions, of unjust bias in jobs because of creationist.opinions. A famous case in Canada here. It IS about public opinion,gov't bills, court cases, high well done debates. That is the measurement of prevailing ideas at any one point. If you give us this we will not mind the 9-5 stuff.!

Mike Elzinga · 11 February 2012

Robert Byers said: It IS about public opinion,gov't bills, court cases, high well done debates. That is the measurement of prevailing ideas at any one point. If you give us this we will not mind the 9-5 stuff.!

Such a typical ID/creationist whine. Sectarians get rebuffed for their proselytizing and pseudo-science; and then they scream and whine that they are being persecuted and need special treatment from government agencies and business in order to push their proselytizing and pseudo-science agenda.

Joel · 11 February 2012

". . . constant accusation about bias in hiring/promoting/firing has ruling North America since WW11."

But the same logic applies to hiring in Europe, Byers. There are plenty of pharma companies in Europe and none are advertising for creationist biologists. There are plenty of mining companies in Europe and none are advertising for YEC geologists to use flood geology for oil or coal exploration.

"This is a monster of errors."

Projecting much, Byers?

Robert Byers · 11 February 2012

TomS said:
Robert Byers said: iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time.
Please describe this idea in positive, substantive terms. Other than, that is, "something, somehow, is wrong with evolutionary biology." Tell us what happens, when and where an ID action takes place, and what, where and when it does not. (How about an example of something which we can tell is not "intelligently designed"? Maybe the precursors of vertebrates with eyes or of bacteria with flagella?) I'm also curious about the fact that the change in anti-evolution over the last several decades has been in the direction of saying ever less. ID is different from its predecessors in not making any commitment about the age of life on Earth, and insisting on not identifying the "intelligent designer(s)". Some of the ID advocates even tell us that ID is fully compatible with common descent.

I meant besides the accuracy of the movement. I mean ,right or wrong, ID is the most important idea , in a general framework, to have come along in subjects dealing with origins in nature. It truly is the talk of the town and if victorious will be seen as the great idea. If failed it still will of been a great rebellion of an idea. Everywhere I look I see, or perceive beneath, the threat of Id as seen from those who teach the public about conclusions in origins. It seems toi me, a fan and ally though YEC, out of proportion. So I conclude the real threat is the putting well degree-ed people with fine tuned ideas together with the common popular Christian creationism equaling the serious threat to a old establishment. Not just the power and persuasiveness of the ID squads. It does seem however that like in the Inca empire days a small group of Spainards are destroying a Inca empire of millions. I guess it can be done.

nasty.brutish.tall · 11 February 2012

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Very nice indeed. I don't mind when people use my arguments. That's why I post them. Most of the ideas in your comment were posted almost four years ago, here: Debating Creationists: The Big Lie. It's in the section titled "Follow the money." The only "new" element in your comment is your mention of searching monster.com, and I think that argument comes from Zack Kopplin's post here: “Sorry There are Zero Creationist Jobs”–My Dec. 7 Testimony at BESE. There's nothing wrong with the ideas in your comment, and it's fine that you're on the right side of the issue; but next time you should give credit for such things -- or at least say that you've seen them somewhere.

Curmudgeon, I must say I was quite embarrassed after visiting your links. The coherence between my words and yours (or Zach's) is so striking that I am (almost) despairing of any possibility of defending myself against charges of plagiarism. And to make matters worse, I can't deny being a visitor to your blog. That said, I only discovered your blog a little over a year ago. While I can't swear that I didn't stumble across your four-year-old post at some point in time, I can't recall having done so. Nor do I think I've read Zach's post. If I'm mistaken about either case (and I admit that possibility), you have my sincerest of apologies and I'll gladly accept whatever admonishment comes my way. It certainly won't be my first embarrassing mistake. Of course, my protestation of innocence must seem ridiculously shallow in light of the evidence. I don't even think I would believe me. But with your indulgence, I will put forth a modest defense. I have been using "your" economic argument for many, many years in my teaching and elsewhere. Just to give you one example of my use of this idea prior to your 2008 post, in 2007 I wrote a discussion board post under the handle "Leviathan" that, quite ironically, anticipated your tag line of "follow the money" (Sorry, but you'll have to follow the link and then manually click to page 3 of the thread -- there is some ampersand problem with the html tag that I can't resolve to get directly to that page)

I wrote:...I'll follow the money. When companies are spending billions of dollars per year to fund ID because it produces such wonderful and useful results, I'll be a believer.

Perhaps you should have cited me! Just kidding. ;) In all seriousness, if I've unconsciously borrowed, I do apologize.

SensuousCurmudgeon · 11 February 2012

nasty.brutish.tall said: In all seriousness, if I've unconsciously borrowed, I do apologize.

No problem. I'm sure I didn't invent those arguments, just the manner of expression. It's not impossible that, although four years old, you may have seen it that post. I like it, so it's kept visible via a link in the ever-present margin of my blog. Unconscious borrowing is a familiar phenomenon, and I may have done it myself at times. Don't worry about it. You're a gentleman.

John_S · 11 February 2012

Robert Byers said:
TomS said:
Robert Byers said: iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time.
Please describe this idea in positive, substantive terms.
I meant besides the accuracy of the movement. [snip]

So you don't have an answer to TomS's question? We all admit that ID has a popular following among people who don't know much about evolution and don't intend to the next time, either. So what? So does astrology. At least astrology makes some positive assertions. ID doesn't even do that. It just says "I don't believe your explanations; so therefore, 'somebody' must have done 'something' by some 'unspecified magical process'." To rephrase TomS's question, what beyond that does ID say? And how can that be an important idea? Naive people have been offering that as an explanation for almost everything since the Bronze Age. See my earlier post about the Plague and lighting.

I'm_not · 11 February 2012

You wouldn't believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.

apokryltaros · 11 February 2012

I'm_not said: You wouldn't believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.

Well, this debate is one of the many, many, oh-so tragic, tearjerking casualties of letting the idea that God hates (smart) people evolve into holy, political-religious dogma. The uncontrolled proliferation of pompous Morons For Jesus, like Robert Byers, is another sad side effect.

phhht · 11 February 2012

I'm_not said: You wouldn't believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.

Just think of Robert Byers as the man in the Post Office who wants to by a license for his pet fish, Eric.

I'm_not · 11 February 2012

phhht said:
I'm_not said: You wouldn't believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.
Hahahahaha I see.... Just think of Robert Byers as the man in the Post Office who wants to by a license for his pet fish, Eric.

I'm_not · 11 February 2012

apokryltaros said:
I'm_not said: You wouldn't believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.
Well, this debate is one of the many, many, oh-so tragic, tearjerking casualties of letting the idea that God hates (smart) people evolve into holy, political-religious dogma. The uncontrolled proliferation of pompous Morons For Jesus, like Robert Byers, is another sad side effect.

He's keen, you've got to give him that.

apokryltaros · 11 February 2012

I'm_not said:
apokryltaros said:
I'm_not said: You wouldn't believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.
Well, this debate is one of the many, many, oh-so tragic, tearjerking casualties of letting the idea that God hates (smart) people evolve into holy, political-religious dogma. The uncontrolled proliferation of pompous Morons For Jesus, like Robert Byers, is another sad side effect.
He's keen, you've got to give him that.

I've got 70 year old butter knives in my drawer thousands of times keener than Robert Byers. He's persistent, not keen.

I'm_not · 11 February 2012

apokryltaros said:
I'm_not said:
apokryltaros said:
I'm_not said: You wouldn't believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.
Well, this debate is one of the many, many, oh-so tragic, tearjerking casualties of letting the idea that God hates (smart) people evolve into holy, political-religious dogma. The uncontrolled proliferation of pompous Morons For Jesus, like Robert Byers, is another sad side effect.
He's keen, you've got to give him that.
I've got 70 year old butter knives in my drawer thousands of times keener than Robert Byers. He's persistent, not keen.

I meant keen as in eager but I'll take persistent, I don't want to be quote mined.

Rolf · 12 February 2012

I'm_not said: You wouldn't believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.

The tip of an iceberg?

Helena Constantine · 12 February 2012

Robert Byers said: This is a monster of errors. First business and industry are INDEED biased. I say it, and everyone has and has been saying it forever. Affirmative action, presumptions behind it, and ceilings, and presumptions behind it and constant accusation about bias in hiring/promoting/firing has ruling North America since WW11. Creationism is full of stories, and more suspicions, of unjust bias in jobs because of creationist.opinions. A famous case in Canada here. It IS about public opinion,gov't bills, court cases, high well done debates. That is the measurement of prevailing ideas at any one point. If you give us this we will not mind the 9-5 stuff.!

Its not a case of bias at all. In many cases creationist beliefs actively interfere with job performance. For example, I once saw an interview with a bible thumping oil company executive, and he complained about the position he was put in. He was sure the world was 6000 years old, but he had to hire engineers who believed its billions of years old because they were the only one who could find the oil. So there even a creationist won't hire his own kind because he recognizes despite himself that they are wrong. More generally, creationism is a sign of a complete lack of imagination and intellectual initiative which are not every salable qualities. But in fact the unjust bias is all the other way. Many people have actually been fired because they are atheists. How often I've read on the internet of thumper bosses boasting of firing their atheists employees, celebrating their hatred of freedom of conscious as a virtue. its a popular topic on Rapture Ready.

harold · 12 February 2012

But in fact the unjust bias is all the other way.

This could not possibly be more true. The very reason that right wing creationists complain about persecution is that they love doing it, and project that love onto others. Here is an example of a creationist crowing over forcing Chris Comer out of a Department of Education job, for mentioning, that's mentioning, a scientific meeting related to biological evolution, in an email. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/texas_evolutionlobby_dealt_ano019031.html My personal ethics strongly prevent me from discriminating on the grounds of religious or political beliefs (*if they interfere with the job, of course, dealing with that isn't discrimination*). My emotional attitude toward those who deny reality in the service of harsh ideologies has changed over the years. I started with the most generous assumptions, supposing people to share my honesty and respect for others, and, in the case of creationists, for example, to be engaged in a sincere effort to reconcile science with important cultural values. Over the years, through contact, my opinions of the character, motivations, and ethics of such people have markedly worsened.

apokryltaros · 12 February 2012

I'm_not said:
apokryltaros said:
I'm_not said:
apokryltaros said:
I'm_not said: You wouldn't believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.
Well, this debate is one of the many, many, oh-so tragic, tearjerking casualties of letting the idea that God hates (smart) people evolve into holy, political-religious dogma. The uncontrolled proliferation of pompous Morons For Jesus, like Robert Byers, is another sad side effect.
He's keen, you've got to give him that.
I've got 70 year old butter knives in my drawer thousands of times keener than Robert Byers. He's persistent, not keen.
I meant keen as in eager but I'll take persistent, I don't want to be quote mined.

If Robert Byers really was eager, then he would make attempts to explain to us why his asspulled nonsense are supposed to be more logical than actual science, rather than simply mindlessly repeating over and over and over that his inane assertions are what the Bible asserts.

apokryltaros · 12 February 2012

harold said:
But in fact the unjust bias is all the other way.
This could not possibly be more true. The very reason that right wing creationists complain about persecution is that they love doing it, and project that love onto others.

They project this in order to camouflage the fact that their definition of "persecution" is having their own ability to persecute others curtailed.

TomS · 12 February 2012

Robert Byers said:
TomS said:
Robert Byers said: iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time.
Please describe this idea in positive, substantive terms. Other than, that is, "something, somehow, is wrong with evolutionary biology." Tell us what happens, when and where an ID action takes place, and what, where and when it does not. (How about an example of something which we can tell is not "intelligently designed"? Maybe the precursors of vertebrates with eyes or of bacteria with flagella?) I'm also curious about the fact that the change in anti-evolution over the last several decades has been in the direction of saying ever less. ID is different from its predecessors in not making any commitment about the age of life on Earth, and insisting on not identifying the "intelligent designer(s)". Some of the ID advocates even tell us that ID is fully compatible with common descent.
I meant besides the accuracy of the movement. I mean ,right or wrong, ID is the most important idea , in a general framework, to have come along in subjects dealing with origins in nature.

I didn't bring up the question of "the accuracy of the movement". I wanted to know what ID has to say. You haven't taken the opportunity to offer any positive, substantive description of ID, but have continued to speak of it in terms appropriate to a "movement":

It truly is the talk of the town and if victorious will be seen as the great idea. If failed it still will of been a great rebellion of an idea. Everywhere I look I see, or perceive beneath, the threat of Id as seen from those who teach the public about conclusions in origins. It seems toi me, a fan and ally though YEC, out of proportion. So I conclude the real threat is the putting well degree-ed people with fine tuned ideas together with the common popular Christian creationism equaling the serious threat to a old establishment. Not just the power and persuasiveness of the ID squads. It does seem however that like in the Inca empire days a small group of Spainards are destroying a Inca empire of millions. I guess it can be done.

You have confirmed the impression that ID is only a social/political campaign with slogans.

harold · 12 February 2012

apokryltaros said:
harold said:
But in fact the unjust bias is all the other way.
This could not possibly be more true. The very reason that right wing creationists complain about persecution is that they love doing it, and project that love onto others.
They project this in order to camouflage the fact that their definition of "persecution" is having their own ability to persecute others curtailed.

I strongly agree, but must make it clear that I believe that in the vast majority of cases this type of thing operates subconsciously. Overt con men do exist, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff However, I believe that the typical authoritarian mind works this way... They want to dominate, persecute, humiliate, etc, others. They therefore perceive that others want to do the same to them. They have to. That is the initial method that we all use to understand the behavior of others. We more or less instinctively project our own feelings onto them. It usually works very well. Dogs can read human facial expressions quite nicely. It doesn't work as well at a higher level of abstraction. The authoritarian creationist cannot help but seeing you as a rival authoritarian. He wants to dominate and humiliate you, therefore, he assumes, you must feel the same way about him. I made the opposite mistake for quite a long time before I saw the connection between creationism and right wing authoritarian politics. I projected my own inquiring nature and interest in the relationship between my ethical/cultural beliefs and scientific reality onto them. Then I finally figured it out. The creationists don't really know what "persecution" means. Much like people who have alexia due to a stroke lack the neurological capacity to make sense of written words, at least in the same way they did, authoritarians seem to lack the neurological structure necessary to conceptualize respect and cooperation. They hear words like "persecution", "racist", "anti-gay" and so on, and they gather from context that such words are "bad". They have a strong uncomfortable feeling that such words may apply to them. But they can't really understand the words. So their reaction is the instinctive, early elementary school grade reaction. "No, you've got cooties". I recall seeing small children who were subjected to an ethnic slur respond with "No, you're the (whatever)". It's an instinctive response. The creationist dimly gathers that "persecuting" people has something to do with frustrating them from achieving their desires. Well, his or her powerful desire is to force you to ritually submit to their chosen arbitrary authority figure, while simultaneously constantly looking for an excuse to claim that some who submit are nevertheless not "true" followers and must be punished. He or she projects that mentality onto you. "Darwinism" or "evolution" cannot be based on objective testing of reality, in their minds. For them, objective testing of reality is something that must be minimized. It is grudgingly done with respect to the most concrete physical reality, but all abstract concepts must be dictated by arbitrary authority. It is interesting to note that, yes, in the contemporary US, a society that has experienced extreme change in social hierarchy, simultaneous with marked economic decline for many, over the course of a generation or two, reality denial and unjustified narcissism are apparently at very high levels. At the end of the day, much of it seems to have to do with relationship with reality. The science-supporting person is curious, and voluntarily learns as much about reality as possible. To the authoritarian, reality-testing is negatively reinforcing for some reason, and they do it as minimally and grudgingly as possible, restricting it to the most concrete of situations. Anything above the level of "you have to use the stairs because if you jump out the window you will injure yourself" is dealt with via self-serving submission to authoritarian fantasy.

Robert Byers · 12 February 2012

John_S said:
Robert Byers said:
TomS said:
Robert Byers said: iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time.
Please describe this idea in positive, substantive terms.
I meant besides the accuracy of the movement. [snip]
So you don't have an answer to TomS's question? We all admit that ID has a popular following among people who don't know much about evolution and don't intend to the next time, either. So what? So does astrology. At least astrology makes some positive assertions. ID doesn't even do that. It just says "I don't believe your explanations; so therefore, 'somebody' must have done 'something' by some 'unspecified magical process'." To rephrase TomS's question, what beyond that does ID say? And how can that be an important idea? Naive people have been offering that as an explanation for almost everything since the Bronze Age. See my earlier post about the Plague and lighting.

Not accurate nuance and not a accurate analogy. ID is popular because it BRINGS well degree-ed researchers on the wagon of general criticisms and disbelief of using nature to say God or Genesis is not true or at least excellent options for explaining nature. ID appeals to people who are well read and need good "scientific" points to back up or give fair attention to God/Genesis being real in nature. ID is not popular with general vague disbelief ers in evolution. They don't understand the points Id gets into. Astrology is a poor analogy. Those in Astrology are not interested in society's agreements with them. Creationism seeks to establish itself as true or a option for truth in the public eye on origin conclusions. It does it on the terms of general investigation of nature. It does not invoke supernatural processes in operations. Only creation like with a watch. The great numbers who are creationist friendly would never be persuaded they are like those who accept astrology. Not a good anaolgy!

phhht · 12 February 2012

Robert Byers said: ID is popular because it BRINGS well degree-ed researchers on the wagon of general criticisms and disbelief of using nature to say God or Genesis is not true or at least excellent options for explaining nature. ID appeals to people who are well read and need good "scientific" points to back up or give fair attention to God/Genesis being real in nature. ID is not popular with general vague disbelief ers in evolution. They don't understand the points Id gets into.

No, Robert Byers, ID is popular only among people who think that because there is thunder, there must be a thunderer. ID believers argue that because there is design, there must be a designer. But now we know that isn't so. No thunderer is needed for thunder. There is only the weather. In the same way, no designer is needed for design. There is only evolution. That's the fundamental fallacy of ID, Robert Byers. Just because you see design, doesn't mean that there is a designer.

Helena Constantine · 12 February 2012

Robert Byers said: Not accurate nuance and not a accurate analogy. ID is popular because it BRINGS well degree-ed researchers on the wagon of general criticisms and disbelief of using nature to say God or Genesis is not true or at least excellent options for explaining nature. ID appeals to people who are well read and need good "scientific" points to back up or give fair attention to God/Genesis being real in nature. ID is not popular with general vague disbelief ers in evolution. They don't understand the points Id gets into. Astrology is a poor analogy. Those in Astrology are not interested in society's agreements with them. Creationism seeks to establish itself as true or a option for truth in the public eye on origin conclusions. It does it on the terms of general investigation of nature. It does not invoke supernatural processes in operations. Only creation like with a watch. The great numbers who are creationist friendly would never be persuaded they are like those who accept astrology. Not a good anaolgy!

There are no prominent biologists who have anything to do with ID. If you think there are, name them. Behe is not a prominent biologist. Behe, did however, swear under oath to his god that ID is a science in the same way as astrology is a science. What the second sentence in your quotes is admitting, is that ID is a rationalization to keep believing beliefs that you have without examining them.

Dave Luckett · 12 February 2012

Helena Constantine makes the point, and it can't be stated strongly enough. Byers thinks that belief comes first, and facts only exist if they can be used to bolster it. It's the very epitome of irrationality.

apokryltaros · 12 February 2012

Robert Byers said:
John_S said:
Robert Byers said:
TomS said:
Robert Byers said: iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time.
Please describe this idea in positive, substantive terms.
I meant besides the accuracy of the movement. [snip]
So you don't have an answer to TomS's question? We all admit that ID has a popular following among people who don't know much about evolution and don't intend to the next time, either. So what? So does astrology. At least astrology makes some positive assertions. ID doesn't even do that. It just says "I don't believe your explanations; so therefore, 'somebody' must have done 'something' by some 'unspecified magical process'." To rephrase TomS's question, what beyond that does ID say? And how can that be an important idea? Naive people have been offering that as an explanation for almost everything since the Bronze Age. See my earlier post about the Plague and lighting.
Not accurate nuance and not a accurate analogy. ID is popular because it BRINGS well degree-ed researchers on the wagon of general criticisms and disbelief of using nature to say God or Genesis is not true or at least excellent options for explaining nature.

Who are these "well degree-ed researchers" (sic)? If you can not name them, then you are lying. As usual.

ID appeals to people who are well read and need good "scientific" points to back up or give fair attention to God/Genesis being real in nature.

Then how come you are not well read, and refuse to present any points, as well as refuse to explain how Intelligent Design is supposed to be science? Hypocrite For Jesus, much, Byers?

ID is not popular with general vague disbelief ers in evolution.

I would say that it's hypocritical of you to project your own stupidity-induced disbelief and stupidity-induced vagueness onto people who accept evolution, but, you've proven time and time again that you're too stupid to notice.

They don't understand the points Id gets into.

The only point that Intelligent Design makes is that "GODDIDIT" Which is not science, and not even an explanation. It is the first and last resort of Idiots For Jesus who hate thinking, like yourself, for example.

apokryltaros · 12 February 2012

Dave Luckett said: Helena Constantine makes the point, and it can't be stated strongly enough. Byers thinks that belief comes first, and facts only exist if they can be used to bolster it. It's the very epitome of irrationality.

Robert Byers also patronizes all those stupid folk who do not share his Irrationality For Jesus.

Mike Elzinga · 12 February 2012

Dave Luckett said: Helena Constantine makes the point, and it can't be stated strongly enough. Byers thinks that belief comes first, and facts only exist if they can be used to bolster it. It's the very epitome of irrationality.

In case it hasn’t been noticed; Byers has been spending a lot of time over on the Unbelievably Dense website. He is beginning to pick up some of the screwball arguments from over there.

Tenncrain · 12 February 2012

Robert Byers said: ID is popular because it BRINGS well degree-ed researchers on the wagon of general criticisms and disbelief of using nature to say God or Genesis is not true or at least excellent options for explaining nature. ID appeals to people who are well read and need good "scientific" points to back up or give fair attention to God/Genesis being real in nature.

Well Robert, you might want to encourage these 'scientists' to do real science experiments, to routinely publish their results in mainstream science peer-review journals, to routinely show up at mainstream science meetings/seminars. As you may know, all science facts/theories/laws are tentative and thus can always be revised or even rejected. If enough scientific evidence against evolution is accepted by the scientific consensus, your views could be mainstream in 15 or so years. Then perhaps I and other former young-earth creationists could return to our original beliefs. Yes, I'm an ex-YEC, grew up a YEC. I've read/watched more than my share of YEC books/videos. Even had access to an original if somewhat worn 1961 copy of The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris) that was printed about two decades before I was born. If anything, we had mixed feelings even for ID when it first came up in the 1990s. While ID may have given anti-evolutionism some new energy, many YECs also felt ID was too much of a compromise against a young earth and world Flood, despite a few token YECs like Paul Nelson in the ID camp. Anyway, good luck on encouraging your 'scientists' and I'm sure you will get any needed assistance here at PT (for example, if you can't find Kurt Wise, he works at Truett-McConnell College).

stevaroni · 12 February 2012

Helena Constantine said: In one of Luskin's tirades you re-posted there, I was stuck by this: "First, it’s highly improbable: getting a chain of 100 left-handed amino acids for a small protein without design would be like tossing a coin and getting 100 heads in a row... So living cells are the designer? Or does he lack basic reading comprehension?

No, Luskin lacks basic math comprehension. Creationists, as a group, seem to think everything, including themselves, is unique. They simply have no ability to grasp the absolutely huge numbers involved and the tininess of any given event in the big picture. Flip a coin 100 times in a row and get 100 heads, and you have beaten odds of about a trillion to one. Impressive. But... not really a tiny number compared to what's available in nature. After all, there are about 2x10^25 molecules in one pound of water. Since proteins are, of course, heaver, so say maybe only 10^22 molecules in a pound of mixed amino acids. Dissolve that in a small, warm, lake full of water in the sun, where maybe each molecule has maybe a thousand opportunities per second for some type of organic reaction, repeat the experiment in thousands of individual locations, run the program for a few million years, suddenly not so far-fetched. And don't forget, it's not random, as in not every flip starts from scratch. At some point, you start to get the advantage of having multiple copies of previous chains as a starting point.

stevaroni · 13 February 2012

stevaroni said: Flip a coin 100 times in a row and get 100 heads, and you have beaten odds of about a trillion to one.

Oops. Actually, about a billion to one. Apparently, I also lack basic mathematical comprehension.

apokryltaros · 13 February 2012

stevaroni said:
stevaroni said: Flip a coin 100 times in a row and get 100 heads, and you have beaten odds of about a trillion to one.
Oops. Actually, about a billion to one. Apparently, I also lack basic mathematical comprehension.

At least you don't maliciously conflate your lack of comprehension with divine inspiration like Luskin does, then whine about how evil everyone is for pointing it out to you.

TomS · 13 February 2012

Helena Constantine said: There are no prominent biologists who have anything to do with ID.

Myself, I prefer not to get into discussing personalities. What I'd like to know is what these people have produced in the way of a description of ID. If there are several people dealing with ID over the course of decades, surely by now they would have come up with something positive and substantive. Let us know what attributes of the "intelligent designers" lead them to design living things to be the way that they are, rather than some other way, or what purposes they had, or what materials and methods they used.

harold · 13 February 2012

No, Luskin lacks basic math comprehension.

Needless to say, these "probability of a protein forming randomly" arguments are also (poor) arguments against abiogenesis, not arguments against evolution. We have a very good and ever-expanding understanding of protein synthesis in living cells, and it does not remotely resemble an isolated solution of d- and l- amino acids. The theory of biological evolution currently applies to cellular life, and viruses, which probably evolved from, and are dependent on, cells. Is Casey Luskin lying? It's so hard to say. Objectively, he's wrong, and that's what matters. But it's still of some value to try to model what makes him do it. If he was making false statements about the characteristics of a tract of swamp land he was trying to sell, it would be most logical to say he's lying, outright and consciously, for personal gain. If he were an uneducated member of an authoritarian ideological movement, engaged in unrewarded efforts to defend his cult and tamp down his own cognitive dissonance, like Robert Byers, it would be most logical to consider him, if not "honest" in the strongest sense of the word, rendered irrational by intense emotional biases, rather than deliberately deceptive. But of course, DI fellows like Casey are harder to categorize. After all, he DOES profit from his stuff. He gets paid for it, and to say that he'd be aggressively fired if he deviated from evolution denial is an understatement. Yet, of course, Luskin, like most other DI fellows, has the qualifications to do well, perhaps equally well, without denying reality. The exact mix of self-delusion and deliberate deception in an individual case is hard to determine.

TomS · 13 February 2012

Needless to say, these "probability of a protein forming randomly" arguments are also (poor) arguments against abiogenesis, not arguments against evolution.

Whenever I see an argument against evolution, there are a couple of things that I always check, and it is interesting how often evolution-denial fails: One of them is to see whether the argument works at least as well as an argument against reproduction (or development, metabolism, genetics, ...). Another is to see whether the "alternative" can resolve the problem. I don't think that this probability argument fares very well by either test. What is the probability that an adult would grow from a fertilized egg? What is the probability that an intelligent designer would choose this particular design? After all, an omnipotent God, or even just an intelligent designer who is capable of doing things that are contrary to nature, could have done things in more ways than natural processes could do.

Stan Polanski · 13 February 2012

@ stevaroni: Er, I know it's bad form to unlurk just to quibble. But, for the record, wouldn't two to the hundredth power be something like ten to the thirtieth? Which makes the odds against a hundred heads in a row a whole lot worse than a billion to one.

Of course, as Harold points out, homochirality is an origin-of-life question. TalkOrigins devotes a section of its Origin of Live page to this question, with some newish (2008, 2009) references.

co · 13 February 2012

Stan Polanski said: @ stevaroni: Er, I know it's bad form to unlurk just to quibble. But, for the record, wouldn't two to the hundredth power be something like ten to the thirtieth? Which makes the odds against a hundred heads in a row a whole lot worse than a billion to one. Of course, as Harold points out, homochirality is an origin-of-life question. TalkOrigins devotes a section of its Origin of Live page to this question, with some newish (2008, 2009) references.

Yep, 2^100 ~ 1.3*10^30. However, the question is incomplete as it stands. In a series of many trillions of trillions of flips of a fair coin, you would definitely expect to get 30 heads in a row. There's more information needed to answer completely :)

John_S · 13 February 2012

The result of each coin flip is two-state, random and independent. Can Luskin show that the assembly of proteins meets these conditions? Otherwise, his "calculation" is as meaningless as comparing the probability of 100 snowflakes all having six sides to the probability of throwing 100 "sixes" in a row with dice.

harold · 13 February 2012

Stan Polanski said: @ stevaroni: Er, I know it's bad form to unlurk just to quibble. But, for the record, wouldn't two to the hundredth power be something like ten to the thirtieth? Which makes the odds against a hundred heads in a row a whole lot worse than a billion to one. Of course, as Harold points out, homochirality is an origin-of-life question. TalkOrigins devotes a section of its Origin of Live page to this question, with some newish (2008, 2009) references.

Yes, it would. The a priori odds of an entire series of one hundred flips of a fair coin being either heads or tails are of course, 1/2^99 (because the first flip can be either but then all the rest have to be the same). Either way, a priori odds much worse than one in a trillion. Also, if a "typical" amino acid has a molecular weight of 120 or so (it's actually 74 plus the "R" group), I make it to be more like 2.3 x 10^24 molecules of amino acids in a US pound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avagadro%27s_number. However, Stevaroni's logical point is actually correct, even though his odds calculation was pretty far off, and even though he seems to have assigned a very high molecular weight to each individual amino acid (of course, an AA can have any molecular weight at all, in principle, depending on the "R" group, but that isn't true of the biologically active ones). Creationists have major "problems" with probability (I put it in quotes because I have no way of knowing, as I noted before, whether the likes of Luskin are deceptive, deluded, or in some kind of intermediate state). And problems that go far beyond easily corrected calculation issues. They routinely screw up the concept of conditional probability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability. That's a very routine concept in genetics counselling and lab medicine, by the way. Failure to grasp this simple concept leads to the "lottery fallacy". E.g., a million and one people entered the lottery with exactly one ticket each, Smith's name was drawn, since it was a million to one that Smith would win, this must have been a miracle. In fact, it was a million to one that Smith would win, from a human perspective, before the draw (and this was the same for everyone else). But someone had to win. The post priori probability that Smith won is unity. Given that we know Smith won, the probability that Smith won is 100%, unity, 1.0, however you want to put it. It's not a miracle. It's just a sampling from, in this example, a discrete uniform distribution. It's no more a miracle than if Smith and Jones were the only entrants, each had a 50% chance, and Smith won. In fact, it's no more of a miracle than if Smith were the only entrant and won, even though, in that case, Smith's victory would have been perfectly predictable. Yet there are reams and reams of bullshit blatherings by creationists about how if something was improbable a priori, it was a miracle. And usually they start by grossly mis-stating the probability of the event that they want to call a "miracle", as well. A miracle would have occurred if someone who didn't buy a ticket ended up winning. If the sampling results in an event that is part of the distribution being sampled from, that's not magic, no matter what the nature of the distribution. And as I pointed out, and it's worth repeating, Luskin also either deceptively or moronically (or in some state of emotional self-delusion that causes him to not notice his own moronic-ness/deceptiveness due to an immature and disturbed emotional state) confuses abiogenesis with biological evolution. In sum, he presents a straw man version of abiogenesis and argues against it, but, not being satisfied with that, compounds it by mislabeling his straw man.

Henry J · 13 February 2012

Re lottery being a miracle:

Man: "God, why didn't I win the lottery?"

God: "Meet me halfway - at least buy a ticket!"

Robert Byers · 13 February 2012

Helena Constantine said:
Robert Byers said: This is a monster of errors. First business and industry are INDEED biased. I say it, and everyone has and has been saying it forever. Affirmative action, presumptions behind it, and ceilings, and presumptions behind it and constant accusation about bias in hiring/promoting/firing has ruling North America since WW11. Creationism is full of stories, and more suspicions, of unjust bias in jobs because of creationist.opinions. A famous case in Canada here. It IS about public opinion,gov't bills, court cases, high well done debates. That is the measurement of prevailing ideas at any one point. If you give us this we will not mind the 9-5 stuff.!
Its not a case of bias at all. In many cases creationist beliefs actively interfere with job performance. For example, I once saw an interview with a bible thumping oil company executive, and he complained about the position he was put in. He was sure the world was 6000 years old, but he had to hire engineers who believed its billions of years old because they were the only one who could find the oil. So there even a creationist won't hire his own kind because he recognizes despite himself that they are wrong. More generally, creationism is a sign of a complete lack of imagination and intellectual initiative which are not every salable qualities. But in fact the unjust bias is all the other way. Many people have actually been fired because they are atheists. How often I've read on the internet of thumper bosses boasting of firing their atheists employees, celebrating their hatred of freedom of conscious as a virtue. its a popular topic on Rapture Ready.

You present strange cases. What in world would a YEC oil guy care about origin opinions in looking for oil? Why would he discriminate? It would make no difference. Oil finding works fine with creationist models. Nope. Its creationists who are treated wrongly here and there, and more suspicion, and not the other way around.

prongs · 13 February 2012

Bobby said: "Oil finding works fine with creationist models."

Untrue. In Creationist Geology petroleum and natural gas reserves cannot form. All honest creationist models of global geology predict oceans filled with one giant graded bed of sediments, no deep water (it's all filled up with the sediments scoured off the continents), no sedimentary rocks on the continents (they've all been scoured off, so no rocks to hold petroleum reserves), in the oceanic sediments all organic material ground to dust (the aqueous equivalent of dust), no barriers to permeability (no traps for oil or gas), no fossils (remember, all organic remains have been ground to dust), no nothin'. Only dishonest creationists pretend otherwise, and genuine geologists see right through their barefaced lies.

Robert Byers · 13 February 2012

TomS said:
Robert Byers said:
TomS said:
Robert Byers said: iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time.
Please describe this idea in positive, substantive terms. Other than, that is, "something, somehow, is wrong with evolutionary biology." Tell us what happens, when and where an ID action takes place, and what, where and when it does not. (How about an example of something which we can tell is not "intelligently designed"? Maybe the precursors of vertebrates with eyes or of bacteria with flagella?) I'm also curious about the fact that the change in anti-evolution over the last several decades has been in the direction of saying ever less. ID is different from its predecessors in not making any commitment about the age of life on Earth, and insisting on not identifying the "intelligent designer(s)". Some of the ID advocates even tell us that ID is fully compatible with common descent.
I meant besides the accuracy of the movement. I mean ,right or wrong, ID is the most important idea , in a general framework, to have come along in subjects dealing with origins in nature.
I didn't bring up the question of "the accuracy of the movement". I wanted to know what ID has to say. You haven't taken the opportunity to offer any positive, substantive description of ID, but have continued to speak of it in terms appropriate to a "movement":
It truly is the talk of the town and if victorious will be seen as the great idea. If failed it still will of been a great rebellion of an idea. Everywhere I look I see, or perceive beneath, the threat of Id as seen from those who teach the public about conclusions in origins. It seems toi me, a fan and ally though YEC, out of proportion. So I conclude the real threat is the putting well degree-ed people with fine tuned ideas together with the common popular Christian creationism equaling the serious threat to a old establishment. Not just the power and persuasiveness of the ID squads. It does seem however that like in the Inca empire days a small group of Spainards are destroying a Inca empire of millions. I guess it can be done.
You have confirmed the impression that ID is only a social/political campaign with slogans.

The thread is not about the merits of ID. ID is a major movement in the thinking world because it is based on the investigation of nature including the criticisms of the old guard. It is attacked by the establishment and so is forced into political and legal dust ups. I wish ID people would directly confront the legal censorship and believe it would easily be defeated. However they have little interest in costly fights. I think the legal fights bring great attention and because creationism always does well the attentive public its all gain. When your the good guys and smart guys all publicity is good publicity.

unkle.hank · 13 February 2012

Robert Byers said: Oil finding works fine with creationist models.

You do know that you can't simply make assertions and have people believe them, don't you? This isn't UD or some other creo-friendly venue where people will accept anything written down by anyone they think sounds smarter than they are, so please show us something - anything - that supports your contention that creationist models help you find oil. How does finding oil (which is, simply, a substance comprised of innumerable dead organisms which forms by a process that takes many millions of years) work with a creationist model (everything happened at once, via magic spell, a few thousand years ago)? Do you just take the geological data found by actual science then divide by as many millions as you need to get to 6000? Or do you eschew any kind of maths altogether and just delete a few zeroes? Or does the data - and how you obtained it - not matter? How does finding oil - an enterprise based on sound knowledge and acceptance of science - occur within the paradigm of creationism - an enterprise based on rejecting any science that does not comport with a literal reading of ancient dogma which was written by ignorant theocrats who thought that goats looking at a striped stick while mating would produce striped kids?

phhht · 13 February 2012

Robert Byers said: The thread is not about the merits of ID. ID is a major movement in the thinking world because it is based on the investigation of nature including the criticisms of the old guard. It is attacked by the establishment and so is forced into political and legal dust ups. I wish ID people would directly confront the legal censorship and believe it would easily be defeated. However they have little interest in costly fights. I think the legal fights bring great attention and because creationism always does well the attentive public its all gain. When your the good guys and smart guys all publicity is good publicity.

The trouble with ID, Robert Byers, is that there is no designer. Just as there need be no thunderer in order for there to be thunder, so there need be no designer in order for there to be design. Design, like thunder, just happens. There is no thunderer, and there is no designer. There is only weather and evolution. But you can't face that fact, Robert Byers. You literally cannot conceive of a world in which there is thunder without a thunderer, design without a designer. Your denial of reality is as incorrect as it can be. You are wrong in your beliefs, Robert Byers. There is no thunderer, there is no designer, there is no god. Get over it.

Robert Byers · 13 February 2012

Tenncrain said:
Robert Byers said: ID is popular because it BRINGS well degree-ed researchers on the wagon of general criticisms and disbelief of using nature to say God or Genesis is not true or at least excellent options for explaining nature. ID appeals to people who are well read and need good "scientific" points to back up or give fair attention to God/Genesis being real in nature.
Well Robert, you might want to encourage these 'scientists' to do real science experiments, to routinely publish their results in mainstream science peer-review journals, to routinely show up at mainstream science meetings/seminars. As you may know, all science facts/theories/laws are tentative and thus can always be revised or even rejected. If enough scientific evidence against evolution is accepted by the scientific consensus, your views could be mainstream in 15 or so years. Then perhaps I and other former young-earth creationists could return to our original beliefs. Yes, I'm an ex-YEC, grew up a YEC. I've read/watched more than my share of YEC books/videos. Even had access to an original if somewhat worn 1961 copy of The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris) that was printed about two decades before I was born. If anything, we had mixed feelings even for ID when it first came up in the 1990s. While ID may have given anti-evolutionism some new energy, many YECs also felt ID was too much of a compromise against a young earth and world Flood, despite a few token YECs like Paul Nelson in the ID camp. Anyway, good luck on encouraging your 'scientists' and I'm sure you will get any needed assistance here at PT (for example, if you can't find Kurt Wise, he works at Truett-McConnell College).

The whole point of this thread has been the influence of the ID(and YEC) movement in investigations of nature relative to origins with the fingerprints of a creator or the true God as described in the bible. Very well is the case made. The conclusions are assailed very well in origin subjects. Pandas Thumb exists because of this great modern movement. Organized creationism is convinced and insists we do excellent investigation of nature/origins and not one whit inferior to the competition. There is no such thing as science but only people thinking about stuff. Our stuff is as good as anyone.

unkle.hank · 13 February 2012

Robert Byers said: ID is a major movement in the thinking world because it is based on the investigation of nature including the criticisms of the old guard.

ID is no such thing in the "thinking world". ID is a minor movement in the world at large and mostly ignored as irrelevant crankery; it is a larger and highly vocal movement in America, in part because it seems that only American creationists are (in any significant number) able to fool themselves (or others) that ignoring and opposing science is in any way beneficial to anyone.

It is attacked by the establishment and so is forced into political and legal dust ups.

ID forces itself into legal and political dust-ups purely because there is absolutely NO science supporting it. This is because ID-boosters DO NOT DO any science. This may be because, on some level, they know that what they'll find well not support ID. ID constantly ends up in politicial and legal battles is because (a) its boosters are ignorant, or do not care, that teaching ID - a demonstrably religious notion - in state educational facilities violates the law and (b) politicians, even those familiar with science, are happy to pander to whoever will vote for them. Currently, in conservative American politics, this appears to be large numbers of creationist culture-warriors who know they can't pray in schools but want to shoehorn God in there however they can.

I wish ID people would directly confront the legal censorship and believe it would easily be defeated. However they have little interest in costly fights. I think the legal fights bring great attention and because creationism always does well the attentive public its all gain.

I wish ID people would stop kidding themselves (and others) that there's some kind of conspiracy of censorship mounted against them. Show people the science that supports ID and you won't have to resort to getting sued, or suing others, or introducing bills that undermine decent education for countless numbers of students. And if ID'ers had "little interest in costly fights" they'd try a bit harder to avoid them, don't you think? They haven't won one yet and have been made to look ridiculous to anyone who was actually paying attention. Do you think Dover was a win for your side? Every one of your expert witnesses (the ones that bothered to show up anyway) were humiliated! The conservative W. Bush-friendly judge even called your effort to insert God into science classes breathtakingly inane! That's legalese for "OMG are you people really so stupid to think you could get away with this?"

When you're the good guys and smart guys all publicity is good publicity.

If creationists/ID'ers were either good OR smart, this conversation would not be happening, because they'd be "good" enough NOT to try and push obvious religiously-based notions onto students of science in clear violation of the law and they'd be "smart" enough to know that ID has NOTHING supporting it beyond fervent sectarian dogma. You people really know how to get things bass-ackwards don't you?

Robert Byers · 13 February 2012

prongs said:
Bobby said: "Oil finding works fine with creationist models."
Untrue. In Creationist Geology petroleum and natural gas reserves cannot form. All honest creationist models of global geology predict oceans filled with one giant graded bed of sediments, no deep water (it's all filled up with the sediments scoured off the continents), no sedimentary rocks on the continents (they've all been scoured off, so no rocks to hold petroleum reserves), in the oceanic sediments all organic material ground to dust (the aqueous equivalent of dust), no barriers to permeability (no traps for oil or gas), no fossils (remember, all organic remains have been ground to dust), no nothin'. Only dishonest creationists pretend otherwise, and genuine geologists see right through their barefaced lies.

Off thread a wee bit but there's no dishonesty. The oil itself is entirely the sudden result of organic life being squeezed into oil etc. the very thing that squeezed it is the thing containing it. It could only be that oil is sandwiched between layers. Its welcome to find this. Finding it is just finding the sediment layers most likely to have been collected along with land/ses life in a hurry.

phhht · 13 February 2012

Robert Byers said: The whole point of this thread has been the influence of the ID(and YEC) movement in investigations of nature relative to origins with the fingerprints of a creator or the true God as described in the bible.

But there are no gods, Robert Byers. That's just a story from the infancy of human intellect. Your belief that gods exist is incorrect. You are wrong. You are mistaken. There are no gods. There is no thunderer. There is no designer. There is no God. Get over it.

Robert Byers · 13 February 2012

unkle.hank said:
Robert Byers said: Oil finding works fine with creationist models.
You do know that you can't simply make assertions and have people believe them, don't you? This isn't UD or some other creo-friendly venue where people will accept anything written down by anyone they think sounds smarter than they are, so please show us something - anything - that supports your contention that creationist models help you find oil. How does finding oil (which is, simply, a substance comprised of innumerable dead organisms which forms by a process that takes many millions of years) work with a creationist model (everything happened at once, via magic spell, a few thousand years ago)? Do you just take the geological data found by actual science then divide by as many millions as you need to get to 6000? Or do you eschew any kind of maths altogether and just delete a few zeroes? Or does the data - and how you obtained it - not matter? How does finding oil - an enterprise based on sound knowledge and acceptance of science - occur within the paradigm of creationism - an enterprise based on rejecting any science that does not comport with a literal reading of ancient dogma which was written by ignorant theocrats who thought that goats looking at a striped stick while mating would produce striped kids?

Finding oil is simply finding squeezed biology between the things that squeezed it. This is from great event largely from the biblical flood. It was exactly as it looks. A single sudden event in that area and unrelated to millions of years. They have to say long time because oif the great energy and concentration needed. They just don't imagine another mechanism to provide the energy. WE have it. they are wrong and Genesis is right.

unkle.hank · 13 February 2012

Robert Byers said: The whole point of this thread has been the influence of the ID(and YEC) movement in investigations of nature relative to origins with the fingerprints of a creator or the true God as described in the bible. Very well is the case made. The conclusions are assailed very well in origin subjects. Pandas Thumb exists because of this great modern movement. Organized creationism is convinced and insists we do excellent investigation of nature/origins and not one whit inferior to the competition. There is no such thing as science but only people thinking about stuff. Our stuff is as good as anyone.

No, Yoda, very well is the case made not (good relations with syntax, you do not have). If you people had made your case at all, in any way, this site and others like it might not need to exist because ID Creationism would have been absorbed into the body of scientific knowledge. It hasn't, because it has no empirical support. PT and TalkOrigins and others were founded, in no small part, because of the efforts of people like you to undermine and devalue science education in the service of your sect's dogma, not because you're making such great progress against the Evil Evolutionist Suppression Conspiracy. You really need to look outside your tiny, warped, translucent sphere, and especially outside your country. Your "great modern movement" of ID Creationism - where people are even aware of it - is the laughing stock of the "thinking world". When "thinking" people hear about Behe, about Dover, about UD and the DI and Luskin et al, they raise one eyebrow and say "Really? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard." The ID Creationism movement contributes in no small way to the reputation of America as a land packed full of anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-knowledge rednecks who'd rather eat aerosol cheese and invade endless third-world nations than search for greater understanding of life or cures to diseases or to even read a book written in the last 2000 years. Unfair as this stereotype is, it is proudly ignorant people like you and your "great modern movement" that perpetuate it. YOU and your great intellectual bowel movement are harming your country, both directly and internally and with regard to the world's perception of it.

unkle.hank · 13 February 2012

Robert Byers said: Finding oil is simply finding squeezed biology between the things that squeezed it. This is from great event largely from the biblical flood. It was exactly as it looks. A single sudden event in that area and unrelated to millions of years. They have to say long time because oif the great energy and concentration needed. They just don't imagine another mechanism to provide the energy. WE have it. they are wrong and Genesis is right.

That's the thing - it doesn't actually look as though the oil was formed in some single, sudden event. Oil/gas/coal deposits look like separate, localised events that occurred via very slow processes over vast stretches of time. If Genesis is right, why does it look for all the world that Genesis is flat wrong and written by people who had no idea what they were talking about? Is your mighty god Yahweh messing with everyone's heads, planting all this evidence that points to unimaginable stretches of time? And why doesn't Genesis even talk about oil, or even hint at it? You'd think if Yahweh's chosen were sitting on top of a desert full of liquid gold he'd tell them about it - but no, he's all about milk and honey and measuring wealth in wives and livestock. You don't need an internal combustion engine to find fossil fuels useful! If they'd known where to look, the ancient Hebrews could have been rich beyond their dreams and controlled the world's economy to this day, preventing the Catholic church's control of Europe and preventing the rise of the Arab nations. But, no - it appears the Arabs have most of the oil in that part of the world and can make prices go and up down at their merest whim (I'm sure some Americans here remember the oil crisis of the 70s very well - not to mention the more recent price spikes). Well, maybe the Koran is right and Mohammed was the last prophet of God - after all, God - Allah - seems to have given the greatest deposits of the most valuable natural resource in the world to his favoured, blessed Muslim nations.

Robert Byers · 13 February 2012

phhht said:
Robert Byers said: The thread is not about the merits of ID. ID is a major movement in the thinking world because it is based on the investigation of nature including the criticisms of the old guard. It is attacked by the establishment and so is forced into political and legal dust ups. I wish ID people would directly confront the legal censorship and believe it would easily be defeated. However they have little interest in costly fights. I think the legal fights bring great attention and because creationism always does well the attentive public its all gain. When your the good guys and smart guys all publicity is good publicity.
The trouble with ID, Robert Byers, is that there is no designer. Just as there need be no thunderer in order for there to be thunder, so there need be no designer in order for there to be design. Design, like thunder, just happens. There is no thunderer, and there is no designer. There is only weather and evolution. But you can't face that fact, Robert Byers. You literally cannot conceive of a world in which there is thunder without a thunderer, design without a designer. Your denial of reality is as incorrect as it can be. You are wrong in your beliefs, Robert Byers. There is no thunderer, there is no designer, there is no god. Get over it.

Design like thunder does not just happen. Thunder is the result of mechanisms in existing structures of nature. Unrelated to design.

phhht · 13 February 2012

Robert Byers said:
phhht said:
Robert Byers said: The thread is not about the merits of ID. ID is a major movement in the thinking world because it is based on the investigation of nature including the criticisms of the old guard. It is attacked by the establishment and so is forced into political and legal dust ups. I wish ID people would directly confront the legal censorship and believe it would easily be defeated. However they have little interest in costly fights. I think the legal fights bring great attention and because creationism always does well the attentive public its all gain. When your the good guys and smart guys all publicity is good publicity.
The trouble with ID, Robert Byers, is that there is no designer. Just as there need be no thunderer in order for there to be thunder, so there need be no designer in order for there to be design. Design, like thunder, just happens. There is no thunderer, and there is no designer. There is only weather and evolution. But you can't face that fact, Robert Byers. You literally cannot conceive of a world in which there is thunder without a thunderer, design without a designer. Your denial of reality is as incorrect as it can be. You are wrong in your beliefs, Robert Byers. There is no thunderer, there is no designer, there is no god. Get over it.
Design like thunder does not just happen. Thunder is the result of mechanisms in existing structures of nature. Unrelated to design.

But design is the result of mechanisms in existing structures of nature. There is no thunderer. There is no designer. There are no gods. You are wrong about that.

Robert Byers · 13 February 2012

unkle.hank said:
Robert Byers said: ID is a major movement in the thinking world because it is based on the investigation of nature including the criticisms of the old guard.
ID is no such thing in the "thinking world". ID is a minor movement in the world at large and mostly ignored as irrelevant crankery; it is a larger and highly vocal movement in America, in part because it seems that only American creationists are (in any significant number) able to fool themselves (or others) that ignoring and opposing science is in any way beneficial to anyone.
It is attacked by the establishment and so is forced into political and legal dust ups.
ID forces itself into legal and political dust-ups purely because there is absolutely NO science supporting it. This is because ID-boosters DO NOT DO any science. This may be because, on some level, they know that what they'll find well not support ID. ID constantly ends up in politicial and legal battles is because (a) its boosters are ignorant, or do not care, that teaching ID - a demonstrably religious notion - in state educational facilities violates the law and (b) politicians, even those familiar with science, are happy to pander to whoever will vote for them. Currently, in conservative American politics, this appears to be large numbers of creationist culture-warriors who know they can't pray in schools but want to shoehorn God in there however they can.
I wish ID people would directly confront the legal censorship and believe it would easily be defeated. However they have little interest in costly fights. I think the legal fights bring great attention and because creationism always does well the attentive public its all gain.
I wish ID people would stop kidding themselves (and others) that there's some kind of conspiracy of censorship mounted against them. Show people the science that supports ID and you won't have to resort to getting sued, or suing others, or introducing bills that undermine decent education for countless numbers of students. And if ID'ers had "little interest in costly fights" they'd try a bit harder to avoid them, don't you think? They haven't won one yet and have been made to look ridiculous to anyone who was actually paying attention. Do you think Dover was a win for your side? Every one of your expert witnesses (the ones that bothered to show up anyway) were humiliated! The conservative W. Bush-friendly judge even called your effort to insert God into science classes breathtakingly inane! That's legalese for "OMG are you people really so stupid to think you could get away with this?"
When you're the good guys and smart guys all publicity is good publicity.
If creationists/ID'ers were either good OR smart, this conversation would not be happening, because they'd be "good" enough NOT to try and push obvious religiously-based notions onto students of science in clear violation of the law and they'd be "smart" enough to know that ID has NOTHING supporting it beyond fervent sectarian dogma. You people really know how to get things bass-ackwards don't you?

Many many points. The point is however that ID is the most important movement in science in the great concepts. In fact even minor court cases are famous because they deal with the movement. Its always this way in history. No great issue or change did not not deal with court cases in America. The courts however are a minor story to movements in mankind. Just bit players. The movements always sweep up court cases eventually. They just add to publicity. Surely everyone can agree its the freedom of inquiry and to question found presumptions in any matter that is the trail to truth. Creationism(s) only need freedom and we will prevail. Censorship and punishment and a culture of it is a roadblock but in the Anglo-American civilization is always overcome where their is a will. This is a great story and there will be a conclusion that is great in the history of ideas.

phhht · 13 February 2012

Robert Byers said: Creationism(s) only need freedom and we will prevail.

You won't prevail, Robert Byers, because you are wrong. "Creationism(s)" are mistaken in their fundamental claims about reality. There is no creator. There is no thunderer. There is no designer. There are no gods.

harold · 13 February 2012

Occasionally Robert Byers makes a point that is specific and coherent enough to address.

Here he doesn't. He just asserts, absurdly, that "creationist models", whatever they are, can be used to find oil. They aren't, period.

Then he indulges in some fantasies about how nice ID supporters are, and how they are being "legally censored".

No supporting examples are offered.

As creationists go, Byers is remarkably able to express himself without threats, tantrums, vulgarity, or unjustifiable rage, and his stuff is no worse than what they generate at the DI or on AIG, but he isn't saying anything specific or coherent enough to reply to, in this thread.

unkle.hank · 13 February 2012

Robert Byers said: The point is however that ID is the most important movement in science in the great concepts.

Except that it's demonstrably wrong and has produced - quite literally - NOTHING in the way of scientific progress. Nothing. It has, however, been partially successful at holding scientific inquiry back for generations of hapless school students.

In fact even minor court cases are famous because they deal with the movement.

They're famous, yes, but they've all resulted in a loss for creationists. Why? Because creationism is both scientifically unsupported and, as a religious notion, illegal to teach to state students. Not all publicity is good publicity.

Its always this way in history. No great issue or change did not not deal with court cases in America.

Except for the American Revolution, the Civil War and the space race, to name just three very important American "issues/changes". What exactly is your point here?

The courts however are a minor story to movements in mankind. Just bit players. The movements always sweep up court cases eventually. They just add to publicity.

You have ceased making sense. First "no great issue doesn't deal with the courts" and then "courts are bit players". I'm not sure you can have it both ways - but then cognitive dissonance such as this is pretty much SOP for creationists.

Surely everyone can agree its the freedom of inquiry and to question found presumptions in any matter that is the trail to truth.

Certainly. The questioning of established knowledge is vital to scientific advancement - noone ever solved anything without asking questions. However, reasonable people can also agree when any particular line of inquiry or "trail to the truth" turns out to be a road to nowhere or a wild goose chase and decide to abandon it. Creationists have been walking around in circles in a desert for decades, all the while bellowing proudly about how much progress you're making.

Creationism(s) only need freedom and we will prevail. Censorship and punishment and a culture of it is a roadblock but in the Anglo-American civilization is always overcome where their is a will. This is a great story and there will be a conclusion that is great in the history of ideas.

You HAVE freedom. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from doing your own creationist science. You'd think, with all the cash that gets raked in by your televangelist hucksters and people with a rage-boner for science like Ken Ham, that some creationist somewhere would have done something to support creationism OTHER than make endless complaints about scientific censorship and endless ignorant critiques of evolution. You HAVE freedom, you're just too ignorant to use it or your Great Movement's leaders know very well what they'd find if they used their freedom to properly investigate the evidence for creationism. Your ignorance of history (and of the present) and of science is matched only by your delusions of grandeur. Creationism isn't censored or punished; it's ignored because it's wrong. When not being ignored, it's being actively opposed because its supporters don't understand that it's both wrong AND illegal to teach as fact in a state school. Your movement's leaders know very well that they'll find nothing to support creationism via honest scientific inquiry, which is why they themselves have turned this into yet another political/legal front in the culture wars. They know if they can get the people in the pews behind their rhetoric and bluster and childish complaints about conspiracies, they won't need science and they won't need evidence. You are living, breathing, trolling proof of that. By the way, you seem to be using "ID" and "creationism" interchangeably. Which is it?

Tenncrain · 13 February 2012

Robert Byers said: Finding oil is simply finding squeezed biology between the things that squeezed it. This is from great event largely from the biblical flood. It was exactly as it looks. A single sudden event in that area and unrelated to millions of years. They have to say long time because oif the great energy and concentration needed. They just don't imagine another mechanism to provide the energy. WE have it. they are wrong and Genesis is right.

Robert, please tell this to oil geophysicist and former YEC Glenn Morton (click this link) and the ICR Graduate School associates he hired. Their real life experience in the field showed that Flood Geology is good for theological comfort....and virtually nothing else. It only resulted in Morton and his fellow YEC associates going through theological trauma as their Flood Geology was exposed as being worthless in finding oil. Gordon Glover (also an ex-YEC, he remains a Christian) further expands these points in Lesson 8 (of 16) of his video series on science and Christianity.

Tenncrain · 13 February 2012

Robert Byers said: The whole point of this thread has been the influence of the ID(and YEC) movement in investigations of nature relative to origins with the fingerprints of a creator or the true God as described in the bible. Very well is the case made.

Yet, anti-evolutionists admitted under oath at 2005 Dover/ID/Kitzmiller trial and 1981 Arkansas 'creation science' trial that they submit virtually no research. There was not *one* example submitted at Arkansas trial of a 'creation science' paper being rejected by mainstream journals. This trial went so badly for anti-evolutionists (the defendants), even two defense expert witnesses proclaimed under oath that no rational scientist accepts a world flood and a young-earth. Michael Behe admitted in Dover trial no one had ever submitted ID papers. Paul Nelson (a YEC) and even ID Godfather Phillip Johnson publicly admitted there is no alternative to evolution ready (Nelson admitted this in 2005, Johnson in 2006 or 2007). Again Robert, you need to really encourage your 'scientists' to really step up their research.

apokryltaros · 13 February 2012

Has Robert Byers still avoided explaining to us how Creationism/Intelligent Designism is supposed to be more scientific than actual science?

I wonder why.

ksplawn · 13 February 2012

Tenncrain said: Robert, please tell this to oil geophysicist and former YEC Glenn Morton (click this link) and the ICR Graduate School associates he hired. Their real life experience in the field showed that Flood Geology is good for theological comfort....and virtually nothing else. It only resulted in Morton and his fellow YEC associates going through theological trauma as their Flood Geology was exposed as being worthless in finding oil. Gordon Glover (also an ex-YEC, he remains a Christian) further expands these points in Lesson 8 (of 16) of his video series on science and Christianity.

*bookmarked and saved* Thanks for these, they're invaluable insights into the struggles some people go through to reconcile anti-science and evidence!

unkle.hank · 13 February 2012

apokryltaros said: Has Robert Byers still avoided explaining to us how Creationism/Intelligent Designism is supposed to be more scientific than actual science? I wonder why.

I suspect you know the answer, but for those in the bleachers (and for Byers): no, he hasn't. This is because he has no idea how, apart from "God did it", Intelligent Creationism is supposed to even work, let alone how to prove same via scientific means (as a bonus he also has no idea how science itself is meant to work - he seems to think it's some kind of kook-ocracy where whoever shouts loudest gets to dictate Truth). Besides, Byers is far too busy trying to convince himself that creationists are getting censored and punished by Big Evil Godless Science instead of admitting the plain truth: creationists are being ignored by science because they don't do science, they only complain about it. On the odd occasion creationists aren't being ignored by science, it's because they're trying to dilute or replace science with mythology or pseudo-science, which naturally necessitates a response.

TomS · 14 February 2012

unkle.hank said:
Robert Byers said: The point is however that ID is the most important movement in science in the great concepts.
Except that it's demonstrably wrong and has produced - quite literally - NOTHING in the way of scientific progress. Nothing. It has, however, been partially successful at holding scientific inquiry back for generations of hapless school students.

Rather, as Pauli is quoted as saying, "It's not even wrong." And it has produced nothing. Nothing scientific, historical, esthetic, or whatever. It is an advertising "concept" in a political/social campaign. A campaign constructed from several varieties of creationism by removing all substantive content (such as the age of life on Earth, such as the identity of the designer), anything that could possibly be scientifically checked on, anything that (so they hoped) could be legally checked on.

apokryltaros · 14 February 2012

TomS said:
unkle.hank said:
Robert Byers said: The point is however that ID is the most important movement in science in the great concepts.
Except that it's demonstrably wrong and has produced - quite literally - NOTHING in the way of scientific progress. Nothing. It has, however, been partially successful at holding scientific inquiry back for generations of hapless school students.
Rather, as Pauli is quoted as saying, "It's not even wrong." And it has produced nothing. Nothing scientific, historical, esthetic, or whatever. It is an advertising "concept" in a political/social campaign. A campaign constructed from several varieties of creationism by removing all substantive content (such as the age of life on Earth, such as the identity of the designer), anything that could possibly be scientifically checked on, anything that (so they hoped) could be legally checked on.

Of course, Intelligent Design's lack of substantive content is deliberate, done in a (now repeatedly) failed attempt to skirt laws that prevent the teaching of religious propaganda in science classrooms, so that the blanks can be filled in later, after Intelligent Design's prophesied defeat of Evolution. And of course, Intelligent Design's lack of substantive content is one of its fatal flaws. Saying "Evolution is wrong because GODDIDIT" explains nothing. However, another fatal flaw is that the vast majority of Intelligent Design Proponents just don't give a damn about the lack of explanatory power. They just keep screaming and whining for people to listen to them brag and lie about how great Intelligent Design is.

SLC · 14 February 2012

I'm_not said: You wouldn't believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.

In some fairness, booby Byers is a Canadian, showing that stupidity is not confined to the USA.

TomS · 14 February 2012

apokryltaros said: They just keep screaming and whining for people to listen to them brag and lie about how great Intelligent Design is.

Isn't there an advertising maxim, "Sell the sizzle, not the steak"? That seems to be a good description of ID.

John · 14 February 2012

apokryltaros said: And of course, Intelligent Design's lack of substantive content is one of its fatal flaws. Saying "Evolution is wrong because GODDIDIT" explains nothing. However, another fatal flaw is that the vast majority of Intelligent Design Proponents just don't give a damn about the lack of explanatory power. They just keep screaming and whining for people to listen to them brag and lie about how great Intelligent Design is.

The latest scam is that they claim they've gotten peer reviewed papers published. That's funny. Why now? They've had more than twenty years to demonstrate that ID cretinism has more explanatory power than modern evolutionary theory in accounting for the current composition and past history of Planet Earth's biodiversity. Neither Behe nor Dembski nor and of their fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers have done this.

John · 14 February 2012

TomS said:
apokryltaros said: They just keep screaming and whining for people to listen to them brag and lie about how great Intelligent Design is.
Isn't there an advertising maxim, "Sell the sizzle, not the steak"? That seems to be a good description of ID.

Which is why some have concluded that ID is merely Madison Avenue advertising-styled creationism.

Karen S. · 14 February 2012

I’ve got 70 year old butter knives in my drawer thousands of times keener than Robert Byers. He’s persistent, not keen.

Yes, he's as sharp as a marshmallow.

Karen S. · 14 February 2012

In some fairness, booby Byers is a Canadian, showing that stupidity is not confined to the USA.

Thanks for pointing that out; it takes some of the sting from our shame in the USA. We actually have imported nutjobs from Australia.

John · 14 February 2012

Karen S. said:
In some fairness, booby Byers is a Canadian, showing that stupidity is not confined to the USA.
Thanks for pointing that out; it takes some of the sting from our shame in the USA. We actually have imported nutjobs from Australia.

The most nototious Canadian IDiot is Denyse O'Leary (Bill Dembski's best Canadian pal). In comparison with her, Booby comes across as an intellectually-challenged dunce.

MichaelJ · 14 February 2012

ksplawn said:
Tenncrain said: Robert, please tell this to oil geophysicist and former YEC Glenn Morton (click this link) and the ICR Graduate School associates he hired. Their real life experience in the field showed that Flood Geology is good for theological comfort....and virtually nothing else. It only resulted in Morton and his fellow YEC associates going through theological trauma as their Flood Geology was exposed as being worthless in finding oil. Gordon Glover (also an ex-YEC, he remains a Christian) further expands these points in Lesson 8 (of 16) of his video series on science and Christianity.
*bookmarked and saved* Thanks for these, they're invaluable insights into the struggles some people go through to reconcile anti-science and evidence!

Strange how Byers has gone quiet since this comment. I think that it should be a Byers repellent in future threads.

apokryltaros · 14 February 2012

MichaelJ said:
ksplawn said:
Tenncrain said: Robert, please tell this to oil geophysicist and former YEC Glenn Morton (click this link) and the ICR Graduate School associates he hired. Their real life experience in the field showed that Flood Geology is good for theological comfort....and virtually nothing else. It only resulted in Morton and his fellow YEC associates going through theological trauma as their Flood Geology was exposed as being worthless in finding oil. Gordon Glover (also an ex-YEC, he remains a Christian) further expands these points in Lesson 8 (of 16) of his video series on science and Christianity.
*bookmarked and saved* Thanks for these, they're invaluable insights into the struggles some people go through to reconcile anti-science and evidence!
Strange how Byers has gone quiet since this comment. I think that it should be a Byers repellent in future threads.

If Byers ever bothers to respond to this comment, he'll just whine that it "isn't so," and then continue babbling on about how Intelligent Design is so much better than and so much more popular than actual science simply and solely because he says the Bible said so.

Tenncrain · 14 February 2012

ksplawn said: *bookmarked and saved* Thanks for these, they're invaluable insights into the struggles some people go through to reconcile anti-science and evidence!

My pleasure

MichaelJ said: Strange how Byers has gone quiet since this comment. I think that it should be a Byers repellent in future threads.

apokryltaros said: If Byers ever bothers to respond to this comment, he'll just whine that it "isn't so," and then continue babbling on about how Intelligent Design is so much better than and so much more popular than actual science simply and solely because he says the Bible said so.

Well, if per chance it gets Byers a bit down in the dumps, these other Gordon Glover videos are much more on the lighter side!, even if the humor has serious points. Intelligent Design vs. Alien Intervention Intelligent Alien Intervention Institute

Tenncrain · 14 February 2012

John said: Which is why some have concluded that ID is merely Madison Avenue advertising-styled creationism.

Perhaps Dr John Haught (a theologian, one of expert witnesses for plaintiffs in Kitzmiller/Dover trial) said it rather well when he testified under oath that creationism and ID are indeed different......in the same way an orange is different from a navel orange.

Mike Elzinga · 14 February 2012

Tenncrain said:
John said: Which is why some have concluded that ID is merely Madison Avenue advertising-styled creationism.
Perhaps Dr John Haught (a theologian, one of expert witnesses for plaintiffs in Kitzmiller/Dover trial) said it rather well when he testified under oath that creationism and ID are indeed different......in the same way an orange is different from a navel orange.

Ah; that explains it! An IDiot is a creationist contemplating its navel.

Robert Byers · 15 February 2012

Tenncrain said:
Robert Byers said: Finding oil is simply finding squeezed biology between the things that squeezed it. This is from great event largely from the biblical flood. It was exactly as it looks. A single sudden event in that area and unrelated to millions of years. They have to say long time because oif the great energy and concentration needed. They just don't imagine another mechanism to provide the energy. WE have it. they are wrong and Genesis is right.
Robert, please tell this to oil geophysicist and former YEC Glenn Morton (click this link) and the ICR Graduate School associates he hired. Their real life experience in the field showed that Flood Geology is good for theological comfort....and virtually nothing else. It only resulted in Morton and his fellow YEC associates going through theological trauma as their Flood Geology was exposed as being worthless in finding oil. Gordon Glover (also an ex-YEC, he remains a Christian) further expands these points in Lesson 8 (of 16) of his video series on science and Christianity.

There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some "creationists" being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

Dave Luckett · 15 February 2012

Byers, did it ever occur to you that your "great" pressure and "great accumulation" can both be measured and tested? And that those measurements have actually been made, and the tests run?

Well, they have. They show that fossil fuels - oil, gas and coal - cannot be made in that way in that time. It takes huge amounts of fossil material - millions of years worth of living things dying, drifting to the bottoms of seas, being covered with sediments and those sediments shifting and deepening to the required thickness, and then millions more years of that pressure to produce fossil fuel.

I know that a little detail like physical reality doesn't concern you, Byers, but it does concern most people. But that's because most people are not, in fact, irrational loons.

Dave Lovell · 15 February 2012

Robert Byers said: There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some "creationists" being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

If we hypothesize that all fossil fuel, (already recovered, recoverable, and non-recoverable) resulted from the pre-flood terrestrial biomass, my gut feeling is that even if 100% of the organic matter washed away by a global flood was laid down for fossil fuel, the biomass of the pre-flood world must have been many, many times what it is today. Has anybody seen this ratio calculated?

TomS · 15 February 2012

Robert Byers said: There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some "creationists" being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

I recognize that Young Earth Creationism with Flood Geology does make some statements about, for example, when things happened. But does "Intelligent Design" have anything to say about this? And, by the way, I don't want to make this a matter of personalities. Is there any advocate of ID out there who has anything to say about this?

prongs · 15 February 2012

Robert Byers said: Oil/Gas etc is most likely ...

You don't make your living as an exploration geologist or geophysicist, do you? (You'd never find anything. You wouldn't know where to drill.) Do you actually work for a living? Or are you a 'man of leisure'?

John · 15 February 2012

Robert Byers the delusional Canadian creotard barfed: There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some "creationists" being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

Excusez-moi, Monsieur Booby. Au Contraire! There's something known as Plate Tectonics (And even before then, simple "creationist" models couldn't account for the millions of years, ample pressures and depth required to create oil and gas from the organic remains of plant and animal matter.).

John · 15 February 2012

prongs said:
Robert Byers said: Oil/Gas etc is most likely ...
You don't make your living as an exploration geologist or geophysicist, do you? (You'd never find anything. You wouldn't know where to drill.) Do you actually work for a living? Or are you a 'man of leisure'?

Booby claims to be some low-level bureaucrat working for the provincial government of Ontario. I believe others have verified this independently.

DS · 15 February 2012

Robert Byers said: There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some "creationists" being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

So Bobby, are we going to run out of fossil fuels? I mean, if they can form so quickly, there should be lots and lots forming right now, right? We should never run out, right? We should never have any problem, because we certainly could not use the fuel fast enough to ever deplete it, right? Drill baby drill and burn baby burn, right? By the way, please specify the "creationist" model" that allows you to find fossil fuel. Please specify how you Know where to drill and how this amazing technology is currently being used by real geologists. Or were you just making crap up again?

Karen S. · 15 February 2012

I recognize that Young Earth Creationism with Flood Geology does make some statements about, for example, when things happened. But does “Intelligent Design” have anything to say about this?

Yes. For example, they have precise measurements of the age of the earth. It is 6000 years old or it is 4.5 billion years old.

MichaelJ · 15 February 2012

Gee, I don't see that in the first article. Morton raises some particular issues that caused him and his YEC associates to doubt a young earth. He was unable to get any other YEC scientists to explain the issues. What are the explanations and who are the YEC scientists that he should have talked to? Gosh, you aren't lying are you when you say that there are all of these YEC scientists.

Robert Byers said:
Tenncrain said:
Robert Byers said: Finding oil is simply finding squeezed biology between the things that squeezed it. This is from great event largely from the biblical flood. It was exactly as it looks. A single sudden event in that area and unrelated to millions of years. They have to say long time because oif the great energy and concentration needed. They just don't imagine another mechanism to provide the energy. WE have it. they are wrong and Genesis is right.
Robert, please tell this to oil geophysicist and former YEC Glenn Morton (click this link) and the ICR Graduate School associates he hired. Their real life experience in the field showed that Flood Geology is good for theological comfort....and virtually nothing else. It only resulted in Morton and his fellow YEC associates going through theological trauma as their Flood Geology was exposed as being worthless in finding oil. Gordon Glover (also an ex-YEC, he remains a Christian) further expands these points in Lesson 8 (of 16) of his video series on science and Christianity.
There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some "creationists" being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

cwjolley · 15 February 2012

Karen S. said: Yes. For example, they have precise measurements of the age of the earth. It is 6000 years old or it is 4.5 billion years old.

Yes, but since God is infinite that is well within any measurement error you choose. ;)

Tenncrain · 15 February 2012

TomS said: I recognize that Young Earth Creationism with Flood Geology does make some statements about, for example, when things happened. But does "Intelligent Design" have anything to say about this? And, by the way, I don't want to make this a matter of personalities. Is there any advocate of ID out there who has anything to say about this?

At least publicly, the ID movement tends to be more neutral about issues like Flood Geology and a young earth. Their self-described "Big Tent" policy means IDers at the DI have about every type of anti-evolutionist, from a few YECs (e.g. Paul Nelson), to the likes of Michael Behe and Scott Minnich that accept some common decent among species (to the chagrin of YECs and some OECs). The idea behind ID is to put aside perceived secondary issues. Then all can unite and put the crosshairs only on evolution. Once evolution is overthrown, then they can argue with themselves about other issues like a young earth or old earth, a world flood or local flood or no flood, etc. IDers may have to be prodded to express views on subjects other than biological evolution. However, many if not most reject Flood Geology and a young-earth and even accept other paradigms unpopular with YECs such as the Big Bang. Stephen Meyer was a petroleum geophysicist before joining the DI; IIRC, he accepts a 4.6 billion year old earth and rejects Flood Geology, but strongly opposes common decent. In a recent interview with historian Ronald Numbers, Paul Nelson admitted his YEC views were unpopular with his DI colleagues.

Tenncrain · 15 February 2012

Robert Byers said:
Tenncrain said:
Robert Byers said: Finding oil is simply finding squeezed biology between the things that squeezed it. This is from great event largely from the biblical flood. It was exactly as it looks. A single sudden event in that area and unrelated to millions of years. They have to say long time because oif the great energy and concentration needed. They just don't imagine another mechanism to provide the energy. WE have it. they are wrong and Genesis is right.
Robert, please tell this to oil geophysicist and former YEC Glenn Morton (click this link) and the ICR Graduate School associates he hired. Their real life experience in the field showed that Flood Geology is good for theological comfort....and virtually nothing else. It only resulted in Morton and his fellow YEC associates going through theological trauma as their Flood Geology was exposed as being worthless in finding oil. Gordon Glover (also an ex-YEC, he remains a Christian) further expands these points in Lesson 8 (of 16) of his video series on science and Christianity.
There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some "creationists" being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

Robert, did you even check out the links? Wouldn't be surprised if you merely ignored them, but I would understand; I grew up on YEC books/videos and clung to them to the end, I went down swinging - even trying a few Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks on the way down. If you did read all of Morton's page (neglected to add Morton remains a theist today like Glover) and watched/listened to all of Glover's video, specifically what points do you object? Again, be specific.

Robert Byers · 16 February 2012

Dave Lovell said:
Robert Byers said: There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some "creationists" being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.
If we hypothesize that all fossil fuel, (already recovered, recoverable, and non-recoverable) resulted from the pre-flood terrestrial biomass, my gut feeling is that even if 100% of the organic matter washed away by a global flood was laid down for fossil fuel, the biomass of the pre-flood world must have been many, many times what it is today. Has anybody seen this ratio calculated?

Yes it would of been fantastically greater then today. It was closer to the original paradise.

Robert Byers · 16 February 2012

Tenncrain said:
Robert Byers said:
Tenncrain said:
Robert Byers said: Finding oil is simply finding squeezed biology between the things that squeezed it. This is from great event largely from the biblical flood. It was exactly as it looks. A single sudden event in that area and unrelated to millions of years. They have to say long time because oif the great energy and concentration needed. They just don't imagine another mechanism to provide the energy. WE have it. they are wrong and Genesis is right.
Robert, please tell this to oil geophysicist and former YEC Glenn Morton (click this link) and the ICR Graduate School associates he hired. Their real life experience in the field showed that Flood Geology is good for theological comfort....and virtually nothing else. It only resulted in Morton and his fellow YEC associates going through theological trauma as their Flood Geology was exposed as being worthless in finding oil. Gordon Glover (also an ex-YEC, he remains a Christian) further expands these points in Lesson 8 (of 16) of his video series on science and Christianity.
There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some "creationists" being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.
Robert, did you even check out the links? Wouldn't be surprised if you merely ignored them, but I would understand; I grew up on YEC books/videos and clung to them to the end, I went down swinging - even trying a few Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks on the way down. If you did read all of Morton's page (neglected to add Morton remains a theist today like Glover) and watched/listened to all of Glover's video, specifically what points do you object? Again, be specific.

Not the place and I don't want to get into a million points about these things. Why should these people have credibility now if they didn't when they were YEC? Why the other way around?

Dave Lovell · 16 February 2012

Robert Byers said:
Dave Lovell said:
Robert Byers said: There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some "creationists" being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.
If we hypothesize that all fossil fuel, (already recovered, recoverable, and non-recoverable) resulted from the pre-flood terrestrial biomass, my gut feeling is that even if 100% of the organic matter washed away by a global flood was laid down for fossil fuel, the biomass of the pre-flood world must have been many, many times what it is today. Has anybody seen this ratio calculated?
Yes it would of been fantastically greater then today. It was closer to the original paradise.

But Robert, unless you are also proposing that the world was much bigger then, there would have been nowhere to put more than a few times the current biomass other than in a thick layer of rotting manure. A paradise for dung beetles and mushrooms perhaps, but not where I'd choose to go on holiday. Genesis 6:11 ("Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, ..."] takes on a whole new meaning if the Flood can be looked upon as a sort of Divine Flush.

Karen S. · 16 February 2012

At least publicly, the ID movement tends to be more neutral about issues like Flood Geology and a young earth.

They prefer not to discuss the age of the earth, and say that it's irrelevant. Then they go ahead and claim there was not enough time for x to happen.

Tenncrain · 16 February 2012

Robert Byers said: Not the place and I don't want to get into a million points about these things.

Why is this not the place? If need be, you could take an extended period to get familiar with the material, then report back with an extended rebuttal.

Why should these people have credibility now if they didn't when they were YEC? Why the other way around?

If you had checked the links, you might have learned Morton was taught by his own fellow Christians that being a YEC was a necessity. Despite his mainstream science courses, Morton remained confident Flood Geology's problems would eventually be solved and young-earth creationism would triumph. You might have learned Morton joined the oil industry at a time when there was a shortage of petroleum workers; otherwise, Morton's YEC views could have hurt his chances of being hired during more lean times. It was not until experiencing real world conditions that Morton was shocked that Flood Geology was useless. Same thing happened to all the YECs Morton himself hired, these YECs were from ICR's Graduate School. Glover - although not an oil geophysicist - described having a roughly similar scientific and theological experience in his book Beyond The Firmament.

Tenncrain · 16 February 2012

Karen S. said: They prefer not to discuss the age of the earth, and say that it's irrelevant. Then they go ahead and claim there was not enough time for x to happen.

This playing both sides of the fence with the example you mention has been done many times, IIRC including on this very PT forum. Seems I vaguely recall Dembski - of course a key ID figure - once sidestepping the age of earth issue in front of perhaps a mainly YEC audience, despite him saying at other times he accepts an old earth. This was even before his YEC employer (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth) became disgruntled with Dembski's old earth views. But even AIG has put the young-earth issue in what they see as a more proper relevance, unlike when a young-earth was somewhat more central in their paradigms in earlier decades. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/01/23/young-earth-not-issue In a 1990s debate with Ken Miller, Michael Behe stated he had no problem with common decent among species, including between humans and other apes. According to Miller, other YECs were stunned and dismayed by Behe's statement. Yet at other times, Behe said he believed in only 'limited' common decent. So, may depend not only on the individual ID advocate. Also could depend on the format or audience, whether a sympathetic creationist/ID crowd, a group of mainstream scientists, under oath in court.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmnhnZ1B7v1VcNPVagXGm9uBhNeVGS-z4Q · 29 March 2012

Simply marvelous!!! Your article provides a fresh new insight to this topic which was yet undiscovered. I must say your research skills are sharp and your narration is interesting..
Logo Designs

Dave Luckett · 30 March 2012

The last comment on this thread is blogspam. May I recommend tanking it?