The Sensuous Curmudgeon strikes again

Posted 10 September 2013 by Richard B. Hoppe

Those who don't follow The Sensuous Curmudgeon miss some great stuff. His latest is Discovery Institute's New Form of Proof. It has a handy list of nine tactics the Disco Dancers use, with links to supporting material, and then adds a tenth, ""You're afraid to debate me, so I win!" SC comments

Despite the fact that the Discoveroids have no evidence and no theory that challenges evolution (or any other science), they demand endless debates over their empty and valueless rubbish. And when no one pays any attention to them, they declare victory. It's quite sad, really. But it probably impresses their generous patrons, who keep the cash flowing.

Maybe if they offered a $250K prize like Kent Hovind they'd get a better response. Surely Howard Ahmanson can afford a measly $250K.

70 Comments

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 September 2013

Maybe if they offered $250,000 using fair rules and impartial judges they'd get a whole lot of responses, demonstrating the lack of design in life or the extensive evidence for (unreasoned) evolution.

But they've never wanted either, wanting only to insist that the undesigned is designed, and that the evolved did not evolve.

Glen Davidson

Mike Elzinga · 10 September 2013

The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture is a marketing operation that knows its audience. They know that the followers of ID/creationism are pseudo-intellectuals that live by word-gaming. They know that these followers will take any science or pseudoscience and rework concepts to fit sectarian dogma (dogma first; all else bent and broken to fit).

You can actually watch the process taking place in slow-witted motion over at UD, where we see endless word-gaming, kvetching, self-pity parties, and the general equivalent of obscene verbal flatulence directed at science and scientists. We see poseurs emitting condescending snark, trying to create an image that they have expertise they don’t have.

This is the mind of the typical ID/creationist rube; and it is a market to be exploited with repetitive stirring and rewriting of books built on word games. The rubes won’t know the difference and will wet their pants in delight over the “new material” that is simply the same old crap that has been recycled for over 50 years. The rest of the market consists of the Right Wingnuts that make up authoritarian fundamentalism in the US, with the hope that new markets will open up in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Peddling stale food is one thing; but peddling stale feces is quite another. Yet that market supports a comfortable life style for a few at the DI.

SensuousCurmudgeon · 10 September 2013

Richard, you just won't let me blog in obscurity, will you? I'll get even when a certain decision comes down from the Ohio Supreme Court.

Richard B. Hoppe · 10 September 2013

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Richard, you just won't let me blog in obscurity, will you? I'll get even when a certain decision comes down from the Ohio Supreme Court.

If it ever comes down. It's over 6 months now. Ugh.

Tenncrain · 10 September 2013

Richard B. Hoppe said:
SensuousCurmudgeon said: Richard, you just won't let me blog in obscurity, will you? I'll get even when a certain decision comes down from the Ohio Supreme Court.
If it ever comes down. It's over 6 months now. Ugh.

Not to get too offtopic from this tread, but the Ohio Supreme Court website says it generally takes four to six months for the court to render a decision. As Richard pointed out, it's now over six months. IANAL, so do those more experienced in law have a feeling if this delay may favor one side or another?

harold · 10 September 2013

Tenncrain said:
Richard B. Hoppe said:
SensuousCurmudgeon said: Richard, you just won't let me blog in obscurity, will you? I'll get even when a certain decision comes down from the Ohio Supreme Court.
If it ever comes down. It's over 6 months now. Ugh.
Not to get too offtopic from this tread, but the Ohio Supreme Court website says it generally takes four to six months for the court to render a decision. As Richard pointed out, it's now over six months. IANAL, so do those more experienced in law have a feeling if this delay may favor one side or another?

They want to come up with some convoluted argument to favor Freshwater and bankrupt the Mount Vernon school district, because they love Freshwater as a loyal member of their team. Because they're Republicans, and that's what the Republican party is now. If you're some kind of "pro-science conservative" who thinks of yourself as a Republican because you were outraged by a "left wing" frat brother who defended Pol Pot in the 1970's (this is a real life example based on a story I saw about a climatologist who recently changed his registration; I don't have a link but one would be appreciated), or if you just subjectively prefer that the gruel bowls should be jeeringly slapped from the scrawny hands of the inferior wretches at the orphanage (but don't deny scientific reality), you should find a new party. Because pandering to science denial, and a variety of related activities, including but not limited to cutting funding for science, censoring science, and appointing science deniers to key public policy posts, are the new Republican way, and have been for some time now. However, we do live in a "common law" nation, and there are strong precedents against Freshwater. To find in his favor borders on giving the finger to over one thousand years of efforts by decent and intelligent minds to develop a fair system of justice. So it may take them an extra few weeks.

But it probably impresses their generous patrons, who keep the cash flowing.

And if it didn't do that, it would drop dead faster than the hula hoop craze of the early 1960's, or whenever the heck that was. (This comment not intended to insult the healthy and fun activity of hula hooping; no association with creationism is implied, it's just an analogy.)

Mike Elzinga · 10 September 2013

I see Curmudgeon has also linked to a DI “ultimatum” to Ball State.

There is no limit to the sleaze the DI will stoop to doing. Reading through that “ultimatum” we see the slimy tactics that they spend all their time planning in their plush offices. But “it’s all about science, right?”

Yeah, right.

Robert Byers · 10 September 2013

Its really is up to evolutionists to desire debates if you guys are confident in your facts!
We are the rebels at the city gates. We are the revolutionaries.
You are trusting in your greatr wall of China but our tribes are flowing in quite well.
Creationists believe we are right and so all debates are always a gain. Error doesn't work well in debates.
If forums exist like this then its a admission there is a need to deal with the modern creationist movement.
Why be shy in confrontation?
Somebody's wrong and couldn't have a very case for such great conclusions about great things.

bigdakine · 10 September 2013

Robert Byers said: Its really is up to evolutionists to desire debates if you guys are confident in your facts! We are the rebels at the city gates. We are the revolutionaries. You are trusting in your greatr wall of China but our tribes are flowing in quite well. Creationists believe we are right and so all debates are always a gain. Error doesn't work well in debates. If forums exist like this then its a admission there is a need to deal with the modern creationist movement. Why be shy in confrontation? Somebody's wrong and couldn't have a very case for such great conclusions about great things.

That would be like an astronomer debating a geocentrist. Or a geodesist debating a flat earther.

stevaroni · 10 September 2013

Robert Byers said: Its really is up to evolutionists to desire debates if you guys are confident in your facts!

We are confident about our facts. that's why we publish them in excruciating detail, complete with methodology by with the measurements were taken, so that others may duplicate the results (or not), and discuss the ramification in a venue where facts are carefully double checked and emotion (and Gish gallops) are largely avoided. This is, incidentally, very similar to the way that courtrooms work. You know - places where facts are important. Science doesn't do debates, because debates are all about making an emotional argument. This is, incidentally, very popular in politics, where the objective is manipulative bullshit and most people would agree objective facts are the first casualty. Now, courtrooms have an aspect of this, it is true, but I've never seen a debater stopped and asked by an independent referee to explain exactly where he got that last little convenient "fact" that seems to have just popped into being out of thin air*. And, conversely, while Duane Gish relishes the debate format, for some reason creationist always run far, far away from trials where they have to tell their stories under oath and under penalty of perjury. Remember, for instance, the brave, principled stand "Wild Bill" Dembski took during the Kitzmiller trial when he realized he was actually going to be cross examined under oath by someone who actually knew what he was talking about. I would point out that the real scientists had no problem whatsoever getting up on the stand and testifying for hours. *(Although, frankly, I would be totally thrilled to see instant fact-checking in political debates, and would relish candidates (on both sides) being stopped dead in their tracks and grilled on their made-up "facts", complete with an on-screen scorecard of "pants-on-fire" whoppers)

diogeneslamp0 · 11 September 2013

Robert Byers said: Its really is up to evolutionists to desire debates if you guys are confident in your facts! We are the rebels at the city gates. We are the revolutionaries. You are trusting in your greatr wall of China but our tribes are flowing in quite well. Creationists believe we are right and so all debates are always a gain. Error doesn't work well in debates. If forums exist like this then its a admission there is a need to deal with the modern creationist movement. Why be shy in confrontation? Somebody's wrong and couldn't have a very case for such great conclusions about great things.

This is the same Robert Byers who, in a debate over the definition of science over at Sandwalk, just said science doesn't exist, there's no such thing as science. That's the "revolution" he speaks of-- get rid of science, deny it ever existed. The Round Earth or germ theory are all just lines of reasoning. Germ theory is no different from witch doctoring. The laws of gravity are no different from a personal preference for crunchy peanut butter; every opinion is equally valid. Deny your kids vaccines, basic medical care-- kill them, starve them-- every opinion is a line of reasoning. Vive la revolucion.

garystar1 · 11 September 2013

stevaroni said:

Science doesn’t do debates

Gonna disagree with you on this. Science debates all the time. The difference is that when science debates, it debates with a common set of definitions (no making up your own as you go along simply because you want to force facts to fit your pre-conceived notions), you have to lay out all of your evidence, and typically, the result will be a plan for how new experiments can provide some definitive answers that will end the debate once and for all. I think of many popular debates throughout time, such as static state vs Big Bang and the size of the universe, both in cosmology.

garystar1 · 11 September 2013

Oh, and is there any way to deal with the spam? I keep seeing one-liners from "Lee Chaerin" which are nothing more than spam links. Thanks!

Karen S. · 11 September 2013

So it's debate the IDCreationists want? Here, once again, is The Great Debate at the American Museum of Natural History. The best part is Pennock vs Dembski, where Dembski's butt is tossed out onto Central Park West. The debate was quite a while ago. Has the DI made any progress since then? You know, like developed ID theory?

harold · 11 September 2013

garystar1 said: stevaroni said:
Science doesn’t do debates
Gonna disagree with you on this. Science debates all the time. The difference is that when science debates, it debates with a common set of definitions (no making up your own as you go along simply because you want to force facts to fit your pre-conceived notions), you have to lay out all of your evidence, and typically, the result will be a plan for how new experiments can provide some definitive answers that will end the debate once and for all. I think of many popular debates throughout time, such as static state vs Big Bang and the size of the universe, both in cosmology.

It's semantic, but I think Stevaroni is right here. Traditionally, a "debate" is a rhetorical interaction in which neither side is willing to concede anything to the other. There is a traditional word for mutually respectful exchange of ideas, with openness to being convinced. The formal name for that is "discourse". The sport of competitive debate is based exactly on the traditional definition. In fact it's considered prestigious to be able to 'defend' an obviously nonsensical position successfully through forceful rhetoric, and the gravest error to concede that the other side is reasonable, in competitive debate. Courts of law do function as places of discourse, when functioning properly. Attorneys advocate for clients, but they also make deals and bargains when that is obviously in the best interest of their client. They aren't constrained to bark and bark that their client is completely innocent in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as they essentially would be in a competitive debate, if assigned that position to defend. The Ohio Supreme Court is not functioning properly. That is true whatever the outcome of the case, merely because they even accepted the Freshwater case, and took this long to decide it. I've expressed my rather blunt opinion of why this is so above. Science is by definition an ongoing discourse, with many individual incidents of unreasonableness, but collectively dedicated to convincing the skeptical but reasonable onlooker with evidence and logic. Although it may seem that "debate" has taken on the same meaning as "discourse" in the US media, I think it has not. The word is used mainly at times when different subjective ethical values are in political conflict. Is it "right" or "wrong" to keep people as slaves? To deny some consenting competent adult couples the legal status of marriage? Science may be able to study the effects of having or not having slavery, but it can't tell you whether it is "right" or "wrong". Hence, at times when such issues are at the forefront - as has been the case for about the last fifty years of so in the US - we hear a lot about "debate". Of course creationists want to "debate". They can't have a discourse. All of my comments to creationists are always written for third party readers. A committed creationist can't be convinced, and can't offer anything that would convince a reasonable person. So all they can do is use every debating trick in the book, as well as a large number of tricks that would be against the rules in formal debate. Liberty University and similar places are well known for promoting competitive debate, for obvious reasons. it's the exact opposite of mutually respectful reasoned discourse. You have a premise to argue, and you unyieldingly argue it as forcefully as you can, in the hopes of defeating your opponent.

DS · 11 September 2013

Richard B. Hoppe said:
SensuousCurmudgeon said: Richard, you just won't let me blog in obscurity, will you? I'll get even when a certain decision comes down from the Ohio Supreme Court.
If it ever comes down. It's over 6 months now. Ugh.

Give them a brake. Put yourself in their position. They are desperately trying to find a way to rule in favor of Freshwater, but he is obviously guilty. They can't admit this or they will have to admit that they took a case with no merit. But they cannot exonerate him without opening the door to all manner of evil and vileness, which they will rightly be blamed for. So they literally cannot render a decision, it's a no win scenario. I guess they will just have to stall until they retire, then dump the whole mess on someone else. Or they can just admit that he is guilty and must pay the consequences, regardless of their personal beliefs.

DS · 11 September 2013

Either way, it's on to the US Supreme Court, baby!

eric · 11 September 2013

Mike Elzinga said: I see Curmudgeon has also linked to a DI “ultimatum” to Ball State. There is no limit to the sleaze the DI will stoop to doing. Reading through that “ultimatum” we see the slimy tactics that they spend all their time planning in their plush offices. But “it’s all about science, right?”

I don't see threatening a lawsuit if you think your rights have been taken away as sleaze. A letter like this isn't much different from the letters the FFRF sends out (and I believe NCSE has done that too?) Of course, showing standing as to how a Seattle think tank was harmed by a BSU internal policy regarding course content is going to be hard. :) Also, I think it's an empty threat. In every past case, the DI has actively avoided being a plaintiff or formal party to these cases. They always find proxies, always distance themselves from the case when it goes against them, and always then send out a press announcement saying they were never that interested or involved. Its a predictable M.O. For them to be a plaintiff...I don't see them being that courageous.

tomh · 11 September 2013

DS said: Either way, it's on to the US Supreme Court, baby!

Be careful what you wish for. The US Supreme Court is no sure thing.

Mike Elzinga · 11 September 2013

eric said:
Mike Elzinga said: I see Curmudgeon has also linked to a DI “ultimatum” to Ball State. There is no limit to the sleaze the DI will stoop to doing. Reading through that “ultimatum” we see the slimy tactics that they spend all their time planning in their plush offices. But “it’s all about science, right?”
I don't see threatening a lawsuit if you think your rights have been taken away as sleaze. A letter like this isn't much different from the letters the FFRF sends out (and I believe NCSE has done that too?)

Anything the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture does is sleaze. Sectarian outfits like the DI have generally used tactics that require educational institutions to spend taxpayer money in order to clean up the messes caused by the ID/creationists pushing their pseudoscience. I don’t recall any exceptions to this. The last high profile example was Dover. So you can bet that when the DI gets involved, the money dealing with the hassles will come out of the public pocket. Even crackpots like Joe Newman have more common sense when it comes to hassling other people. His franchises, the extremely few that he has sold, make no more than one try to get their stuff into schools. And they don’t write letters and threaten when they are rejected; they just go away. From the wording of Ball State President Gora’s address on this matter, I get the impression that she, and I am sure any lawyers that Ball State retains, are very aware of what ID/creationism is. I am more curious about what was going on in the physics department when these two ID/creationist characters were hired.

harold · 11 September 2013

Traditionally, a “debate” is a rhetorical interaction in which neither side is willing to concede anything to the other. There is a traditional word for mutually respectful exchange of ideas, with openness to being convinced. The formal name for that is “discourse”.

Self-correction - that should be "dialectic", not "discourse".

eric · 11 September 2013

Mike Elzinga said: So you can bet that when the DI gets involved, the money dealing with the hassles will come out of the public pocket.

Maybe. BSU could concieveably rack up legal fees defending themselves against a suit. But if the DI loses badly, the judge could force them to pay all the opposing lawyer's fees. That's basically what happened in Dover; if the same thing happened here, it wouldn't cost taxpayers anything. Based on the material, I don't have any problem envisioning that result. Well, I have one - as I said above, I can't see the DI actually having the courage to be a party in a suit. They'll find someone to fight their war for them, or they'll slink away (or do the former, then the latter).

diogeneslamp0 · 11 September 2013

On a related topic, Larry Moran at Sandwalk posted a brief, harmless bit of satire (God ~ FSM) and two creationists, LouiseG and "Quest", instantly threatened to sue Moran and a certain cynic of Sinope, describing the vast wealth they possess with which they will hire a no doubt crack legal team and shut us down for good.

Mike Elzinga · 11 September 2013

eric said:
Mike Elzinga said: So you can bet that when the DI gets involved, the money dealing with the hassles will come out of the public pocket.
Maybe. BSU could concieveably rack up legal fees defending themselves against a suit. But if the DI loses badly, the judge could force them to pay all the opposing lawyer's fees. That's basically what happened in Dover; if the same thing happened here, it wouldn't cost taxpayers anything.

The Dover school board instigators of ID/creationism lost; the taxpayers picked up the tab; something like a million dollars as I recall. The creationist school board ignored the advice of their lawyer. The public voted them out, but they still paid the bill.

eric · 11 September 2013

Mike Elzinga said:
eric said:
Mike Elzinga said: So you can bet that when the DI gets involved, the money dealing with the hassles will come out of the public pocket.
Maybe. BSU could concieveably rack up legal fees defending themselves against a suit. But if the DI loses badly, the judge could force them to pay all the opposing lawyer's fees. That's basically what happened in Dover; if the same thing happened here, it wouldn't cost taxpayers anything.
The Dover school board instigators of ID/creationism lost; the taxpayers picked up the tab; something like a million dollars as I recall. The creationist school board ignored the advice of their lawyer. The public voted them out, but they still paid the bill.

Mike, what I'm saying is this: in the Dover case, the creationists were required to pay both sides' legal fees. The reason this screwed the public is because "the pubic" was on the side of the creationist BOE. If DI sues BSU, "the public" will not be on the creationist side. "The public" in this case is BSU. So, if the same thing happens here as happened in Dover and the creationists are forced to pay both sets of legal fees, then it all comes out of Howard Ahmanson's pockets and "the public" will not have to pay anything.

Mike Elzinga · 11 September 2013

eric said: Mike, what I'm saying is this: in the Dover case, the creationists were required to pay both sides' legal fees. The reason this screwed the public is because "the pubic" was on the side of the creationist BOE. If DI sues BSU, "the public" will not be on the creationist side. "The public" in this case is BSU. So, if the same thing happens here as happened in Dover and the creationists are forced to pay both sets of legal fees, then it all comes out of Howard Ahmanson's pockets and "the public" will not have to pay anything.

The DI will threaten, but will likely not sue. They will seek to occupy as much attention as possible; and that will involve lawyers planning for possible law suits. This is going to take up the time of some part of the staff at BSU; and that is time and money that won’t go somewhere else. During the Dover trial there was a much less publicized case in a school district in Michigan in which two tenured elementary school teachers were caught teaching creationism. The fight that developed over that incident took months and dozens of meetings devoted to only that topic. The Thomas Moore Law Center weighed in with threats of lawsuits. Other important items on the agenda were postponed. All this cost money; lots of money and lawyer’s fees. The people who initiated this stealth fight belonged to the churches that supported Duane Gish when he lived in the area. These churches also like Ken Ham. ID/creationism is a culture war filled with political strategic thinking. None of these people provoke a fight unless they are sure that the primary cost will be to the other side, win or lose. They usually loose; but they always manage to be in a position where the major financial costs fall on the public. And either way, they proselytize. This is not accidental. They actually talk about these strategies among themselves when they think others aren’t listening. I have known some of these people; I have visited their churches. There have been other incidences much less publicized that I have watched up close. And this has taken place in a supposedly progressive community. It’s politics played strategically.

harold · 11 September 2013

eric said:
Mike Elzinga said:
eric said:
Mike Elzinga said: So you can bet that when the DI gets involved, the money dealing with the hassles will come out of the public pocket.
Maybe. BSU could concieveably rack up legal fees defending themselves against a suit. But if the DI loses badly, the judge could force them to pay all the opposing lawyer's fees. That's basically what happened in Dover; if the same thing happened here, it wouldn't cost taxpayers anything.
The Dover school board instigators of ID/creationism lost; the taxpayers picked up the tab; something like a million dollars as I recall. The creationist school board ignored the advice of their lawyer. The public voted them out, but they still paid the bill.
Mike, what I'm saying is this: in the Dover case, the creationists were required to pay both sides' legal fees. The reason this screwed the public is because "the pubic" was on the side of the creationist BOE. If DI sues BSU, "the public" will not be on the creationist side. "The public" in this case is BSU. So, if the same thing happens here as happened in Dover and the creationists are forced to pay both sets of legal fees, then it all comes out of Howard Ahmanson's pockets and "the public" will not have to pay anything.

Eric and Mike are both correct. The DI will not play with their own money. There will certainly never be a suit brought by the DI, for the exact reason that Eric is correct. Their donors are generous (to them, not as a general characteristic), but if they amassed major legal costs in a losing effort there is a small chance that their donors might get ticked off. Also, although some of their donors may leave the DI money in their wills, their donor base may not last forever. They need to harvest well, while the sun is shining. The DI provides a very cushy lifestyle for a bunch of people with rather thin resumes. Certainly, the wingnut welfare system would absorb them if the DI shut down. But there are limited wingnut welfare think tank opportunities in the beautiful Pacific Northwest. Who wants to disrupt a sweet deal? For that matter, if a theocratic dictatorship ever did force creationism into taxpayer funded science classes all over the nation, there would be no more need for the DI. Science teachers don't need the DI, but the DI needs science teachers to rant against. They are NOT going to play with their own money. You can bet your own money on that. For that matter, their donors seem to prefer their dissembling style, too. After all, their donors could give all their money to say, the Thomas More Legal Center, who don't mind burning up money on losing court cases in the slightest. Some may donate to both, but the DI donors seem to prefer to fund Casey Luskin.

Mike Elzinga · 11 September 2013

Just as a follow-up on my last comment; here is a link that shows that the DI was following this incident.

I met the former Michigan House Representative, Jack Hoogendyk when he also got involved in another incident in which a teacher was proselytizing while also denigrating the religions of his Hindu and Muslim students.

Hoogendyk was a frequent cosponsor of ID/creationist legislation when he was in the State House of Representatives.

tomh · 11 September 2013

Mike Elzinga said: the taxpayers picked up the tab; something like a million dollars as I recall.

It was only that low because of the largesse of Pepper Hamilton, the law firm for the parents. Court records showed that they were owed more than $2 million, but they accepted less than half that, in part because the school board that voted for the policy had been voted out of office, leaving the new school board "having the bill placed in their laps." And this is without any appeals. If BSU were sued, and it was appealed up the ladder, this number could easily double or triple with no guarantee about who would win. The taxpayers could get stuck again.

harold · 11 September 2013

tomh said:
Mike Elzinga said: the taxpayers picked up the tab; something like a million dollars as I recall.
It was only that low because of the largesse of Pepper Hamilton, the law firm for the parents. Court records showed that they were owed more than $2 million, but they accepted less than half that, in part because the school board that voted for the policy had been voted out of office, leaving the new school board "having the bill placed in their laps." And this is without any appeals. If BSU were sued, and it was appealed up the ladder, this number could easily double or triple with no guarantee about who would win. The taxpayers could get stuck again.

It's worth noting that publicly funded universities have NOT been treated legally in the same way as publicly funded high schools. Based on recent discussions here, I gather that this is a gray area. However, a big part of the reason that it is a gray area is that there is virtually no precedent for suing universities over their curriculum. While it isn't mandatory to graduate from any school, school attendance is mandatory up to some age, often sixteen or so. In most jurisdictions home schooling can be a substitute, but some sort of educational attendance is compulsory. University, on the other hand, is always 100% voluntary. The vast majority of university students are eighteen or over, as well. Furthermore, anyone can call anything a "university". Various private and public entities may decide weather a university is accredited to grant degrees related to professional licensing and so on, but they can't tell you whether or not you can found a university. I can found a university tomorrow, and so can you. On the other hand, if I want to found a school that meets legal standards for compulsory education of children, that's much more regulated. Most of the world's university students attend universities that are in some way publicly funded. All US research universities receive abundant public funding. Even many private liberal arts colleges probably receive a fair amount of money from the government, one way or another. The concept of "academic freedom" within a university has always been a purely voluntary standard adopted as a consensus by mainstream universities. It is a standard intended to promote free and rigorous scholarship. Balancing that, universities have always had an implicit right to set curricula and require professors to adhere to them. "Academic freedom" is NOT the same thing as first amendment guarantee of free expression. Virtually all universities have a chemistry department and a mathematics department, for example. Literally all of these chemistry and mathematics departments require students to take courses that cover material regarded as basic and essential in the field by chemists and mathematicians, respectively. The employer can constrain expression of the voluntary employee to that which meets and does not disrupt the goal of the organization, as in any other case. A chemistry professor has no more right to teach students that CO2 is the formula for water, than a McDonald's employee has to hector customers about proper nutrition while working the counter. Furthermore, because universities are voluntary and intended to promote free exchange of ideas, it has been traditional that publicly funded universities DO employ professors who, within the confines of the overall goal, advocate some given religious or philosophical view. The argument has been raised by Jeremy Coyne and some others that publicly funded universities should not be allowed to have any classes that advocate one religious views over other religious views, on first amendment grounds. I have not seen any actual scholars of the law strongly raise that point, but I can see how a rational mind could form that conclusion. I think it's a stretch. It's a stretch because at a properly run university there will be a diversity of professor viewpoints. But I can see how a rational mind could think that. Meanwhile, though, the idea that creationists could sue a public university to force them to teach, not only unscholarly anti-science propaganda from books for the general public, but unscholarly anti-science propaganda from books for the general public that has already been found unconstitutional for public schools is totally absurd. What do DI fellows do? They generate BS. They generate more BS than a cattle feedlot experiencing an outbreak of diarrhea. And their "legal threat" to BSU is utter BS, which is par for the course.

Gary_Hurd · 11 September 2013

BTW, "the Lady Atheist" has a post on the Disco'tute threat to Ball State.

http://ladyatheist.blogspot.com/2013/09/discovery-institute-threatens-ball-state.html

I think that it will be a hugely popular subject, so I plan to go fishing.

tomh · 11 September 2013

harold said: The argument has been raised by Jeremy Coyne and some others that publicly funded universities should not be allowed to have any classes that advocate one religious views over other religious views, on first amendment grounds. I have not seen any actual scholars of the law strongly raise that point,

Well, here's one scholar of the law, that strongly raises that point. Intelligent Design in Public University Science Departments: Academic Freedom or Establishment of Religion, by Frank S. Ravitch, Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law.

Mike Elzinga · 11 September 2013

Other grounds for rejecting the teaching of intelligent design/creationism are based on the simple fact that it is pseudoscience wrapped up in pseudo-philosophical glitter. It would be more suitable as a classic example of how con artists operate. It could be used in a course on critical thinking; I mean real critical thinking.

As to its intellectual content, the YEC stuff of Ken Ham is aimed primarily at elementary school children. And for all its highfalutin words, ID is middle school level. The highest mathematical level is taking the logarithm of the probability of a sequence of coin flips; and the physical and biological science parts of it are dead wrong.

The “philosophy” is nothing more than disguised sectarian apologetics. The AP philosophy course for high school students is far more substantial in its content.

In order to try to pass off ID/creationism as a course in college, one would have to misrepresent it; and that requires an ID/creationist con man. The concepts in such a course would be inconsistent with the more solid content of science and philosophy courses that discuss similar material.

It wouldn’t be hard to poke fun at such a course, should one ever get established at a secular university. It would be easy to add instructive exercises to the legitimate science and philosophy courses that highlight the absurdities of ID/creationism. An ID/creationist couldn’t object to exercises in other courses that actually taught students how to think without having to get into political word-gaming.

Basically, ID/creationism loses from the very beginning. The DI might want to rethink what it wishes for. But I guess that is not possible; they believe their own pseudoscience. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in those plush offices. They are cushy; how could they be wrong?

Robert Byers · 11 September 2013

bigdakine said:
Robert Byers said: Its really is up to evolutionists to desire debates if you guys are confident in your facts! We are the rebels at the city gates. We are the revolutionaries. You are trusting in your greatr wall of China but our tribes are flowing in quite well. Creationists believe we are right and so all debates are always a gain. Error doesn't work well in debates. If forums exist like this then its a admission there is a need to deal with the modern creationist movement. Why be shy in confrontation? Somebody's wrong and couldn't have a very case for such great conclusions about great things.
That would be like an astronomer debating a geocentrist. Or a geodesist debating a flat earther.

You make my point. There are not numerous forums and books and everything that talk about geocentrist ideas. its irrelevant and has no future. Creationism is popular, historical in the western world, and very aggressive and progressive in its plans to correct errors. Discussing or not discussing is making the same point that modern creationism is a real movement in science in our times. its possible this forum and all other people who take on creationism are absolutely right about its threat to the present order.

Tenncrain · 11 September 2013

tomh said:
DS said: Either way, it's on to the US Supreme Court, baby!
Be careful what you wish for. The US Supreme Court is no sure thing.

Again IANAL, but if it's determined that this case only relates to the Ohio Constitution and not the US Constitution, then the US Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction. Even if some parts of Freshwater could be relevant to the US Constitution, no guarantee the US Supreme Court will choose to accept an appeal.

Tenncrain · 11 September 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Robert Byers · 11 September 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

DS · 11 September 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

stevaroni · 11 September 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

stevaroni · 11 September 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 11 September 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Keelyn · 11 September 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Keelyn · 11 September 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

jjm · 11 September 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Richard B. Hoppe · 12 September 2013

I moved the Byers derail to the BW.

Rolf · 12 September 2013

Karen S. said: So it's debate the IDCreationists want? Here, once again, is The Great Debate at the American Museum of Natural History. The best part is Pennock vs Dembski, where Dembski's butt is tossed out onto Central Park West. The debate was quite a while ago. Has the DI made any progress since then? You know, like developed ID theory?

To me it looks like all they have is a theory that

there is scientific evidence that nature was produced by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process.

eric · 12 September 2013

Tenncrain said:
tomh said:
DS said: Either way, it's on to the US Supreme Court, baby!
Be careful what you wish for. The US Supreme Court is no sure thing.
Again IANAL, but if it's determined that this case only relates to the Ohio Constitution and not the US Constitution, then the US Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction.

I have a difficult time seeing this issue as a test case for ID for other reasons too. Specifically, BSU President Gora did not say nobody could teach creationism ever; she said that it wasn't appropriate for BSU science classes. That's pretty narrow; I can't really imagine any higher court wanting to rule that BSU has no right to decide whether this subject matter is appropriate for their science courses, just to support ID creationism. Even if they want to take on the issue, IMO they'll wait for something a lot more clear cut: a H.S. which is under some formal policy that says ID can be taught, so that the pro-science side argument has to hinge on whether it's religion or not. With this case, BSU's argument doesn't really hinge on that; it hinges more on a university's legal right to oversee and control the curriculum taught by individual professors. Which is something courts have supported in the past, and which a pro-corporate SCOTUS like this one would very likely support if it came to them.

Marilyn · 12 September 2013

Evolution is as good as the offspring.... Its the ways and means or knowhow, and substance that is from a unique source. There is some uniformity within the inhabitants of earth, though appearances differ. It may take science studies to show how this happens but in the end science is only explaining the workings of the inhabitants of Earth. How intelligent the outcome is could be left to the individual. There is nothing wrong in improving reality. Though what is an improvement in one persons opinion might not be in another, being put in the right direction can't be bad. I can't see any proof that a guiding overseer didn't have any hand in it.

tomh · 12 September 2013

Marilyn said: I can't see any proof that a guiding overseer didn't have any hand in it.

What would you accept as proof of that?

Karen S. · 12 September 2013

To me it looks like all they have is a theory that there is scientific evidence that nature was produced by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process.

They have a claim, not a scientific theory.

eric · 12 September 2013

Marilyn said: I can't see any proof that a guiding overseer didn't have any hand in it.

If it walks like a statistically random distribution of mutations, and it talks like a statistically random distribution of mutations...

Dave Lovell · 12 September 2013

Marilyn said: I can't see any proof that a guiding overseer didn't have any hand in it.

Nor will anybody, ever, have such proof Marilyn. Science will simply reduce further and further the work that a guiding overseer might have had to do to get to the universe we now see around us. It currently seems we are rapidly heading to the point where Its actions are limited to being no more that to create a set of Laws of Physics and letting The Experiment run.

diogeneslamp0 · 12 September 2013

Marilyn said: I can't see any proof that a guiding overseer didn't have any hand in it.

Marilyn, doesn't that mean that the claim "a guiding overseer had a hand in it" is unfalsifiable? Is non-falsifiability an advantage or a disadvantage, in your view?

Marilyn · 12 September 2013

diogeneslamp0 said:
Marilyn said: I can't see any proof that a guiding overseer didn't have any hand in it.
Marilyn, doesn't that mean that the claim "a guiding overseer had a hand in it" is unfalsifiable? Is non-falsifiability an advantage or a disadvantage, in your view?

In this instance in my view if it is non-falsifiable the advantage of that means there's a good chance that it is true, meaning to me there is a definite element to our existence.

eric · 12 September 2013

Marilyn said:
diogeneslamp0 said: Is non-falsifiability an advantage or a disadvantage, in your view?
In this instance in my view if it is non-falsifiable the advantage of that means there's a good chance that it is true, meaning to me there is a definite element to our existence.

!!! At this point we may want to step back and make sure we are all using the term 'nonfalsifiable' in the same way. Because I guarantee you, the way Diogenes uses the term, nobody but nobody could conclude nonfalsifiable = good chance its true.

Henry J · 12 September 2013

Outside of pure mathematics, nonfalsifiable = it doesn't explain anything.

DS · 12 September 2013

Marilyn said: Evolution is as good as the offspring.... Its the ways and means or knowhow, and substance that is from a unique source. There is some uniformity within the inhabitants of earth, though appearances differ. It may take science studies to show how this happens but in the end science is only explaining the workings of the inhabitants of Earth. How intelligent the outcome is could be left to the individual. There is nothing wrong in improving reality. Though what is an improvement in one persons opinion might not be in another, being put in the right direction can't be bad. I can't see any proof that a guiding overseer didn't have any hand in it.

Well I do. Perhaps you should study some more molecular genetics. Then you might be entitled to an opinion. Until then, not so much.

Just Bob · 12 September 2013

harold said: The argument has been raised by Jeremy Coyne and some others that publicly funded universities should not be allowed to have any classes that advocate one religious views over other religious views, on first amendment grounds. I have not seen any actual scholars of the law strongly raise that point, but I can see how a rational mind could form that conclusion. I think it's a stretch. It's a stretch because at a properly run university there will be a diversity of professor viewpoints. But I can see how a rational mind could think that.

Here's at least a semi-rational mind's position. Theoretically, a university student can choose to take courses with a particular professor who actively espouses a particular political or religious position, or avoid that professor and choose another. Practically, however, a student may have little or no choice in picking a professor. He may need a certain credit THIS semester, and the ONLY class available is taught by Gregg, who (as an example) is a proselytizing atheist and is given to frequent anti-Christian rants. The question is should a student in a taxpayer-funded university, who also has to pay some of his own tuition, have to be in a position where he is forced to endure unwanted religious or political proselytization in order to get the credits he needs.

ksplawn · 12 September 2013

Marilyn said:
diogeneslamp0 said:
Marilyn said: I can't see any proof that a guiding overseer didn't have any hand in it.
Marilyn, doesn't that mean that the claim "a guiding overseer had a hand in it" is unfalsifiable? Is non-falsifiability an advantage or a disadvantage, in your view?
In this instance in my view if it is non-falsifiable the advantage of that means there's a good chance that it is true, meaning to me there is a definite element to our existence.

Actually, it means you have no way to know how likely it is to be true. There are thousands of potential statements we could offer as alternatives that are equally unfalsifiable. How would you distinguish between them to pick the most likely?

Tom · 12 September 2013

Science doesn’t do debates

the correct way to word this is: Science is not decided by debate. Scientists, however, debate frequently and arduously. then they let experimental evidence decide. why don't you guys just ban Byers permanently? he has nothing rational to contribute to any discussion. he's representative of nobody but himself. Actually, he needs help. It hurts me to watch him post anywhere.

Tom · 12 September 2013

The question is should a student in a taxpayer-funded university, who also has to pay some of his own tuition, have to be in a position where he is forced to endure unwanted religious or political proselytization in order to get the credits he needs.

add to that: perceived proselytization, as even the very teaching of various subjects in science is deemed "atheistic" by various religious adherents these days. My conclusion, based on experience, is the same as it always has been, and has been reinforced by the results at Ball State. Universities typically get around to handling this kind of issue of teaching content internally, and correctly, if they are any kind of decent university to begin with. this of course excludes pretend universities like Liberty U.

Tom · 12 September 2013

I can’t see any proof that a guiding overseer didn’t have any hand in it.

I hit a hammer with a nail, and it penetrates into a block of wood. I can't see any proof that a guiding overseer didn't make that nail go into the wood all by itself, and my use of the hammer and my muscles were entirely superfluous.

Tom · 12 September 2013

er, hit a nail with a hammer, even. *rolleyes*

stevaroni · 12 September 2013

Tom said: I hit a hammer with a nail... er, hit a nail with a hammer, even. *rolleyes*

Newton would point out both are equally correct. Of course, he did choose to sleep under a tree shedding half-kilogram masses, so his opinions are always just a tad suspect.

Rolf · 13 September 2013

Karen S. said:
To me it looks like all they have is a theory that there is scientific evidence that nature was produced by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process.
They have a claim, not a scientific theory.

That's right - but by circular reasoning they create a theory (ENV).

TomS · 13 September 2013

Karen S. said:
To me it looks like all they have is a theory that there is scientific evidence that nature was produced by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process.
They have a claim, not a scientific theory.

Quite so. And their claim does not specify, for example, what happened, when or where; it does not say how or why the "intelligent cause" operates so that things turned out this way rather than something else; and it does not give any description of that "intelligent cause" (such as how many of them there were, what sort of constraints they work under, or anything about their motive, means and opportunities). Their claim is that there is something lacking with evolutionary biology, without bothering to describe what they have to replace it.

Marilyn · 13 September 2013

ksplawn said:
Marilyn said:
diogeneslamp0 said:
Marilyn said: I can't see any proof that a guiding overseer didn't have any hand in it.
Marilyn, doesn't that mean that the claim "a guiding overseer had a hand in it" is unfalsifiable? Is non-falsifiability an advantage or a disadvantage, in your view?
In this instance in my view if it is non-falsifiable the advantage of that means there's a good chance that it is true, meaning to me there is a definite element to our existence.
Actually, it means you have no way to know how likely it is to be true. There are thousands of potential statements we could offer as alternatives that are equally unfalsifiable. How would you distinguish between them to pick the most likely?

If this is is unfalsifiable...... then in scientific terms the prospect would have to be given a mathematical term of perhaps .. x = gcgh (good chance guiding hand) .. y = ngh (no guiding hand) ....where x would be 80% ....and z = free choice of direction.... xz = right direction .... yz = wrong choice.

Marilyn · 13 September 2013

Marilyn said:
ksplawn said:
Marilyn said:
diogeneslamp0 said:
Marilyn said: I can't see any proof that a guiding overseer didn't have any hand in it.
Marilyn, doesn't that mean that the claim "a guiding overseer had a hand in it" is unfalsifiable? Is non-falsifiability an advantage or a disadvantage, in your view?
In this instance in my view if it is non-falsifiable the advantage of that means there's a good chance that it is true, meaning to me there is a definite element to our existence.
Actually, it means you have no way to know how likely it is to be true. There are thousands of potential statements we could offer as alternatives that are equally unfalsifiable. How would you distinguish between them to pick the most likely?
If this is is unfalsifiable...... then in scientific terms the prospect would have to be given a mathematical term of perhaps .. x = gcgh (good chance guiding hand) .. y = ngh (no guiding hand) ....where x would be 80% ....and z = free choice of direction.... xz = right direction .... yz = wrong choice.

urm... there also has to be a ratio to accommodate that z could be a right direction.

DS · 13 September 2013

It's the Dembski approach. When you don't understand something but still don't want to believe it, make up some mathematical sounding mumbo jumbo and hope it fools everyone. Didn't work then, ain't gonna work now.

ksplawn · 13 September 2013

Marilyn said:
ksplawn said:
Marilyn said:
diogeneslamp0 said:
Marilyn said: I can't see any proof that a guiding overseer didn't have any hand in it.
Marilyn, doesn't that mean that the claim "a guiding overseer had a hand in it" is unfalsifiable? Is non-falsifiability an advantage or a disadvantage, in your view?
In this instance in my view if it is non-falsifiable the advantage of that means there's a good chance that it is true, meaning to me there is a definite element to our existence.
Actually, it means you have no way to know how likely it is to be true. There are thousands of potential statements we could offer as alternatives that are equally unfalsifiable. How would you distinguish between them to pick the most likely?
If this is is unfalsifiable...... then in scientific terms the prospect would have to be given a mathematical term of perhaps .. x = gcgh (good chance guiding hand) .. y = ngh (no guiding hand) ....where x would be 80% ....and z = free choice of direction.... xz = right direction .... yz = wrong choice.

There would be no correct way to determine the value for any of those mathematical terms.