Salma and Daniel better not listen to Michael

Isn't a charter school a publicly (taxpayer) funded institution? Hasn't ID been pretty much shot down in public schools, as a religious rather than scientific contention?

Maybe since this is not offered during the school day, as part of the curriculum, it doesn't fall under the purview of the law. Is the public school inviting, sponsoring and promoting this event (they seem to be on their website), or are they just renting their auditorium to a private entity? The phone number for tickets is the school number.

IANAL, but it would seem that if this event is sponsored BY THE SCHOOL, then they have edged into the 'teaching a particular religious viewpoint' territory, even if students are not required to attend.

The Ohio Department of Education says: A Chartered Nonpublic school is a private school that holds a valid charter issued by the state board of education and maintains compliance with the Operating Standards for Ohio's Schools (Ohio Administrative Code 3301-35-12). These schools are not supported by local or state tax dollars and require the family to pay tuition.

The Schilling School for Gifted Children is a not for profit, independent, coeducational institution founded in 1997, chartered by the Ohio Department of Education, and maintaining membership in the Ohio Association of Independent Schools.

If the kids are truly gifted they'll throw stuff at Behe

No more gifts, kids, here's a pseudoscientist!

I don't suppose that it's an April 1 joke, so I have to hope that they're bringing Behe in for an exercise in "spot the confirmation bias, false dilemmas, and assorted other sins against logic."

Otherwise, why bother?

Glen Davidson

I feel I have to mention that it's pretty appalling that they are teaching "gifted" kids to write "the both of them". Their writing program is obviously not up to the "gifted" level.

And I note that they have not a single computer science course in the high school. Maybe they are just a classical science program in the 19th century mode.

Percentage of students with IQs 130-144: 45%
Percentage of students with IQs 145 and above: 55%

How accurately can the IQ of kindergarten age kids be determined? If anyone knows....

Karen S. said: If the kids are truly gifted they'll throw stuff at Behe

Ron Okimoto said:

Karen S. said: If the kids are truly gifted they'll throw stuff at Behe

You mean like questions that he would be embarassed to answer. Something like, Why call it intelligent design when your title suggests that it is just repackaged Christianity? If ID is so wonderful why are controversies about melanic moths more of a scientific controversy than irreducible complexity or any of the rest of the IDiocy? Why doesn't the current switch scam that the IDiots are running not even mention that ID ever existed? The institute that you are a fellow of is selling the switch scam so what is the deal? The Discovery Institute used to claim that ID was their business, but what are they doing today?

TomS said: I suggest questions which are easy to answer (if there is an answer), such as: What happened, when or where, how or why?

eric said:

TomS said: I suggest questions which are easy to answer (if there is an answer), such as: What happened, when or where, how or why?

I do think Ron is onto something when his questions ask about progress though. Your 11th and 12th graders may not just be interested in what ID says, but in how it stacks up as a potential career choice. They are probably thinking about colleges and majors. So given that, a reasonable question for them to ask (albeit a bit sophisticated) would be something like: "Prof. Behe, 20 years ago you claimed to have discovered three irreducibly complex structures. How many more have been discovered in the last 20 years? And what has this research led to in terms of scientific progress?"

I do think Ron is onto something when his questions ask about progress though.

DS said: I would like to came and work in your lab when I graduate, what specific experimental techniques will I need to know? Do you do DNA sequencing? How about microarray analysis? Developmental genetics? How many graduate students do you have working in your lab and what projects are they working on?

Karen S. said:

I do think Ron is onto something when his questions ask about progress though.

Agreed. In 2002, at the ID debate at the American Museum of Natural History, Ken Miller asked the ID people why they had made no progress in their research. Dembski whined that it was all about getting money for research. Well, here we are, 12 years later, and there still has been no progress in ID. A hallmark of pseudoscience is that it makes no progress.

Ron Okimoto said: Why call it intelligent design when your title suggests that it is just repackaged Christianity?

John Harshman said:

Ron Okimoto said: Why call it intelligent design when your title suggests that it is just repackaged Christianity?

I think Ron's on to something here. Behe's title seems to be an admission that ID is just "Creationism Lite".

How's that poof mechanism working out in the lab, Mike? Got a picture or anything yet?

Glen Davidson

And one hears about how there are so many scientists are interested in ID. So many researchers and so many years, and there is so little to show.

Karen S. said: But I think a good question to ask is "How do you control for intelligent designers in experiments?"

Dr Behe, do you still support expanding the definition of science theory in order to include ID?

Dr Behe, did you really say at the Dover trial that if the definition of science theory is broadened, that astrology would also be science theory??? If so, wouldn't that also include "fields" such as alchemy, pyramid power, and weather shamanism?

So, idle curiosity, what actual science does Dr Behe currently do?

daoudmbo said: So, idle curiosity, what actual science does Dr Behe currently do?

Karen S. said:

I do think Ron is onto something when his questions ask about progress though.

Agreed. In 2002, at the ID debate at the American Museum of Natural History, Ken Miller asked the ID people why they had made no progress in their research. Dembski whined that it was all about getting money for research. Well, here we are, 12 years later, and there still has been no progress in ID. A hallmark of pseudoscience is that it makes no progress. On the other hand, true science makes progress sometimes at a dizzying pace. Right in the middle of creating a new pterosaur exhibition for the American Museum of Natural History, the museum artists had to revise some of their models because new research on the animals had come in!

Tenncrain said: Dr Behe, do you still support expanding the definition of science theory in order to include ID? Dr Behe, did you really say at the Dover trial that if the definition of science theory is broadened, that astrology would also be science theory??? If so, wouldn't that also include "fields" such as alchemy, pyramid power, and weather shamanism?

Does the title "The Reasonable Middle Ground of Intelligent Design.” suggest the Discotute is subtly shifting to a new strategy or is it just another way to say "Teach the controversy"?

This seems to say to me "You don't have to commit to either science or creationism, you can have a bet each way with ID!"

“The Reasonable Middle Ground of Intelligent Design" = Maybe sometime in the long-ago past, maybe some being -- deity, alien, whatever -- maybe did some little thing to maybe tinker with evolution a little. Maybe.

The Reasonable Middle Ground of Intelligent Design.

Dr Behe, did you really say at the Dover trial that if the definition of science theory is broadened, that astrology would also be science theory???

"Another misperception came out in the Q&A session. Behe was asked if he believed astrology was science because he had been quoted all over the media as saying astrology would fit in with his definition of science. Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science." -- (from the "Reasonable Kansans" Blog, by blogster "FTK", who attended the lecture. Reprinted in Evolution News and Views, by Casey Luskin, "Michael Behe Speaks in Kansas on Intelligent Design", Dec. 11, 2006.)

Put the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) on the witness stand, and they would admit that 500 years ago, some people would have said that geocentrism qualified under their definition of "theory." In fact, 500 years ago, many of these same people would have put "astrology" under the NAS definition (note: we find this incredible today, but in his time, it was not scandalous that Newton was an astrologer). Today we know both astrology and geocentrism are totally wrong, and so nobody wants them taught as science in school. --Luskin, "500 Years Ago, Geocentrism & Astrology Would have Fit NAS definition of Theory", Oct. 19, 2005. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/500_years_ago_geocentrism_aamp_astrology001085.html

Just Bob said: “The Reasonable Middle Ground of Intelligent Design" = Maybe sometime in the long-ago past, maybe some being -- deity, alien, whatever -- maybe did some little thing to maybe tinker with evolution a little. Maybe.

Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy.

harold said:

Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy.

I believe this is false. I believe he did not state this specifically during the trial. I believe he made no mention of that historical period during the trial. However, if someone shows me that in the trial transcript, he did, I retract this.

harold said:

Just Bob said: “The Reasonable Middle Ground of Intelligent Design" = Maybe sometime in the long-ago past, maybe some being -- deity, alien, whatever -- maybe did some little thing to maybe tinker with evolution a little. Maybe.

Unfortunately, it isn't that.

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

Q. And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster. MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there? A. Yes. Q. And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects." That's the scientific theory of astrology? A. That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community. Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world. And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not; mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory. Q. (Rothschild) I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

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

Kenneth Miller: (Michael Behe) "thinks astrological forces are the intelligent designer." (quoted by Telic Thoughts blog)

So it seems that Behe was wrong. He lied under oath. Astrology was tested and falsified. ID cannot be tested and cannot be falsified. It isn't science, never was, never will be.

Oh and astrology was never a theory. It was at best a failed hypothesis. ID isn't even that. It's worse than astrology. Any intelligent student will realize this immediately and call Behe on his nonsense.

But FL, this is all because based on Behe's definition of scientific theory, which is closer to the definition of scientific hypothesis, astrology and many other "wrong-headed" ideas would be considered scientific theories. What Rothschild was showing is that by Behe's definition even astrology would be considered a scientific concept and not once in his testimony did Behe dispute that.

Furthermore, if we give Behe the benefit of the doubt and accept that he actually meant that astrology was considered science in the middle ages but not now because it has been disproved then ID gets disqualified as science because Behe's examples of irreducible complexity have been disproved. Either that or ID can't be considered science because it makes no testable predictions at all. Take your pick.

Apparently FL doesn’t get the point that astrology isn’t taught in science classes these days. Nor is the phlogiston theory of heat, nor the Ptolemaic theory of the universe. Flat Earthism isn’t offered as an alternative to the shape of the planet on which we live. We don’t waste time on “letting students decide” which historical dead-ended notions about the world around us are true.

We don’t teach faith healing in biology and health courses either. And Unsolved Mysteries is not the go-to source for learning about “science” as it is for FL.

And science students aren’t taught to quote-mine and lift definitions out of context in order to justify a preconceived conclusion. When science instructors want students to understand what a calculation is all about, they assign problems that require the students to do the actual calculations; not just read about them and bend the equations to agree with some narrow sectarian dogma.

Real students are taught about the real world; not about the cloistered, hermetically sealed brain loops that FL lives in.

Creationists are notoriously bad at never moving beyond "hypothesis" stage, and wrongfully assuming that no other "historical science" can ever be more than a hypothesis.

Case in point: me about a decade ago. (Warning: this blog contains offensively high levels of homophobia, classism, ethnicism, conservativism, ideological snobbery, and general misapprehension of science. Read at your own risk. Trigger warnings etc., just in case.)

Two questions for Schilling's students to ask Behe:

1: What is "The Reasonable Middle Ground" between Heliocentric & Geocentric? Between Astronomy & Astrology? Between a flat Earth and a spherical Earth? etc.

2: What parts of the "Wedge Document" does he agree with, disagree with or he would change?

Just Bob said:

harold said:

Just Bob said: “The Reasonable Middle Ground of Intelligent Design" = Maybe sometime in the long-ago past, maybe some being -- deity, alien, whatever -- maybe did some little thing to maybe tinker with evolution a little. Maybe.

Unfortunately, it isn't that.

But that's what it seems to become when one tries to pin them down as to who did what, when. Especially in court.

FL said: In this second exchange, Rothschild goes further, but you'll notice that even Rothschild's attempt at sarcasm (at the very end of the exchange), acknowledges that he understands that indeed the historical period Behe is referring to is the Middle Ages -- NOT today. (Again, emphases mine.)

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct? A Yes. Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct? A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well. Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct? A That is correct. Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct? A Yes, thats correct.

eric said: Here is the part you conveniently forgot:

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct? A Yes. Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct? A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well. Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct? A That is correct. Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct? A Yes, thats correct.

eric said: You skipped completely over the part of the trial transcript where Behe says that. You sin by omission. Here is the part you conveniently forgot:

Just Bob said: What, you mean FL is STILL quotemining from easily-checked sources? And a little checking shows his mined quotes to be gross misrepresentations? Essentially lies? I am quite shocked.

eric said: To be fair, Behe was not trying to give a gross misrepresentation of his views at trial.

Just Bob said: My fault for not being clear. It was FL that I was implying used mined quotes to misrepresent a source, not the source itself (in this case, Behe).

eric said:

Just Bob said: My fault for not being clear. It was FL that I was implying used mined quotes to misrepresent a source, not the source itself (in this case, Behe).

Yeah, I got that. I was taking the long way around to saying I don't know why he's misrepresenting Behe, given that Behe is a cdesign proponentists.

FL said: Additional commentary can be found in a 2005 article by Casey Luskin, at Evolution News and Views: Put the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) on the witness stand, and they would admit that 500 years ago, some people would have said that geocentrism qualified under their definition of “theory.” In fact, 500 years ago, many of these same people would have put “astrology” under the NAS definition (note: we find this incredible today, but in his time, it was not scandalous that Newton was an astrologer). Today we know both astrology and geocentrism are totally wrong, and so nobody wants them taught as science in school. –Luskin, “500 Years Ago, Geocentrism & Astrology Would have Fit NAS definition of Theory”, Oct. 19, 2005. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/500_years_ago_geocentrism_aamp_astrology001085.html

njdowrick said:

FL said: Additional commentary can be found in a 2005 article by Casey Luskin, at Evolution News and Views: Put the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) on the witness stand, and they would admit that 500 years ago, some people would have said that geocentrism qualified under their definition of “theory.” In fact, 500 years ago, many of these same people would have put “astrology” under the NAS definition (note: we find this incredible today, but in his time, it was not scandalous that Newton was an astrologer). Today we know both astrology and geocentrism are totally wrong, and so nobody wants them taught as science in school. –Luskin, “500 Years Ago, Geocentrism & Astrology Would have Fit NAS definition of Theory”, Oct. 19, 2005. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/500_years_ago_geocentrism_aamp_astrology001085.html

FL I was curious about the claim (by Luskin) that Newton was an astrologer - I knew he was into alchemy and (to me) some rather peculiar apocalyptic theology, but "astrology" was new to me. In Luskin's linked article I found a link to a page promisingly called Isaac Newton and Astrology. This page debunks the notion that Newton was interested in astrology. I'm confused. Or someone is.

david.starling.macmillan said: Creationists are notoriously bad at never moving beyond "hypothesis" stage, and wrongfully assuming that no other "historical science" can ever be more than a hypothesis. Case in point: me about a decade ago. (Warning: this blog contains offensively high levels of homophobia, classism, ethnicism, conservativism, ideological snobbery, and general misapprehension of science. Read at your own risk. Trigger warnings etc., just in case.)

Once again, astrology is at best a failed hypothesis, a theory, absolutely not. There is not a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis. It has been falsified every time it has been tested. It has no predictive or explanatory power. It is not, nor has it ever been a "theory" in any rational sense. Behe was just plain wrong. He doesn't even know what a theory is, why is he trying to redefine science for everyone else?

I'm mildly surprised that Newton wasn't an astrologer.

I actually went through a phase of learning about astrology when I was very young. I learned enough that I probably could have practiced as an astrologer, and that was enough to convince me that it doesn't make sense, on a variety of levels.

However, it is actually kind of an interesting and elegant superstition.

Although it clearly fails as a method of divining the future, determining who will be compatible with who, and so on, astrology has a rich intellectual tradition, and did have a strong influence on the very early development of science.

It is extremely insulting to compare a sincere field with a rich tradition, like astrology, to a latter day post-modern failure of a devious court room trick, which is what "intelligent design" represents.

Astrology is worth learning a bit about because it is an interesting part of our human tradition, that has influenced later ideas and inspired some interesting art. ID is worth learning about, in order to be able to help others quickly dismiss it as the tiresome sham that it is.

DS said: Once again, astrology is at best a failed hypothesis, a theory, absolutely not. There is not a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis. It has been falsified every time it has been tested. It has no predictive or explanatory power.

harold said: This lends support to my impression that the use of straw man misrepresentations nearly always suggests cognitive dissonance. You eventually looked at reality with an honest eye and resolved the dissonance. Others usually can’t.

Or Behe is mistaken about the nature of astrology. (I don't know much astrology, so I must, alas, also consider that you may also be mistaken. I am not of many tests of it. I might even believe that it at least appears to attempt to explain something or predict something.)

TomS said: Or Behe is mistaken about the nature of astrology. (I don't know much astrology, so I must, alas, also consider that you may also be mistaken. I am not of many tests of it. I might even believe that it at least appears to attempt to explain something or predict something.)

eric said:

FL said: In this second exchange, Rothschild goes further, but you'll notice that even Rothschild's attempt at sarcasm (at the very end of the exchange), acknowledges that he understands that indeed the historical period Behe is referring to is the Middle Ages -- NOT today. (Again, emphases mine.)

Behe does not (in the trial) say that middle ages astrology would fit into the middle ages definition of a theory. He is saying that middle ages astrology would fit into his, Behe's, 2005 definition of a theory. Just as the ether theory of light would fit into his, Behe's 2005 definition of a theory. You skipped completely over the part of the trial transcript where Behe says that. You sin by omission. Here is the part you conveniently forgot:

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct? A Yes. Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct? A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well. Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct? A That is correct. Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct? A Yes, thats correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct? A Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

j. biggs said:

harold said:

Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy.

I believe this is false. I believe he did not state this specifically during the trial. I believe he made no mention of that historical period during the trial. However, if someone shows me that in the trial transcript, he did, I retract this.

You can find Behe's testimony about astrology as science here starting page 38 line 15 and ending around page 42 line 8. There is some truth to the Behe quote FL provided, but towards the end of Behe's testimony it becomes apparent that his trial testimony about astrology as science differed from his deposition. In other words he was equivocal about it and his trial testimony was more of an afterthought. Either way this line of reasoning was a loser for Behe because if astrology is no longer considered a scientific theory because it was disproved then neither should ID be considered a scientific theory.

TomS said: Or Behe is mistaken about the nature of astrology. (I don't know much astrology, so I must, alas, also consider that you may also be mistaken. I am not of many tests of it. I might even believe that it at least appears to attempt to explain something or predict something.)

It could be said that the scientific method as we know it today did not really exist until the Age of Enlightenment. To be sure, there were indeed bits and pieces of the scientific method prior to the Enlightenment (and there were certainly individuals that used these bits and pieces in an attempt to gain new knowledge). However, these bits and pieces were not really in one package. Therefore, it was not uncommon before the Enlightenment for "scientists" to, for example, simultaneously practice both astronomy and astrology.

But once the Age of Enlightenment finally arrived with the basic scientific method that we use today, astrology and other pseudosciences rather quickly became visible only in science's rear view mirror. Still, a few bits of alchemy were able to be passed on to the modern science of chemistry, which is why alchemy might be considered to be at least somewhat of a protoscience as well as a pseudoscience. But it's much harder to see how astrology has been any benefit to astromony and cosmology.

As Eric and others so well pointed out (and FL is unable/unwilling to comprehend), Behe was trying to force Middle Ages astrology into his (Behe's) 2005 version of science theory, something that backfired very badly on Behe no matter how much the DI tries to spin the story. But this was one of only many ways that Behe hurt himself during the Kitzmiller trial. As many of us know, Behe conceded that he was unfamiliar with more than a little of the mainstream science literature about research into the evolution of blood clotting and of the immune system (during cross examination, the plaintiffs stacked so much of this science literature around the witness stand that Behe almost literally disappeared from view!). Also, the plaintiffs (with the help of PT's very own Nick Matzke who was a science advisor for the plantiffs during the Dover trial [thanks Nick!] and with Behe's reluctant cooperation) went through a step by step review of Behe's own math calculations that questioned protein evolution; the plaintiffs showed Behe's prior and unchallenged results to be embarrassingly inept. Not to mention that the plaintiffs showed that an individual that did a "peer review" of Behe's book Darwin's Black Box had not even read Behe's book!

In a way, one might feel a little sorry on how Behe got pasted during the Kitzmiller trial, as he is described as very likeable even by his critics and he rejects many tenents of YECism. But Behe still made his own bed and now he has to lie down in it.

Perhaps this was one reason why the likes of Henry Morris and Duane Gish were not direct participants in "creation science" court cases such as McLean v. Arkansas in 1982.

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

david.starling.macmillan said:

harold said (to David): This lends support to my impression that the use of straw man misrepresentations nearly always suggests cognitive dissonance. You eventually looked at reality with an honest eye and resolved the dissonance. Others usually can’t.

There was cognitive dissonance, yes...but it was mostly just a HUGE amount of categorically inaccurate information I'd been given.

Tenncrain said: Even during my YEC years, I would often feel a bit guilty about running away from contrary scientific evidence when it would start to overwhelm me. Whether I admitted I didn't know or if I didn't hint that I was overwhelmed while changing the subject, I would still feel uncomfortable that I didn't have an answer. In contrast, some anti-evolutionists (including PT's trolls, sadly including some relatives of mine) don't seem to have the least bit of guilty conscience about ignoring scientific evidence and then later bringing back their refuted evidence as if it has never been addressed.

Tenncrain said: But once the Age of Enlightenment finally arrived with the basic scientific method that we use today, astrology and other pseudosciences rather quickly became visible only in science's rear view mirror. Still, a few bits of alchemy were able to be passed on to the modern science of chemistry, which is why alchemy might be considered to be at least somewhat of a protoscience as well as a pseudoscience. But it's much harder to see how astrology has been any benefit to astromony and cosmology.

FL said: It's now clear that somebody somewhere (the secular media, the evolutionists, actually BOTH of them) did some quote-mining and misrepresentation, when they bandied about that Behe was claiming that astrology was science.

FL said: Quick example:

Kenneth Miller: (Michael Behe) "thinks astrological forces are the intelligent designer." (quoted by Telic Thoughts blog)

Tenncrain said: In my case, I had to unlearn what I had absorbed from ICR Impact articles and other publications from the ICR that came to the mailbox. Had to unlearn the psuedoscience I had absorbed in Sunday School. I alternated between public schools and fundamentalist private schools with my family moving a couple of times, but while I had to unlearn the "science" from my fundamentalist parochial school education, public school science was not exactly helpful at times - I don't recall the word evolution being mentioned even once.

But as an example of cognitive dissonance, I remember during my freshman year of university having a somewhat heated email discussion with an evolutionist (before I took my geology course that was the beginning of the end of my YECism). I bragged how Duane Gish always thoroughly whipped his evolutionist opponents. I got a reply that had a link on how Gish had been humiliated during a 1988 debate with biologist Ken Saladin at Auburn University. I actually had trouble comprehending how my hero Gish could have been defeated and even how Gish was shown to have lied (even though YECs in the audience were turned off by Gish's dishonesty), so I deleted the link after only giving it a quick scan and didn't even mention the link in my return email. It was much later that I finally found the courage to read in detail about that Auburn debate.

Even during my YEC years, I would often feel a bit guilty about running away from contrary scientific evidence when it would start to overwhelm me. Whether I admitted I didn't know or if I didn't hint that I was overwhelmed while changing the subject, I would still feel uncomfortable that I didn't have an answer.

Virtually 100% of activity by “ID advocates” consists of denial of the theory of evolution. There is no rationale for ID/creationism except as a method to promote creationist evolution denial, while disguising specific religious content in a futile effort to evade court challenges.

Rolf said: Harold said:

Virtually 100% of activity by “ID advocates” consists of denial of the theory of evolution. There is no rationale for ID/creationism except as a method to promote creationist evolution denial, while disguising specific religious content in a futile effort to evade court challenges.

Well said. Almost to the word it sums up my own conclusion after many years following the debate and studying the arguments and evidence put forth both by evolutionary science, and the arguments of the opposition. I can feel a contrary wind, none of the bold predictions for the future of ID have materialized and no signs of a future for ID looms on the horizon. Facts have a tendency to perforate incredulity.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

FL said: Quick example:

Kenneth Miller: (Michael Behe) "thinks astrological forces are the intelligent designer." (quoted by Telic Thoughts blog)

Could you link to Hunter's blog where he quotes Ken Miller saying this please?

david.starling.macmillan said: Creationists are notoriously bad at never moving beyond "hypothesis" stage, and wrongfully assuming that no other "historical science" can ever be more than a hypothesis. Case in point: me about a decade ago. (Warning: this blog contains offensively high levels of homophobia, classism, ethnicism, conservativism, ideological snobbery, and general misapprehension of science. Read at your own risk. Trigger warnings etc., just in case.)

Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being.

“Facts have a tendency to perforate incredulity.” I love that. Can I use that?

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

FL said: Quick example:

Kenneth Miller: (Michael Behe) "thinks astrological forces are the intelligent designer." (quoted by Telic Thoughts blog)

Could you link to Hunter's blog where he quotes Ken Miller saying this please?

SWT said: He can't, of course, apparently for two reasons. First, Telic Thoughts seems to have gone dark. Second, because the quoted text seems to be from one of the comments on a post about a presentation by Miller. I don't seem to be able to post the URL, but if you do a Yahoo search using the terms: miller "astrological forces" "intelligent designer" you should see a link to the cached version of page where the quoted text appears. On the cached page, look at comment 15. If Miller actually said this in the presentation, FL need only provide a link to the presentation itself and the time at which Miller said this.

BoZ3MaN Says: January 5th, 2006 at 10:13 pm Perhaps Behe thinks that 'astrological forces' are the intelligent designer -molding the first living watchamthingys into existence and then intervening at regular intervals (eyes, immune system, knee joints?)- doesn't sound that much more ridiculous than regular ID, does it? Think about it. This determines the 'designer' to be at least somewhat natural in causation, and removes any any of religious motivations from the playing field. Astrological Design -because reading your Horoscope is more exciting than doing actual science. Comment by BoZ3MaN — January 5th, 2006 at 10:13 pm

Unless of course Ken Miller actually is “BoZ3MaN” and really digs Marilyn Manson. I'd hate to misrepresent him. Anybody here ever seen Miller's favorites playlist ?

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said: Unless of course Ken Miller actually is “BoZ3MaN” and really digs Marilyn Manson. I'd hate to misrepresent him. Anybody here ever seen Miller's favorites playlist ?

The default assumption for any quote supplied by FL now must be that it's invalid.

It may be a quotemine that violently misrepresents the view of the author.

It may be edited to drastically alter the author's meaning.

It may be a third-hand comment by someone with no firsthand knowledge to report what someone else said.

It may be taken from a larger context which includes material that completely invalidates the point FL thinks he is making, and FL either didn't read all of it, didn't understand it, or deliberately misrepresented it.

Or, most likely, he got the quote from a YEC source guilty of any or all of the above -- and FL took their word for it, because, of course, they're Good Christians.

The default, after much experience, must be guilty until proven innocent.

And are "astrological forces", even if not suggested tongue in cheek, so insulting to the "aliens from Alpha Centauri" etc.?

david.starling.macmillan said:

Rolf said: Harold said:

Virtually 100% of activity by “ID advocates” consists of denial of the theory of evolution. There is no rationale for ID/creationism except as a method to promote creationist evolution denial, while disguising specific religious content in a futile effort to evade court challenges.

Well said. Almost to the word it sums up my own conclusion after many years following the debate and studying the arguments and evidence put forth both by evolutionary science, and the arguments of the opposition. I can feel a contrary wind, none of the bold predictions for the future of ID have materialized and no signs of a future for ID looms on the horizon. Facts have a tendency to perforate incredulity.

I also look at ID as a system of science denialism similar to climate change denial, moon landing denial, Holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, free energy nutters, and so forth. There will always be people who feel compelled to claim skepticism about the scientific consensus simply because they can. While the main proponents of ID are clearly religiously-motivated, this is another component that can't be ignored. "Facts have a tendency to perforate incredulity." I love that. Can I use that?

harold said: It's not associated with an aggressive political ideology.

The default assumption for any quote supplied by FL now must be that it’s invalid.

A leading proponent of Intelligent Design, Michael Behe has been testifying in the Dover, Pennsylvania trial over whether Intelligent Design should be taught in public school. It's not uncommon for critics of Intelligent Design to compare it to astrology - should astrology be taught in science classes alongside astronomy? Behe may not think think that's a bad idea. --Austin Cline (atheist), "Michael Behe: Astrology Is A Scientific Theory", Oct. 21, 2005. http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/10/21/michael-behe-astrology-is-a-scientific-theory.htm

harold said: People always accept reality denial because of self-serving biases, but there are two distinct major types of widespread science denial ideas. One type is the type that is considered to be part of a broader ideology. ID/creationism, climate change denial, and to a somewhat lesser extent HIV denial, cigarettes/health denial, and increasingly, vaccine denial, are associated with the broader post-modern "conservative movement" ideology. (They picked up on vaccine denial because of Gardisil, if anyone is wondering.)

I see so many posts that are critical of Dr. Behe. And that's predictable in Pandaville, no problemo. Two-Minute-Hate-Session, straight outta Orwell. Good for the (Panda) Party.

But even as I read these Panda posts, the fact is that Behe's visit will turn out just fine anyway, and yet another multitude of students will walk away learning, understanding, and accepting the basics of Intelligent Design.

Seeds get planted, and paradigm shifts get sprouted.

I can tell you this much, from having interviewed him personally (yes, I did, back in 2000 or so):

Dr. Michael Behe is not a boring scientist.

When Behe speaks, he speaks in a friendly yet interesting manner -- it is NOT difficult to simply sit and listen and soak up his explanations.

He makes science easy and fascinating. He makes Intelligent Design easy and fascinating. The Schilling students likely won't fall asleep on him. They'll remember his message, and they'll remember the phrase "intelligent design" every time they use a microscope or visit the zoo.

And that's what it is all about. Planting seeds of change. Paradigm-Shift on the installment plan.

There's really nothing wrong with evolving the death of the Theory of Evolution.

In fact, it sounds like a fun and exciting pastime!

FL

So Behe claimed, under oath, that ID is science in exactly the same way that astrology is science. He was wrong about that. The reason that he claimed this was presumably because he thought that ID should be taught as science. But since astrology isn't taught as science, he had no valid point to make, And even if he thought he did, he was still wrong. And that's that.

ID is not science, never was, never will be. To try to claim that it is is just playing dishonest word games. The judge saw right through his attempted dishonesty. ID was expelled one again, the rest is all sour grapes.

Time for a dump to the bathroom wall. The troll has once again outworn his welcome.

FL said: I have no problem with retracting the Ken Miller quote if he didn't actually say it. Sincere thanks to those who worked on checking it out.

Just Bob said:

harold said: It's not associated with an aggressive political ideology.

I think that's what you intended.

FL said: ...the basics of Intelligent Design...

daoudmbo said:

harold said: People always accept reality denial because of self-serving biases, but there are two distinct major types of widespread science denial ideas. One type is the type that is considered to be part of a broader ideology. ID/creationism, climate change denial, and to a somewhat lesser extent HIV denial, cigarettes/health denial, and increasingly, vaccine denial, are associated with the broader post-modern "conservative movement" ideology. (They picked up on vaccine denial because of Gardisil, if anyone is wondering.)

Interesting about vaccine denial, I'm Canadian, and almost all the vaccine denial I see is from far left, tree-huggin', mother-Gaia types. But I am familiar with the HPV anti-sex panic in the US. Makes you wonder, you know if there was a 100% guaranteed, safe, anti-HIV vaccine created, but it had to be administered before the age of 13 for it to be effective, they'd all be up in arms about it. I think you could modify your list to include sex denial (of which Gardisil-panic is a symptom of, as is the whole anti-free-contraception-as-part-of-health-insurance-panic).

far left, tree-huggin', mother-Gaia types

FL said: I see so many posts that are critical of Dr. Behe. And that's predictable in Pandaville, no problemo. Two-Minute-Hate-Session, straight outta Orwell. Good for the (Panda) Party. But even as I read these Panda posts, the fact is that Behe's visit will turn out just fine anyway, and yet another multitude of students will walk away learning, understanding, and accepting the basics of Intelligent Design. Seeds get planted, and paradigm shifts get sprouted. I can tell you this much, from having interviewed him personally (yes, I did, back in 2000 or so):

Dr. Michael Behe is not a boring scientist.

When Behe speaks, he speaks in a friendly yet interesting manner -- it is NOT difficult to simply sit and listen and soak up his explanations. He makes science easy and fascinating. He makes Intelligent Design easy and fascinating. The Schilling students likely won't fall asleep on him. They'll remember his message, and they'll remember the phrase "intelligent design" every time they use a microscope or visit the zoo. And that's what it is all about. Planting seeds of change. Paradigm-Shift on the installment plan.

There's really nothing wrong with evolving the death of the Theory of Evolution. In fact, it sounds like a fun and exciting pastime! FL

I see so many posts that are critical of Dr. Behe. And that’s predictable in Pandaville, no problemo. Two-Minute-Hate-Session, straight outta Orwell. Good for the (Panda) Party.

I don't hate Behe. Indeed, I'm rather sorry for him

Now the imaginary monster god that FL fears, him I hate (but only in the sense that I hate other evil fictional characters).

He makes science easy and fascinating.

Matt Young said:

He makes science easy and fascinating.

I have never met Professor Behe nor heard him speak (we were supposed to appear together at a conference in 2001, shortly after the attack on the World Trade Center, but he did not attend). Long ago, however, I read Darwin's Black Box, and I thought at the time, "This guy explains things clearly and enthusiastically, and really makes science exciting – but then he spoils it with all the intelligent-design crap." It is tragic that apparently competent scientists occasionally get sucked in and start practicing pseudoscience.

harold said: Vaccine hysteria seems to have originated among affluent, type A people who have children with genuinely severe neurologic or behavioral disorders. They looked for something to blame, came up with a "post hoc ero propter hoc" explanation, and self-serving quacks saw opportunity and jumped in to exploit this.

DS said: Time for a dump to the bathroom wall. The troll has once again outworn his welcome.

Can you also, Lucullus, affirm that there is any power united with wisdom and prudence which has made, or, to use your own expression, manufactured man? What sort of a manufacture is that? Where is it exercised? when? why? how? Cicero Academica II (Lucullus) XXVII, 87.

AltairIV said:

harold said: Vaccine hysteria seems to have originated among affluent, type A people who have children with genuinely severe neurologic or behavioral disorders. They looked for something to blame, came up with a "post hoc ero propter hoc" explanation, and self-serving quacks saw opportunity and jumped in to exploit this.

I think it mostly happened the other way around, actually. As I understand it, the anti-vaccine movement, in the modern form at least, really started with Andrew Wakefield and his 1998 study attempting to show a link between MMR vaccines and autism. Although his work has now been thoroughly discredited, he's been stripped of his medical licenses, and there's evidence that he was at least partially motivated by payouts from lawyers looking to manufacture a new litigation niche, the damage has been done. Once the concept got out into the public sphere it was immediately adopted, and expanded on, by various conspiracy-minded types and parents with autistic children looking for something to blame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

harold said: People always accept reality denial because of self-serving biases, but there are two distinct major types of widespread science denial ideas. One type is the type that is considered to be part of a broader ideology. ID/creationism, climate change denial, and to a somewhat lesser extent HIV denial, cigarettes/health denial, and increasingly, vaccine denial, are associated with the broader post-modern "conservative movement" ideology. (They picked up on vaccine denial because of Gardisil, if anyone is wondering.) Climate change denial is required to conform to the movement. People who wish to identify with the movement are not required to personally, directly deny evolution, but must pander to evolution denial with pap about "the jury is still out" or "equal time" at a very minimum, and evolution denial is preferable. HIV and cigarette denial are slowly dying off but are still strongly associated with this political movement.

harold said: You may be right or we may both be right. My impression was that Andrew Wakefield jumped on and hyped up already extant, if at that time limited, hysteria about vaccines and autism spectrum.

david.starling.macmillan said:

harold said: People always accept reality denial because of self-serving biases, but there are two distinct major types of widespread science denial ideas. One type is the type that is considered to be part of a broader ideology. ID/creationism, climate change denial, and to a somewhat lesser extent HIV denial, cigarettes/health denial, and increasingly, vaccine denial, are associated with the broader post-modern "conservative movement" ideology. (They picked up on vaccine denial because of Gardisil, if anyone is wondering.) Climate change denial is required to conform to the movement. People who wish to identify with the movement are not required to personally, directly deny evolution, but must pander to evolution denial with pap about "the jury is still out" or "equal time" at a very minimum, and evolution denial is preferable. HIV and cigarette denial are slowly dying off but are still strongly associated with this political movement.

I agree completely. However, I would also contend that the irrational "skepticisms" of this political movement would not be granted even passing public acceptance if not for the broader, less ideological generalized skepticism in the United States. Thanks to the vaccine scare via Gardisil, I'm now beginning to see a lot more overlap between the conservative science deniers and the more liberal ones. Opposition to vaccines, opposition to GMOs, and allegations of conspiracy theories are getting support from both political extremes. I suspect that's partly what makes creationism (or at least ID) seem more reasonable to the average layperson than it otherwise would, even if that particular individual isn't part of the conservative political subculture.

My wife was recently going through a list of the most popular conspiracy theories on a forum she's part of. GMOs are evil, GMOs cause cancer, the moon landing was faked, cancer cures pop up routinely and are suppressed by the government, vaccines cause autism, vaccines don't cause autism but they cause a zillion other maladies, 9/11 was an inside job, the Boston Marathon Bombing was an inside job, the US government stole the Malaysian plane, chemtrails are poisoning us, Jews control the banking system, Roswell was real, climate change is a hoax, global warming is caused by HAARP, and many more.

I wonder how many of those started out as far-left and how many of them started out as far-right. I also wonder whether purchase into any of those ideas has shifted across the political aisle since their inception.

I think we need a vaccine for the "it's cool to be overly 'skeptical' of everything" virus. Unfortunately, none of them would ever take it.

harold said:

AltairIV said:

harold said: Vaccine hysteria seems to have originated among affluent, type A people who have children with genuinely severe neurologic or behavioral disorders. They looked for something to blame, came up with a "post hoc ero propter hoc" explanation, and self-serving quacks saw opportunity and jumped in to exploit this.

I think it mostly happened the other way around, actually. As I understand it, the anti-vaccine movement, in the modern form at least, really started with Andrew Wakefield and his 1998 study attempting to show a link between MMR vaccines and autism. Although his work has now been thoroughly discredited, he's been stripped of his medical licenses, and there's evidence that he was at least partially motivated by payouts from lawyers looking to manufacture a new litigation niche, the damage has been done. Once the concept got out into the public sphere it was immediately adopted, and expanded on, by various conspiracy-minded types and parents with autistic children looking for something to blame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

You may be right or we may both be right. My impression was that Andrew Wakefield jumped on and hyped up already extant, if at that time limited, hysteria about vaccines and autism spectrum. A thorough investigation of pre-1998 roots of vaccine hysteria would be worthwhile but beyond what I can do right now. Whether Wakefield outright invented it, or whether the other ingredients were already there and he was a catalyst and exploiter, I can't completely say, but I strongly suspect the latter. What I can say is that the term "the left", although rendered useless by decades of propaganda misuse, usually refers either (correctly) to authoritarian Marxists, or else (incorrectly in my view) to people with aesthetic styles and group slogans reminiscent of the "hippie movement", or else (even more incorrectly) to buttoned down nerds like me who happen to support strong respect for human rights and a free but humane and intelligently regulated economic system (i.e. who support more or less the exact opposite of Soviet or Maoist style communism). None of these groups had anything to do with the origin of vaccine denial, and members of the third group tend to be the strongest opponents of vaccine denial, so we can safely dismiss any claim that it is associated with "the left", even if we allow the definition of "the left" to be set by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. (For completeness, the biomedical science community is guilty of creating a great deal of confusion around the use of the term "autism" In the fairly recent past, "autism" referred to a set of severe neurological and behavioral issues. Now we define "autism spectrum" in a way that allows up to one child in 68 to receive the diagnosis (according to the CDC). Fortunately, most people who fall on the "spectrum" have minimal or mild issues. This is very confusing to the public, who still understand the term "autism" to refer to the most severe end of the spectrum. While severe autism may or may not be increasing, loosening the diagnostic criteria creates the false impression that one in 68 children has severe autism, which would be a major crisis if true, but which is not true. I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist (although I came close to being each at various times years ago), but I think this shift in terminology could have, in retrospect, been handled in a way less confusing to the public. This part of my comment is off topic. The fact that ID/creationism is associated with the Fox/Limbaugh/Republican party ideology is highly on topic, and the fact that vaccine denial is increasingly also, and not associated with opponents of that movement is on topic. However discussions of the diagnosis of autism are a little far astray. Therefore I will include this one paragraph for completeness, and urge others not to go off on a tangent about this.)

Helena Constantine -

Many thanks, those are excellent sources. I was actually aware of some of this, but had forgotten the DPT vaccine issues.

Although there is little evidence that small amounts of thimersol were harmful, its removal was not an anti-vaccine policy. Thimersol had nothing to do with the efficacy of the vaccines. The production of thimersol does generate mercury pollution, so even if it wasn't harmful in the vaccines, there is a rational benefit to reducing its use. There was some downside, too, but that policy was neither anti-vaccine, nor totally irrational.

The primary source of modern anti-vaccine hysteria has always been relatively affluent parents of children who develop severe neurological/behavioral problems around the time of vaccination.

Rare conditions which cause a child who seemed health as an infant to deteriorate later are terribly traumatic to parents. Affluent parents have an exaggerated expectation that their children will be perfect. Society shares that expectation and people in trailer parks are also more shocked when they hear about an affluent child with such problems, than if their neighbor's child has such problems. This was the invariant source of vaccine hysteria; the parents involved may have been "liberal" or "conservative", but they were affluent, ambitious, and devastated by unexpected health problems in their children.

The new difference is the introduction of Gardisil, which, since it is intended to protect against an STD, has provoked right wing opposition, and by extension, attracted right wingers to the anti-vaccine movement.

CHALLENGE TO EVERYONE - This is somewhat relevant - let's define "progressive" political parties those which endorse human rights, democratic institutions, and humane economic policies. For example the Democratic or Green party of the United States, the NDP or Liberal Party of Canada, the Labor Party of the UK, etc. Can anyone show me an example, anywhere in the world, of any such party, sufficiently organized to even run a candidate in an election, not even win just run a candidate, that officially endorses doing away with vaccination, and/or teaching vaccine denial as science in public schools?

This is relevant because the US Republican Party really does endorse climate change denial, endorse or pander to evolution denial, and really did deny cigarette risks and really does oppose strong health warnings on cigarette packs to this day. False equivalence is often used as an excuse for supporting a party with these science denial tendencies. "The liberals are just as bad on some other science issue". I call Bullpoop. Are "the liberals" just as bad? Are "the liberals" promoting anti-vaccine public policy? I CHALLENGE any reader to give me even one minor example of this, one example of a political party reasonably described as progressive that official endorses vaccine denial. I'm not saying it can't be done; maybe it can, but I'm interested in seeing how people respond.

There are many individual "liberals" who hold many irrational and anti-scientific beliefs, but the key difference is, the US right wing advocates anti-science policy in an organized way.

Harold may be over-optimistic in his categorization of the Democrats that British Labor party.

He is also fairly optimistic about the characterization of the Canadian Liberal party, though the Canadian liberals are a swinging party (not intended the way those 2 words sound together :) ) It swings from centre to centre-left, though I would say mostly on the centre-left (and very progressive under Trudeau the Elder and now Trudeau the Younger).

There are definitely some in the Green Party in Canada who are anti-vaccine, but I am having trouble finding their official position on it. Now I am not saying any of these parties are as destructive as the American GOP (especially these days). And referring to an earlier reply from Harold, I would describe myself as very left-wing Canadian :) I view "right-left" characterization almost the opposite of Harold, Harold stated he think the most correct application of "far left" is a communist command-economy. Funny, I think that as an American stereotype (and I'm sure that there are many Americans who would consider me practically a communist). The right-left characterization did not begin with capitalism-communism, and to look at extremes of 20th century "far right" and "far left", i.e. Hitler/Stalin, they had so much more in common than either did with the political framework of the US, the major problem with both ideologies is totalitarian control by the state, and the state being everything while the individual is nothing. It is a pet peeve of mine that the "left" (as characterized by right-wing Americans) is automatically associated or identified as communist.

Back to your challenge, for Canada, I could argue that the NDP-Green Party-Liberals are just as bad as the American GOP, *because* they are remaining hideously stubborn in their refusal to merge or at least work together, thereby splitting the vote so much, we have #$% Stephen Harper with uncontested majority power with *only 30% of the vote*!!!! I believe Harper and his government is the worst in Canada's history by a huge margin, that he is like having Dick Cheney be president with full control of Congress/Senate/Supreme Court. He is only restrained by Canadians, as a whole, being on average further left than Americans are, as a whole, and Canada not having the same power and influence as the US (e.g. as much as he is a religious fanatic and would love to persecute homosexuals and ban abortion, he knows they are complete non-starters with Canadians now, he is Machiavellian to the core, if I was of a literal religious bent, I would say he's the devil!). But he has complete majority power with 30% of the vote, because the liberals/NDP/Green Party enable him. If they, or at least the liberals and NDP merged and formed a new party, they would win a majority easy and Canada would be government by a progressive centre-left party.

Well, that's my ranting done for now :)

Just wanted to let people know that the Schilling high school kids basically schooled Behe last night. They presented all the arguments against his work and he had no new responses. Basically he's still spouting the same stuff he was in 2006 even, at one point, becoming so desperate under the scrutiny of the high school group that he eventually claimed that any order in nature is proof of a designer. From all accounts (I was not there but spoke to two of the high school kids) it bordered on pathetic.

Eric Boltz said: Just wanted to let people know that the Schilling high school kids basically schooled Behe last night. They presented all the arguments against his work and he had no new responses. Basically he's still spouting the same stuff he was in 2006 even, at one point, becoming so desperate under the scrutiny of the high school group that he eventually claimed that any order in nature is proof of a designer. From all accounts (I was not there but spoke to two of the high school kids) it bordered on pathetic.

Eric Boltz said: Just wanted to let people know that the Schilling high school kids basically schooled Behe last night. They presented all the arguments against his work and he had no new responses. Basically he's still spouting the same stuff he was in 2006 even, at one point, becoming so desperate under the scrutiny of the high school group that he eventually claimed that any order in nature is proof of a designer. From all accounts (I was not there but spoke to two of the high school kids) it bordered on pathetic.

Eric Boltz said: Just wanted to let people know that the Schilling high school kids basically schooled Behe last night. They presented all the arguments against his work and he had no new responses. Basically he's still spouting the same stuff he was in 2006 even, at one point, becoming so desperate under the scrutiny of the high school group that he eventually claimed that any order in nature is proof of a designer. From all accounts (I was not there but spoke to two of the high school kids) it bordered on pathetic.

Eric Boltz said: Just wanted to let people know that the Schilling high school kids basically schooled Behe last night. They presented all the arguments against his work and he had no new responses. Basically he's still spouting the same stuff he was in 2006 even, at one point, becoming so desperate under the scrutiny of the high school group that he eventually claimed that any order in nature is proof of a designer. From all accounts (I was not there but spoke to two of the high school kids) it bordered on pathetic.

Apparently he actually used the phrase "if it walks like a duck" as evidence that we see inherent design a priori. Simply stunning. My daughter apparently almost monopolized the microphone and was literally laughing at his responses.

Eric Boltz said: Just wanted to let people know that the Schilling high school kids basically schooled Behe last night. They presented all the arguments against his work and he had no new responses. Basically he's still spouting the same stuff he was in 2006 even, at one point, becoming so desperate under the scrutiny of the high school group that he eventually claimed that any order in nature is proof of a designer. From all accounts (I was not there but spoke to two of the high school kids) it bordered on pathetic.

Maybe if he hears it from high school students Behe will get the message. Apparently hearing it from a judge didn't register. No one is buying his crap.

I almost feel like we need some kind of "here's how the scientific process operates, why don't we all work together to submit a sample paper to such-and-such a journal" class in high school.

Eric Boltz said: Apparently he actually used the phrase "if it walks like a duck" as evidence that we see inherent design a priori.

Eric Boltz said: Just wanted to let people know that the Schilling high school kids basically schooled Behe last night. They presented all the arguments against his work and he had no new responses. Basically he's still spouting the same stuff he was in 2006 even, at one point, becoming so desperate under the scrutiny of the high school group that he eventually claimed that any order in nature is proof of a designer. From all accounts (I was not there but spoke to two of the high school kids) it bordered on pathetic.

Helena Constantine said: Harold may be over-optimistic in his categorization of the Democrats that British Labor party.

daoudmbo said: He is also fairly optimistic about the characterization of the Canadian Liberal party, though the Canadian liberals are a swinging party (not intended the way those 2 words sound together :) ) It swings from centre to centre-left, though I would say mostly on the centre-left (and very progressive under Trudeau the Elder and now Trudeau the Younger). There are definitely some in the Green Party in Canada who are anti-vaccine, but I am having trouble finding their official position on it. Now I am not saying any of these parties are as destructive as the American GOP (especially these days). And referring to an earlier reply from Harold, I would describe myself as very left-wing Canadian :) I view "right-left" characterization almost the opposite of Harold, Harold stated he think the most correct application of "far left" is a communist command-economy. Funny, I think that as an American stereotype (and I'm sure that there are many Americans who would consider me practically a communist). The right-left characterization did not begin with capitalism-communism, and to look at extremes of 20th century "far right" and "far left", i.e. Hitler/Stalin, they had so much more in common than either did with the political framework of the US, the major problem with both ideologies is totalitarian control by the state, and the state being everything while the individual is nothing. It is a pet peeve of mine that the "left" (as characterized by right-wing Americans) is automatically associated or identified as communist. Back to your challenge, for Canada, I could argue that the NDP-Green Party-Liberals are just as bad as the American GOP, *because* they are remaining hideously stubborn in their refusal to merge or at least work together, thereby splitting the vote so much, we have #$% Stephen Harper with uncontested majority power with *only 30% of the vote*!!!! I believe Harper and his government is the worst in Canada's history by a huge margin, that he is like having Dick Cheney be president with full control of Congress/Senate/Supreme Court. He is only restrained by Canadians, as a whole, being on average further left than Americans are, as a whole, and Canada not having the same power and influence as the US (e.g. as much as he is a religious fanatic and would love to persecute homosexuals and ban abortion, he knows they are complete non-starters with Canadians now, he is Machiavellian to the core, if I was of a literal religious bent, I would say he's the devil!). But he has complete majority power with 30% of the vote, because the liberals/NDP/Green Party enable him. If they, or at least the liberals and NDP merged and formed a new party, they would win a majority easy and Canada would be government by a progressive centre-left party. Well, that's my ranting done for now :)

david.starling.macmillan said: I almost feel like we need some kind of "here's how the scientific process operates, why don't we all work together to submit a sample paper to such-and-such a journal" class in high school.

Tenncrain said: Lets also do a better job of teaching the basics of the scientific method itself, even in early grade school. I was still a YEC during my sophmore year in (secular) university when I took intro geology about a decade ago. My excellent professor not only presented an intro to geology on the first day of class. He also provided a basic tutorial on what science really is (and isn't) and how science works. Although this new info about science was a bit puzzling at first, I ulimately learned more about science itself from that geology class than all classes beforehand combined. However, it's unfortunate that it took until college for this to happen. Instead, I have had to unlearn from my well-meaning but very one-sided fundamentalist teachers in parochial school and my at times indifferent public school teachers.

Whats so bad about having Behe speak? Having graduated from schilling myself I can tell you that almost everyone there is a skeptic of almost anything they hear. There is nothing wrong with having multiple viewpoints on an issue, rather it'd be worse to only present one side(in this case I'm referring to Bill Nye). If you only invite one side to the table then you get an incomplete picture. Listening to someone you disagree with isn't gonna hurt anything.

By that logic, Bennigan, they should also invite flat-earthers and anti-vaxers to speak.

It's not a question of "disagreeing". It's just science versus crypto-creationism.

Get a grip.

Bennigan Kelch said: Whats so bad about having Behe speak? Having graduated from schilling myself I can tell you that almost everyone there is a skeptic of almost anything they hear. There is nothing wrong with having multiple viewpoints on an issue, rather it'd be worse to only present one side(in this case I'm referring to Bill Nye). If you only invite one side to the table then you get an incomplete picture. Listening to someone you disagree with isn't gonna hurt anything.

And, it should be pointed out that, when advocates of ID are given space and time to present their alternative, all they can do is "go negative". There is no alternative account about what happened, when or where, why or how. In their books and on their blogs, all they say is that "maybe something, somehow is wrong with evolution". Ask an advocate of ID to describe how things turned as they are, rather any of the infinity of things intelligent designers could have done. Ask for an example, even an hypothetical example, of something that ID could not do, so that we at least a chance of seeing what what difference it makes. Ask for why the human body bears more similarities with those of chimps and other apes (why is the human eye a standard vertebrate eye, rather than eye like an octopus or an insect) - is there no particular reason ("pure chance"), is it because the intelligent designers were constrained by the materials they were given to work with, or is it because there was common purpose that they were working toward, or what?

Its not a waste of valuable teaching time if the speaker comes after school hours. It's simply a volunteer speaker. As far as proven to be wrong, I'm not sure of Behe's specific take on inteligent design, but there is nothing out there I am aware of that precludes evolution and intelligent design. Do I think the designer was a cosmic superman? Probably not, but a suffciently advanced alien species sure, why not? The speaker isn't coming in and saying his take is fact, or even if he is then you'd be stupid for believing him at his word. What he should be saying is this is the way that he thinks makes the most sense, and then gives his evidence.

There's a bit of a difference between flat-earthers and intelligent design. One topic can be disproven rather easily, by looking at the earth. Anti-vaxers would be a little more grey for me personally, but I would at least be willing to listen to their side and judge whether it has any merit for myself, even given that I'm rather sure it doesn't.

Science, as far as I was taught, is supposed to take every proposed idea and test its merits. Perhaps Behe specifically wasn't a good choice, I'm not familiar enough with his ideas to comment in that respect, but theres nothing wrong with giving the students a chance to evaluate his claims for themselves. If they(and by extension others) are convinced or even slightly swayed then it would point to some sort of merit, if not then the worst that happens is the loss of a bit of free time.

Bennigan Kelch said: Science, as far as I was taught, is supposed to take every proposed idea and test its merits. Perhaps Behe specifically wasn't a good choice, I'm not familiar enough with his ideas to comment in that respect, but theres nothing wrong with giving the students a chance to evaluate his claims for themselves. If they(and by extension others) are convinced or even slightly swayed then it would point to some sort of merit, if not then the worst that happens is the loss of a bit of free time.

Bennigan Kelch said: There's a bit of a difference between flat-earthers and intelligent design. One topic can be disproven rather easily, by looking at the earth.

Bennigan Kelch said: Whats so bad about having Behe speak? Having graduated from schilling myself I can tell you that almost everyone there is a skeptic of almost anything they hear. There is nothing wrong with having multiple viewpoints on an issue, rather it'd be worse to only present one side(in this case I'm referring to Bill Nye). If you only invite one side to the table then you get an incomplete picture. Listening to someone you disagree with isn't gonna hurt anything.

Its not a waste of valuable teaching time if the speaker comes after school hours. It’s simply a volunteer speaker.

As far as proven to be wrong, I’m not sure of Behe’s specific take on inteligent design,

but there is nothing out there I am aware of that precludes evolution and intelligent design.

Do I think the designer was a cosmic superman? Probably not, but a suffciently advanced alien species sure, why not?

The speaker isn’t coming in and saying his take is fact,

or even if he is then you’d be stupid for believing him at his word. What he should be saying is this is the way that he thinks makes the most sense, and then gives his evidence.

There’s a bit of a difference between flat-earthers and intelligent design. One topic can be disproven rather easily, by looking at the earth. Anti-vaxers would be a little more grey for me personally, but I would at least be willing to listen to their side and judge whether it has any merit for myself, even given that I’m rather sure it doesn’t. Science, as far as I was taught, is supposed to take every proposed idea and test its merits. Perhaps Behe specifically wasn’t a good choice, I’m not familiar enough with his ideas to comment in that respect, but theres nothing wrong with giving the students a chance to evaluate his claims for themselves. If they(and by extension others) are convinced or even slightly swayed then it would point to some sort of merit, if not then the worst that happens is the loss of a bit of free time.

Bennigan Kelch said: As far as proven to be wrong, I'm not sure of Behe's specific take on inteligent design, but there is nothing out there I am aware of that precludes evolution and intelligent design.

There's a bit of a difference between flat-earthers and intelligent design. One topic can be disproven rather easily, by looking at the earth.

Anti-vaxers would be a little more grey for me personally, but I would at least be willing to listen to their side and judge whether it has any merit for myself, even given that I'm rather sure it doesn't.

Science, as far as I was taught, is supposed to take every proposed idea and test its merits.

Perhaps Behe specifically wasn't a good choice, I'm not familiar enough with his ideas to comment in that respect, but theres nothing wrong with giving the students a chance to evaluate his claims for themselves. If they(and by extension others) are convinced or even slightly swayed then it would point to some sort of merit, if not then the worst that happens is the loss of a bit of free time.

Bennigan Kelch said: Its not a waste of valuable teaching time if the speaker comes after school hours. It's simply a volunteer speaker. As far as proven to be wrong, I'm not sure of Behe's specific take on inteligent design, but there is nothing out there I am aware of that precludes evolution and intelligent design. Do I think the designer was a cosmic superman? Probably not, but a suffciently advanced alien species sure, why not? The speaker isn't coming in and saying his take is fact, or even if he is then you'd be stupid for believing him at his word. What he should be saying is this is the way that he thinks makes the most sense, and then gives his evidence. There's a bit of a difference between flat-earthers and intelligent design. One topic can be disproven rather easily, by looking at the earth. Anti-vaxers would be a little more grey for me personally, but I would at least be willing to listen to their side and judge whether it has any merit for myself, even given that I'm rather sure it doesn't. Science, as far as I was taught, is supposed to take every proposed idea and test its merits. Perhaps Behe specifically wasn't a good choice, I'm not familiar enough with his ideas to comment in that respect, but theres nothing wrong with giving the students a chance to evaluate his claims for themselves. If they(and by extension others) are convinced or even slightly swayed then it would point to some sort of merit, if not then the worst that happens is the loss of a bit of free time.

Oh and you might want to read the decision that Judge Jones wrote in the Dover trial. He was not impressed by the argument from ignorance that Behe presented there. The children might have been better served by listening to someone from the winning side.

eric said: "Nothing that precludes" is true of an infinite number of potential hypotheses, which we don't teach because that would be silly and wasteful of everyone's time. We wait until one or a few hypotheses distinguish themselves - either by tying together a lot of loose ends (i.e. having good explanatory power, including for future phenomenon that can be tested), or by having some initial observations that somewhat uniquely support that hypothesis.

"Let the biggest score in golf be the winner ..."

I am now the greatest golfer who ever lived! Thank you very much.

harold said: Yes, I certainly agree that my description of those entities was perhaps optimistic. But that does kind of prove my point. My point was to illustrate that any effort to claim that opponents of evolution denial and climate change denial are "just as bad" is false equivalence. There is one major mainstream political movement in the developed world that makes science denial a part of its policies, and that is the US right wing "conservative" movement, and to a lesser degree its equivalent in some other countries. I realize that you and the other regular readers of this blog get that, but it's a point worth making anyway.

As a general rule, scientists who actually accept evolution are much better at "defending" (read: assessing and explaining the evidence for) Intelligent Design than the Intelligent Design advocates themselves. We know what would be required in order to demonstrate Intelligent Design and we can come up with tests, metrics, predictions...everything a real scientific theory needs.

ID advocates refuse to do any of that, because they know ID won't hold water. So they prefer to stay in the dark of plausible deniability. "Well it seems like ID could be true!"

Oh, and one other point (sorry I'm all depressed about this), the NDP had a great leader for the last election, he was a man with very broad appeal among Canadians, even among those who wouldn't ever vote NDP. Jack Layton. He led the NDP to its biggest success in its history in the 2011 election, and the first time becoming official opposition, he may have been able to really focus opposition to Harper and ensure they were defeated in the next election (2015 at the latest). But he announced he had cancer 2 months after the election, and he was dead a month later...

What a cruel joke. I am sure many theistic progressives in Canada lost their faith that year...

Whats so bad about having Behe speak?

Having graduated from schilling myself I can tell you that almost everyone there is a skeptic of almost anything they hear.

There is nothing wrong with having multiple viewpoints on an issue, rather it’d be worse to only present one side(in this case I’m referring to Bill Nye).

If you only invite one side to the table then you get an incomplete picture.

Listening to someone you disagree with isn’t gonna hurt anything.

Its not a waste of valuable teaching time if the speaker comes after school hours. It’s simply a volunteer speaker.

As far as proven to be wrong, I’m not sure of Behe’s specific take on inteligent design, but there is nothing out there I am aware of that precludes evolution and intelligent design. Do I think the designer was a cosmic superman? Probably not, but a suffciently advanced alien species sure, why not?

The speaker isn’t coming in and saying his take is fact,

or even if he is then you’d be stupid for believing him at his word.

What he should be saying is this is the way that he thinks makes the most sense, and then gives his evidence.

There’s a bit of a difference between flat-earthers and intelligent design. One topic can be disproven rather easily, by looking at the earth.

Anti-vaxers would be a little more grey for me personally, but I would at least be willing to listen to their side and judge whether it has any merit for myself, even given that I’m rather sure it doesn’t.

Science, as far as I was taught, is supposed to take every proposed idea and test its merits.

Perhaps Behe specifically wasn’t a good choice, I’m not familiar enough with his ideas to comment in that respect, but theres nothing wrong with giving the students a chance to evaluate his claims for themselves.

If they(and by extension others) are convinced or even slightly swayed then it would point to some sort of merit,

if not then the worst that happens is the loss of a bit of free time.

I don’t think Americans (even Canadians living in America) realize just how bad and officially anti-science our Conservative party is.

Rolf said:

Bennigan Kelch said: Whats so bad about having Behe speak? Having graduated from schilling myself I can tell you that almost everyone there is a skeptic of almost anything they hear. There is nothing wrong with having multiple viewpoints on an issue, rather it'd be worse to only present one side(in this case I'm referring to Bill Nye). If you only invite one side to the table then you get an incomplete picture. Listening to someone you disagree with isn't gonna hurt anything.

What about those already inclined to believe whatever Behe says, because that is consistent with what they have been conditioned to believe?

harold said: Bennigan Kelch - You have some misperceptions about the nature of "intelligent design"

Its not a waste of valuable teaching time if the speaker comes after school hours. It’s simply a volunteer speaker.

Is it wise for a school to allow any speaker whatsoever to use their facilities and be presented as a speaker invited by the school, as long as it's a "volunteer" coming "after hours"? Please post a comment directly answering "yes" or "no" to this question. The argument by some here, which I agree with, is that if the answer to the question is "no", then Behe is a speaker who should not have been invited. My comments below will clarify why. "As far as wise, thats would be debateable, as evidenced by our discussion. I would argue that yes, in this case the pros outweigh the cons. I think that after inviting bill nye in to speak the previous month it is smart to also invite someone with an opposing view to present why they are in opposition, and to then let the students themselves compare and contrast the merits of each.

As far as proven to be wrong, I’m not sure of Behe’s specific take on inteligent design,

Is someone who is "not sure of Behe's specific take on intelligent design" in a good position to comment on whether Behe should be invited by school to use their facilities, as an official guest, to talk about his specific take on intelligent design? Please post a comment answering "yes" or "no" to this question. Should the first step of someone who wishes to decide whether a school should invite Behe to do this, be to familiarize themselves with Behe's take on intelligent design? Please post a comment answering "yes" or "no" to this question. "My knowledge of Behe does not preclude the schools knowledge of him. Nor would it justify a recjection simply because I personally disagree/agree with him. I will point out that it is much better to get your view of someones ideas straight from them rather than off the internet."

but there is nothing out there I am aware of that precludes evolution and intelligent design.

Look, it's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's the common human illusion that you know about a topic that you are completely ignorant of. We all suffer from it from time to time. It appears to be causing you to think you know something about Behe. Intelligent design is specifically denial of evolution. According to Behe, bacterial flagella, malaria parasites, and the clotting cascade are examples of things that could not possibly have evolved. "I have not once said that I know behes specific take, and have made an effort to clarify that. I am arguing that it doesn't hurt to know opposing ideas when forming your own interpretations. Your definition of intelligent design is limited, there are plenty of proponents that have reconciled ID with evolution. One such case would be where the designer(a product of evolution itself) specifically manipulates genes within the mechanism of evolution. The examples you have behe as listing are weak, I would agree, but again they aren't directly harmful provided you analyze them objectively.

Do I think the designer was a cosmic superman? Probably not, but a suffciently advanced alien species sure, why not?

But Behe doesn't present evidence for the existence of a "designer"; he doesn't address this question.

The speaker isn’t coming in and saying his take is fact,

Not that it matters, but how do you know that?

or even if he is then you’d be stupid for believing him at his word. What he should be saying is this is the way that he thinks makes the most sense, and then gives his evidence.

Although it seems to have gone well, a short speech to naive high school students is not a venue that is ideal for critiquing Behe's evidence. "Oh yes, fall back on an age based argument. Forget that this is a school specifically for students with high IQ's and ignore my previous comment on how having gone there personally and knowing that almost everyone in that school is a die hard skeptic. You are projecting your own idea of what the students are like to a person that actually grew up with them.

There’s a bit of a difference between flat-earthers and intelligent design. One topic can be disproven rather easily, by looking at the earth. Anti-vaxers would be a little more grey for me personally, but I would at least be willing to listen to their side and judge whether it has any merit for myself, even given that I’m rather sure it doesn’t. Science, as far as I was taught, is supposed to take every proposed idea and test its merits. Perhaps Behe specifically wasn’t a good choice, I’m not familiar enough with his ideas to comment in that respect, but theres nothing wrong with giving the students a chance to evaluate his claims for themselves. If they(and by extension others) are convinced or even slightly swayed then it would point to some sort of merit, if not then the worst that happens is the loss of a bit of free time.

Read this carefully - One of us has taken the trouble to learn about the relevant "proposed ideas" here and the tests of their merit. That one is me, and not you. Why don't you take your own advice, which is pretty good advice? Why don't you learn something about Behe, his claims, and the response of critics who are extensively familiar with his work? Use Wikipedia as a convenient starting point. Here's some free information - "Intelligent Design" was crafted after the Edwards v Aguillard decision, to "court proof" sectarian evolution denial by presenting it in a way that is coy about the exact identity of the "the designer" and trying to avoid testable positive claims. Learn more about biological evolution, too.

Sorry, about the comment replying to harold, I tried to reply to each of the responses individually to cut down on scrolling, my responses to each of your points are directly after your comments, most of them have quotation marks around them.

eric said:

Bennigan Kelch said: As far as proven to be wrong, I'm not sure of Behe's specific take on inteligent design, but there is nothing out there I am aware of that precludes evolution and intelligent design.

"Nothing that precludes" is true of an infinite number of potential hypotheses, which we don't teach because that would be silly and wasteful of everyone's time. We wait until one or a few hypotheses distinguish themselves - either by tying together a lot of loose ends (i.e. having good explanatory power, including for future phenomenon that can be tested), or by having some initial observations that somewhat uniquely support that hypothesis. ID has not distinguished itself, so I don't see why we shouldn't treat it the same as the infinite number of other hypothesis 'not precluded by' science and just ignore it for the time being. You want to study it as a social movement? Fine, it certainly can be argued that it has had a legal/social impact on US culture. But as a scientific idea? No, there is really no reason to even 'put it on the table' at this point.

There's a bit of a difference between flat-earthers and intelligent design. One topic can be disproven rather easily, by looking at the earth.

Behe cites three examples of design: the flagella, immune system, and blood clotting system. AFAIK, the evidence of flagella and immune system evolution is comprehensive - WAS pretty comprehensive even by the time of the Dover trial, in 2005. IOW, two of ID's three examples have also been disproven rather easily.

Anti-vaxers would be a little more grey for me personally, but I would at least be willing to listen to their side and judge whether it has any merit for myself, even given that I'm rather sure it doesn't.

If you listened and found no merit, and in fact was aware of countervailing evidence, would you continue to give them speaking platforms for the next ten years? Because that is what Behe did this week - presented ten-year-old ideas that both the legal and scientific communities have already heard, assessed, and found lacking of substance.

Science, as far as I was taught, is supposed to take every proposed idea and test its merits.

Sure, and when IDers actually create a scientific test for ID, run it, and report interesitng results, the scientific community will pay attention. But Behe's DBB is now 20 years old, and Behe has yet to tell the scientific community his procedure for assessing design - he has not shared his methodology, his test for ID. Whether that's because he's obtuse or because he never really had a methodology in the first place, I think the scientific community is well justified in not expecting one in the near future.

Perhaps Behe specifically wasn't a good choice, I'm not familiar enough with his ideas to comment in that respect, but theres nothing wrong with giving the students a chance to evaluate his claims for themselves. If they(and by extension others) are convinced or even slightly swayed then it would point to some sort of merit, if not then the worst that happens is the loss of a bit of free time.

I do not think Behe is a good choice to give a neutral or fact-based presentation on ID, because he's biased. If the students want that, invite Judge Jones to give a talk on what he thought of the arguments presented by both plaintiffs and defense. Or invite Ken Miller AND Behe. And no, I do not think swaying high school kids with a one-hour speech is ANY indication at all that there is scientific substance to ones' hypothesis. Swaying the scientific community via journal publications and independently repeated experiments is how that's done.

Whats so bad about having Behe speak?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Its not a waste of valuable teaching time if the speaker comes after school hours. It’s simply a volunteer speaker.

Is it? Why was Schilling promoting it, then? It does depend upon context, and I'm not saying that I know enough to state that it was bad in this context, but I can't pretend that I know otherwise, either. There is really little to be gained from Behe, while his distortions of science are convincing to those who wish to believe.

As far as proven to be wrong, I’m not sure of Behe’s specific take on inteligent design, but there is nothing out there I am aware of that precludes evolution and intelligent design. Do I think the designer was a cosmic superman? Probably not, but a suffciently advanced alien species sure, why not?

Why not? Because you don't know of a candidate for such design that would be inclined to fool around with life whose causes would match up with effects--true whether it's "aliens" or God. We have to know the specific causes to discern their effects, and we simply don't have these causes. IOW, it's not at all clear that you know how to think critically, and you appear to be the naive sort of person that Behe targets. Why should school children be taught the rubbish you think is gold, rather than sound science methods?

The speaker isn’t coming in and saying his take is fact,

He very much is. He claims a lot of "facts" that are at least distortions.

or even if he is then you’d be stupid for believing him at his word.

Yes, I'll blame the fourth-grader for taking a "scientist" at his word. What were you thinking, stupid kid?

What he should be saying is this is the way that he thinks makes the most sense, and then gives his evidence.

He uses propagandistic methods, rather than making a scientific case. And if he perhaps does think that it makes the most sense, then he's clearly not discussing science.

There’s a bit of a difference between flat-earthers and intelligent design. One topic can be disproven rather easily, by looking at the earth.

And it doesn't even occur to you that ID can be disproven rather easily, by looking at the genes and morphologies that don't fit with known design, but rather concur with the necessarily extremely derivative (in the case of most animals and plants, almost entirely derivative of ancestors) nature of evolution? Of course we can't rule out all design, especially the sort that might be made to look "natural" (something Behe pathetically suggests at times), we can rule out evident design. But hey, Behe can spin this all to ignore such ready tests--and does. He pretends that evolutionary evidence just points to evolution of any kind, not to the sort that produces results quite unlike those of design, as it indeed does. No problem for kids in such distortions, no, they're just stupid if they're naive.

Anti-vaxers would be a little more grey for me personally, but I would at least be willing to listen to their side and judge whether it has any merit for myself, even given that I’m rather sure it doesn’t.

Well, why haven't you? It's not like you have to be fed this sort of stuff by schools, nor does anyone need Behe's tripe to be sponsored by schools (whether or not this turned out well).

Science, as far as I was taught, is supposed to take every proposed idea and test its merits.

Too bad you don't know what science is about. A huge number of proposed ideas aren't testable. Here's one--intelligent design (not as presented by Behe--his idea of "testing ID" is trying to re-evolve the bacterial flagella, a laughably impossible task, while he ignores obvious tests, like seeing if life is like designed objects. Hint: it isn't).

Perhaps Behe specifically wasn’t a good choice, I’m not familiar enough with his ideas to comment in that respect, but theres nothing wrong with giving the students a chance to evaluate his claims for themselves.

The question is whether they're given the tools and knowledge to evaluate his claims for themselves. For the younger ones, it's virtually impossible (I don't know if they were expected to hear him, and if not, it's likely ok), and a huge number of adults don't and never will truly be able to evaluate his claims for themselves.

If they(and by extension others) are convinced or even slightly swayed then it would point to some sort of merit,

If an anti-relativity crank were brought in and they were convinced or even slightly swayed, would that point to merit in the anti-relativity position? Would high school and younger students really be able to evaluate the matter? Are Behe's distortions of science unimportant to such questions? Do you even understand why scientists are generally considered to be the relevant parties to such debates, not school kids?

if not then the worst that happens is the loss of a bit of free time.

Or a distorted sense of science coupled with a distrust of the people who are relatively objective on these matters. Poison the well of science, and what won't people believe? Glen Davidson

Bennigan Kelch said: ID hasn't distinguished itself in your personal opinion. I wouldn't personally consider it a very strong theory myself either but there are people out there that thinks it has, and it is for that reason that I am more than willing to at least hear their viewpoint. As far as giving someone speaking platforms after finding no merit then no, I wouldn't. But that would be after I personally experienced that it had no merit. Would I be willing to give the speaker at least one chance to try and convince me of the merit? Definately, which is what schilling has done in my opinion. You have a fair point with the swaying high school students part not being a qualifier for scientific validity. Having known the kids involved I can say that 0% of them are going to be convinced by arguments that don't hold water. Being swayed doesn't automatically mean behe is right, and I didn't mean to suggest that, however being swayed does suggest that there is a part of what the speaker says that might not be entirely wrong, leading to further inquiry.

FL said:

Whats so bad about having Behe speak?

It's called "censorship", Bennigan. Biological origins, human origins, is an emotional as well as an intellectual controversy. It reaches down into one's soul. It's not just about science and science education. Hence, presenting multiple viewpoints on an issue to the next generation of students, frightens and angers some folks. Some would respond with censorship if such as response was/is within their power. But kudos to your Schilling School, for practicing education instead of censorship. FL

I find it interesting that many of you are saying that behes views are such garbage that anyone with half a brain would know he's full of crap after listening to him, but then you turn around and are worried that he's going to manage to convince someone otherwise. If its such obvious garbage then why are you worried about it being able to convince people otherwise? Your arguments seem to be based on young people are gullible but as far as I'm aware I'm the only one here thats actually been to the school and personally knows the students in question.

Bennigan Kelch said: I find it interesting that many of you are saying that behes views are such garbage that anyone with half a brain would know he's full of crap after listening to him, but then you turn around and are worried that he's going to manage to convince someone otherwise. If its such obvious garbage then why are you worried about it being able to convince people otherwise? Your arguments seem to be based on young people are gullible but as far as I'm aware I'm the only one here thats actually been to the school and personally knows the students in question.

daoudmbo said:

Bennigan Kelch said: I find it interesting that many of you are saying that behes views are such garbage that anyone with half a brain would know he's full of crap after listening to him, but then you turn around and are worried that he's going to manage to convince someone otherwise. If its such obvious garbage then why are you worried about it being able to convince people otherwise? Your arguments seem to be based on young people are gullible but as far as I'm aware I'm the only one here thats actually been to the school and personally knows the students in question.

I am not familiar with this school, but I did not know most of my cohort in my school, nor would I imagine I could accurately predict the inner workings and minds of that whole collection of diverse individuals. I'm sure the student body at Schilling are not a homogeneous unified whole either!

Bennigan Kelch said: I find it interesting that many of you are saying that behes views are such garbage that anyone with half a brain would know he's full of crap after listening to him, but then you turn around and are worried that he's going to manage to convince someone otherwise. If its such obvious garbage then why are you worried about it being able to convince people otherwise? Your arguments seem to be based on young people are gullible but as far as I'm aware I'm the only one here thats actually been to the school and personally knows the students in question.

The reason schilling was promoting it, at least based on the context I’m aware of, is that the Bill Nye guest speaker event went so well that they wanted to try and continue them.

They most likely had an interest in providing alternate theories to what bill nye was advocating and whether Behe was their first choice or simply the most well known speaker they could get, they went with him.

AS far as whats to be gained, even if what he spouts is trash like all of you are convinced it is, it still allows the students themselves the experience of comparing and contrasting different viewpoints and deciding on the merits themself.

You call it being naive, I call it keeping an open mind until I know all the facts.

You presume to know my personality but in the next sentence you inaccurately describe my viewpoints.

I do not think Behe is correct, I haven’t once in these discussions said he’s right evolution is wrong.

My point is that listening to someone you disagree with is how you evaluate the strength of your own viewpoints.

The reasons those huge numbers of adults cannot evaluate his claims is that they were mostly taught what to think and not how.

Teaching someone what to think works great for subjects like chemistry and physics because the answers don’t change, excluding breakthroughs and paradigm shifts.

Knowing how to think is reliant of ones ability to seperate fact from crap, which you do by comparing evidence validated by the other branches of science.

You mention poisoning the well of science but by excluding dissenting opinions you’re doing more harm than good.

By no means am I saying to teach behe alongside darwin as an equal theory, or even to teach it in school at all.

But at the same time there is no reason why having him as a guest speaker after school hours is going to cause the students to be brainwashed.

Bennigan Kelch said: I find it interesting that many of you are saying that behes views are such garbage that anyone with half a brain would know he's full of crap after listening to him,

but then you turn around and are worried that he's going to manage to convince someone otherwise.

If its such obvious garbage then why are you worried about it being able to convince people otherwise?

Your arguments seem to be based on young people are gullible but as far as I'm aware I'm the only one here thats actually been to the school and personally knows the students in question.

Most of us are well aware that Behe’s not going to persuade anyone with a good science education,

Bennigan Kelch said: you seemed to have missed the point of my previous comments, which is to say listening to a view you disagree with is not going to cause any harm when the people listening are objective,

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

The reason schilling was promoting it, at least based on the context I’m aware of, is that the Bill Nye guest speaker event went so well that they wanted to try and continue them.

Well, I guess if you get some good science, you need some pseudoscience as well. It just stands to reason, eh?

They most likely had an interest in providing alternate theories to what bill nye was advocating and whether Behe was their first choice or simply the most well known speaker they could get, they went with him.

ID isn't a theory. Learn something about the issue.

AS far as whats to be gained, even if what he spouts is trash like all of you are convinced it is, it still allows the students themselves the experience of comparing and contrasting different viewpoints and deciding on the merits themself.

So the anti-relativity crank deserves time as well? Anti-QM cranks? Is there any end to your love of spouters of BS?

You call it being naive, I call it keeping an open mind until I know all the facts.

Of course you call it that, rather than the useless tripe that "informs" your ignorant prattling.

You presume to know my personality but in the next sentence you inaccurately describe my viewpoints.

I didn't claim to know your personality at all. Get a grip. You're an ignorant boob babbling about what you don't konw.

I do not think Behe is correct, I haven’t once in these discussions said he’s right evolution is wrong.

Yeah, who cares? You haven't the first bit of evidence that Behe's worth bringing in as a speaker.

My point is that listening to someone you disagree with is how you evaluate the strength of your own viewpoints.

Wow, what a concept! It would never have occurred to those of us who have read his books and learned about the issues involved. I needed some ignoramus who hasn't to tell me that, uh huh.

The reasons those huge numbers of adults cannot evaluate his claims is that they were mostly taught what to think and not how.

Well hey, who better than a pseudoscientific pontificator to teach them how to think. Just about anybody, in fact.

Teaching someone what to think works great for subjects like chemistry and physics because the answers don’t change, excluding breakthroughs and paradigm shifts.

And biology changes more than physics? Learn something for once.

Knowing how to think is reliant of ones ability to seperate fact from crap, which you do by comparing evidence validated by the other branches of science.

And instead of dealing with the evidence of Behe being a charlatan you spout platitudes about "open-mindedness."

You mention poisoning the well of science but by excluding dissenting opinions you’re doing more harm than good.

And you're flat out lying about me excluding dissenting opinions. We deal with dissenting opinions here all of the time, we're just not keen on bringing in frauds like Behe to schools to propagandize students. In the right context, fine, Behe is a great example of how not to think, and that's why I didn't actually claim that it was a bad thing previous to your mindless ramblings and misrepresentations.

By no means am I saying to teach behe alongside darwin as an equal theory, or even to teach it in school at all.

Yet you pretend that bringing in what is effectively a charlatan to a K-12 is just what any open-minded person should favor. And I never suggested that you wanted Behe taught alongside Darwin, which is just more gross misrepresentation from you.

But at the same time there is no reason why having him as a guest speaker after school hours is going to cause the students to be brainwashed.

The question is not that, of course, but rather your appalling lack of recognition of what's involved. It isn't about "multiple viewpoints," it's the stark difference between science and shoddy religious apologetics. If Schilling can handle it, I don't mind, but your tripe makes it sound as if Behe is a worthy speaker, when he's a debunked pseudoscientist. There is nothing that commends him as a speaker anywhere, except as an example of how pseudoscience continues. Glen Davidson

Bennigan Kelch said: I find it interesting that many of you are saying that behes views are such garbage that anyone with half a brain would know he's full of crap after listening to him, but then you turn around and are worried that he's going to manage to convince someone otherwise. If its such obvious garbage then why are you worried about it being able to convince people otherwise? Your arguments seem to be based on young people are gullible but as far as I'm aware I'm the only one here thats actually been to the school and personally knows the students in question.

eric said:

Bennigan Kelch said: you seemed to have missed the point of my previous comments, which is to say listening to a view you disagree with is not going to cause any harm when the people listening are objective,

You are essentially arguing that any smart, honest human will be immune to empty rhetoric. This is clearly not true. It is unfortunately true that a confident tone, authoritative air, and a gift for speaking well often work regardless of content, even against the best of us. You put a compelling speaker who believes the pyramids are alien landing sites in front of a large audience, and I can practically guarantee you that someone in that audience is going to walk away more accepting of the notion that pyramids are alien landing sites. I am not trying to insult or put down Shilling kids when I say that they might fall for Behe's line. Lots of smart, educated, honest seekers of knowledge could fall for Behe's line.

Bennigan Kelch said: ID hasn't distinguished itself in your personal opinion.

As far as giving someone speaking platforms after finding no merit then no, I wouldn't. But that would be after I personally experienced that it had no merit.

being swayed does suggest that there is a part of what the speaker says that might not be entirely wrong, leading to further inquiry.

DS said:

Bennigan Kelch said: I find it interesting that many of you are saying that behes views are such garbage that anyone with half a brain would know he's full of crap after listening to him, but then you turn around and are worried that he's going to manage to convince someone otherwise. If its such obvious garbage then why are you worried about it being able to convince people otherwise? Your arguments seem to be based on young people are gullible but as far as I'm aware I'm the only one here thats actually been to the school and personally knows the students in question.

Just exactly how do you think that these people survive? They make a living peddling pseudoscientific clap trap to the gullible. If you want to give them another opportunity to do so fine, no one can stop you. But why on earth would you want to do that? It would be obvious to anyone who bothered to even do a cursory check of credentials that Behe has not been a scientist for years.

Bennigan Kelch said: So the alternative is to censor speakers out of fear they might convince somebody of something that you think is wrong?

A con (confidence game) works because people want something badly. Usually it's money, and the con artist just has to convince them that they can get lots of it, perhaps in a sneaky or quasi-legal way, by some secret trick or technique or special deal that he'll let them in on. Basically, the suckers cheat themselves because they WANT to believe it so strongly.

With ID (as per Behe) what the marks WANT is not money, but knowledge that they (i.e. humanity) is special: specially created; favored by God; the 'goal' of intelligently guided evolution. For some it's validation that maybe their religious beliefs are correct: There MUST be a God, so maybe there's a Heaven, and I can go to it and not have to DIE!

Essentially, what the con artist gives them is yearned-for psychological and emotional strokes. And in this case Behe may not even knowingly be conning them. He, himself, is probably one of the willingly conned, who thinks he's REALLY ONTO SOMETHING, and passing on the secret of great wealth the specialness of humanity, like an Amway 'distributor' who wants to let others in on the GREAT DEAL (and enrich himself).

eric said:

Bennigan Kelch said: ID hasn't distinguished itself in your personal opinion.

Surely you jest. You understand that this is not just my personal opinion, right?

As far as giving someone speaking platforms after finding no merit then no, I wouldn't. But that would be after I personally experienced that it had no merit.

So, you're withholding judgement on the value of pyramids as alien landing sites until Van Daniken comes in and gives you a personal presentation? How about homeopathy? Astrology? Anti-Vax? Are you remaining agnostic about whether vaccines cause autism until Andrew Wakefield comes in and gives you a personal presentation? And what about on the mainstream side? Are you withholding your acceptance of relativity until you get a personal discussion with a physicist? I think if you are honest here you will admit that no, you don't give every single idea the "personal experience" test. Quite a lot of ideas you accept or reject based on the consensus of the appropriate expert community - medical for vaccines, physics for relativity, pyramids for archaeology, and so on. Why treat evolution any differently?

being swayed does suggest that there is a part of what the speaker says that might not be entirely wrong, leading to further inquiry.

Again, not when the community you're talking about has little expertise in the field beyond a good high school education. It certainly might suggest that the individual audience member might want to do some further inquiry. I have no problem with you suggesting that if Alice finds Behe compelling, then Alice should look more into evolutionary biology (hopefully Alice will consult credible sources). But if, for sake of argument, we said that the Schilling kids' found Behe's arguments convincing - should that say to a biologist like Ken Miller that maybe there is something to the idea? No, not at all.

eric said:

Bennigan Kelch said: So the alternative is to censor speakers out of fear they might convince somebody of something that you think is wrong?

I have absolutely no desire to zip Behe's mouth. But I also have absolutely no desire to pay him money to speak to high school kids. Refusing to do the latter is not censorship. If the purpose of such lectures is to interest the kids in exciting ideas in science, invite a scientist that has credible exciting ideas. If the purpose is to discuss ID, the kid's education is probably better served by putting Miller and Behe in front of them. Or, as I suggested before, have Judge Jones come in, because he is probably closest to the kids' perspective - a scientific outsider who got to hear the "best of" two sides.

You say: IOW, it’s not at all clear that you know how to think critically, and you appear to be the naive sort of person that Behe targets. Why should school children be taught the rubbish you think is gold, rather than sound science methods? Thats a pretty clear example that you think you know my personality, pressuming what I think of behe and then throwing in a insult for good measure, like a real debate would.

And your militant dissaproval of someone you disagree with makes you seem like a much more fair and balenced person worthy of commenting on the worth of other peopls viewpoints.

I hate to break it to you but there are people out there that would rather decide the worth of behes views for themselves than take your word for it.

Attacking behes view of ID is in no way proof the ID is complete bunk.

So again, you completely miss the my point.

Bennigan Kelch said:

DS said:

Bennigan Kelch said: I find it interesting that many of you are saying that behes views are such garbage that anyone with half a brain would know he's full of crap after listening to him, but then you turn around and are worried that he's going to manage to convince someone otherwise. If its such obvious garbage then why are you worried about it being able to convince people otherwise? Your arguments seem to be based on young people are gullible but as far as I'm aware I'm the only one here thats actually been to the school and personally knows the students in question.

Just exactly how do you think that these people survive? They make a living peddling pseudoscientific clap trap to the gullible. If you want to give them another opportunity to do so fine, no one can stop you. But why on earth would you want to do that? It would be obvious to anyone who bothered to even do a cursory check of credentials that Behe has not been a scientist for years.

Why wouldn't you? What you see as an oppertunity for behe to brainwash more victims is just as much an oppertunity for the students to see behe as a snake oil peddler. The difference in our view point seems to be that I have confidence that my former classmates will be able to seperate fact from crap. I recognize that the average joe might not be able to, but the average schilling student will.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

You say: IOW, it’s not at all clear that you know how to think critically, and you appear to be the naive sort of person that Behe targets. Why should school children be taught the rubbish you think is gold, rather than sound science methods? Thats a pretty clear example that you think you know my personality, pressuming what I think of behe and then throwing in a insult for good measure, like a real debate would.

Do you know what a "personality" is? It's not whether or not you're ignorant or naive. Your ignorance is showing. Oh yes, I did use a bit of hyperbole, because you're calling trash something that is worth considering, "the other side," and a theory. If you fall for hyperbole it rather backs up my point of you being credulous.

And your militant dissaproval of someone you disagree with makes you seem like a much more fair and balenced person worthy of commenting on the worth of other peopls viewpoints.

I call frauds frauds. That's an honest and proper appraisal that troubles your delicate little mind. Who cares?

I hate to break it to you but there are people out there that would rather decide the worth of behes views for themselves than take your word for it.

And who's stopping them? The trouble with your pathetic nonsense is that you don't get that popular pseudoscience has no right to a podium that unpopular pseudoscience does. In fact, even good science tends not to be presented until it has far more going for it than any BS that Behe presents.

Attacking behes view of ID is in no way proof the ID is complete bunk.

Really? Well why don't you deal with the many critiques I've made of Behe, that many of us have made of Behe, rather than assuming that we've not responded substantively. You make a host of false assumptions about those who know hugely more about this than you do.

So again, you completely miss the my point.

Your "point" is only a truism so far as it has any merit, and a dimwitted, ignorant misrepresentation otherwise. Behe's been shown to have nothing, and those who care about evidence know it or will find out about it if they care about the matter. You don't deal with my challenges, like why shouldn't anti-relativity people be given the same podium that Behe does. That's because you have nothing but your insipid self-righteousness to go on. Glen Davidson

The trouble with your pathetic nonsense is that you don’t get that popular pseudoscience has no right to a podium that unpopular pseudoscience doesn't.

DS said:

Bennigan Kelch said:

DS said:

Bennigan Kelch said: I find it interesting that many of you are saying that behes views are such garbage that anyone with half a brain would know he's full of crap after listening to him, but then you turn around and are worried that he's going to manage to convince someone otherwise. If its such obvious garbage then why are you worried about it being able to convince people otherwise? Your arguments seem to be based on young people are gullible but as far as I'm aware I'm the only one here thats actually been to the school and personally knows the students in question.

Just exactly how do you think that these people survive? They make a living peddling pseudoscientific clap trap to the gullible. If you want to give them another opportunity to do so fine, no one can stop you. But why on earth would you want to do that? It would be obvious to anyone who bothered to even do a cursory check of credentials that Behe has not been a scientist for years.

Why wouldn't you? What you see as an oppertunity for behe to brainwash more victims is just as much an oppertunity for the students to see behe as a snake oil peddler. The difference in our view point seems to be that I have confidence that my former classmates will be able to seperate fact from crap. I recognize that the average joe might not be able to, but the average schilling student will.

And that right there is the attitude that allows these charlatans to thrive. Young students without the proper background cannot possibly discern that he is not telling them the truth. They will assume that since he was invited to talk about science that he is a scientist. They don't have the knowledge of the basics or the historical perspective necessary in order to discern fact from fiction. They should not be subjected to such nonsense by anyone who cares about their education. Some of them might indeed see past the crap and tell him he is full of it, but there might always be someone who is taken in by his con game. Why do you want that on your conscience?

Oops, sorry for submitting the same thing twice.

I did respond to your first comments,

before they became repetative and started including personal insults.

I stopped responding in depth to you because your responses seem to ignore my own

and simply reiterate your personal opinion while attacking my personal intelligence.

To you ID seems to equal behe,

and that arguing against one is the same as arguing against the other.

I have zero interest in a discussion with someone who seems to go out of their way to be rude simply because of different viewpoints.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

I did respond to your first comments,

Liar. You pick and choose, ignoring the crucial points, like that there is far more than "one side" opposed to the science side, while making completely false claims like that I'm excluding dissenting opinions. Utter bilge, that you can't back up any more than you can deal forthrightly with my points.

before they became repetative and started including personal insults.

They're not repetitive, you just ignore them. Personal insults are called for by your misrepresentations and appalling ignorance.

I stopped responding in depth to you because your responses seem to ignore my own

BS, I counter your rubbish, while you ignore your own hypocrisy and duplicity.

and simply reiterate your personal opinion while attacking my personal intelligence.

No, I attack your ignorance and misrepresentations. And you just keep on with the misrepresenting.

To you ID seems to equal behe,

Upon what is that supposedly based? More importantly, what difference would that even make? He's clearly shilling IDiocy.

and that arguing against one is the same as arguing against the other.

He's a well-known proponent of ID. I'm not stupid enough to suppose that his ID is the same as Paul Nelson's, contrary to your misrepresentations, but it hardly matters since ID is the issue.

I have zero interest in a discussion with someone who seems to go out of their way to be rude simply because of different viewpoints.

Learn to deal honestly with people. It's your lack of knowledge, judgment, and decency that lead me to call you on your gross misrepresentations and ignorant prattle. Glen Davidson

Bennigan Kelch said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

I did respond to your first comments,

Liar. You pick and choose, ignoring the crucial points, like that there is far more than "one side" opposed to the science side, while making completely false claims like that I'm excluding dissenting opinions. Utter bilge, that you can't back up any more than you can deal forthrightly with my points.

before they became repetative and started including personal insults.

They're not repetitive, you just ignore them. Personal insults are called for by your misrepresentations and appalling ignorance.

I stopped responding in depth to you because your responses seem to ignore my own

BS, I counter your rubbish, while you ignore your own hypocrisy and duplicity.

and simply reiterate your personal opinion while attacking my personal intelligence.

No, I attack your ignorance and misrepresentations. And you just keep on with the misrepresenting.

To you ID seems to equal behe,

Upon what is that supposedly based? More importantly, what difference would that even make? He's clearly shilling IDiocy.

and that arguing against one is the same as arguing against the other.

He's a well-known proponent of ID. I'm not stupid enough to suppose that his ID is the same as Paul Nelson's, contrary to your misrepresentations, but it hardly matters since ID is the issue.

I have zero interest in a discussion with someone who seems to go out of their way to be rude simply because of different viewpoints.

Learn to deal honestly with people. It's your lack of knowledge, judgment, and decency that lead me to call you on your gross misrepresentations and ignorant prattle. Glen Davidson

hahahahahahah thank you for proving my point.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Bennigan Kelch said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

I did respond to your first comments,

Liar. You pick and choose, ignoring the crucial points, like that there is far more than "one side" opposed to the science side, while making completely false claims like that I'm excluding dissenting opinions. Utter bilge, that you can't back up any more than you can deal forthrightly with my points.

before they became repetative and started including personal insults.

They're not repetitive, you just ignore them. Personal insults are called for by your misrepresentations and appalling ignorance.

I stopped responding in depth to you because your responses seem to ignore my own

BS, I counter your rubbish, while you ignore your own hypocrisy and duplicity.

and simply reiterate your personal opinion while attacking my personal intelligence.

No, I attack your ignorance and misrepresentations. And you just keep on with the misrepresenting.

To you ID seems to equal behe,

Upon what is that supposedly based? More importantly, what difference would that even make? He's clearly shilling IDiocy.

and that arguing against one is the same as arguing against the other.

He's a well-known proponent of ID. I'm not stupid enough to suppose that his ID is the same as Paul Nelson's, contrary to your misrepresentations, but it hardly matters since ID is the issue.

I have zero interest in a discussion with someone who seems to go out of their way to be rude simply because of different viewpoints.

Learn to deal honestly with people. It's your lack of knowledge, judgment, and decency that lead me to call you on your gross misrepresentations and ignorant prattle. Glen Davidson

hahahahahahah thank you for proving my point.

Oh, the elementary school tactic. You just get better and better all the time. Nuff said to such a sad little dweeb. Glen Davidson

I have not been following this discussion in detail, but it seems to me that Mr. Kelch is correct at least insofar as it has entered the insult phase. I will send further off-topic retorts to the Bathroom Wall.

Bennigan Kelch said:

DS said:

Bennigan Kelch said:

DS said:

Bennigan Kelch said: I find it interesting that many of you are saying that behes views are such garbage that anyone with half a brain would know he's full of crap after listening to him, but then you turn around and are worried that he's going to manage to convince someone otherwise. If its such obvious garbage then why are you worried about it being able to convince people otherwise? Your arguments seem to be based on young people are gullible but as far as I'm aware I'm the only one here thats actually been to the school and personally knows the students in question.

Just exactly how do you think that these people survive? They make a living peddling pseudoscientific clap trap to the gullible. If you want to give them another opportunity to do so fine, no one can stop you. But why on earth would you want to do that? It would be obvious to anyone who bothered to even do a cursory check of credentials that Behe has not been a scientist for years.

Why wouldn't you? What you see as an oppertunity for behe to brainwash more victims is just as much an oppertunity for the students to see behe as a snake oil peddler. The difference in our view point seems to be that I have confidence that my former classmates will be able to seperate fact from crap. I recognize that the average joe might not be able to, but the average schilling student will.

And that right there is the attitude that allows these charlatans to thrive. Young students without the proper background cannot possibly discern that he is not telling them the truth. They will assume that since he was invited to talk about science that he is a scientist. They don't have the knowledge of the basics or the historical perspective necessary in order to discern fact from fiction. They should not be subjected to such nonsense by anyone who cares about their education. Some of them might indeed see past the crap and tell him he is full of it, but there might always be someone who is taken in by his con game. Why do you want that on your conscience?

You assume things about people you don't know. These are people I personally know and I'm telling you that your preconception in this case is wrong. Unfortunately I can't prove it to you since its a personal evaluation.

Bennigan Kelch said:

harold said: Bennigan Kelch - You have some misperceptions about the nature of "intelligent design"

Its not a waste of valuable teaching time if the speaker comes after school hours. It’s simply a volunteer speaker.

Is it wise for a school to allow any speaker whatsoever to use their facilities and be presented as a speaker invited by the school, as long as it's a "volunteer" coming "after hours"? Please post a comment directly answering "yes" or "no" to this question. The argument by some here, which I agree with, is that if the answer to the question is "no", then Behe is a speaker who should not have been invited. My comments below will clarify why. "As far as wise, thats would be debateable, as evidenced by our discussion. I would argue that yes, in this case the pros outweigh the cons. I think that after inviting bill nye in to speak the previous month it is smart to also invite someone with an opposing view to present why they are in opposition, and to then let the students themselves compare and contrast the merits of each.

As far as proven to be wrong, I’m not sure of Behe’s specific take on inteligent design,

Is someone who is "not sure of Behe's specific take on intelligent design" in a good position to comment on whether Behe should be invited by school to use their facilities, as an official guest, to talk about his specific take on intelligent design? Please post a comment answering "yes" or "no" to this question. Should the first step of someone who wishes to decide whether a school should invite Behe to do this, be to familiarize themselves with Behe's take on intelligent design? Please post a comment answering "yes" or "no" to this question. "My knowledge of Behe does not preclude the schools knowledge of him. Nor would it justify a recjection simply because I personally disagree/agree with him. I will point out that it is much better to get your view of someones ideas straight from them rather than off the internet."

but there is nothing out there I am aware of that precludes evolution and intelligent design.

Look, it's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's the common human illusion that you know about a topic that you are completely ignorant of. We all suffer from it from time to time. It appears to be causing you to think you know something about Behe. Intelligent design is specifically denial of evolution. According to Behe, bacterial flagella, malaria parasites, and the clotting cascade are examples of things that could not possibly have evolved. "I have not once said that I know behes specific take, and have made an effort to clarify that. I am arguing that it doesn't hurt to know opposing ideas when forming your own interpretations. Your definition of intelligent design is limited, there are plenty of proponents that have reconciled ID with evolution. One such case would be where the designer(a product of evolution itself) specifically manipulates genes within the mechanism of evolution. The examples you have behe as listing are weak, I would agree, but again they aren't directly harmful provided you analyze them objectively.

Do I think the designer was a cosmic superman? Probably not, but a suffciently advanced alien species sure, why not?

But Behe doesn't present evidence for the existence of a "designer"; he doesn't address this question.

The speaker isn’t coming in and saying his take is fact,

Not that it matters, but how do you know that?

or even if he is then you’d be stupid for believing him at his word. What he should be saying is this is the way that he thinks makes the most sense, and then gives his evidence.

Although it seems to have gone well, a short speech to naive high school students is not a venue that is ideal for critiquing Behe's evidence. "Oh yes, fall back on an age based argument. Forget that this is a school specifically for students with high IQ's and ignore my previous comment on how having gone there personally and knowing that almost everyone in that school is a die hard skeptic. You are projecting your own idea of what the students are like to a person that actually grew up with them.

There’s a bit of a difference between flat-earthers and intelligent design. One topic can be disproven rather easily, by looking at the earth. Anti-vaxers would be a little more grey for me personally, but I would at least be willing to listen to their side and judge whether it has any merit for myself, even given that I’m rather sure it doesn’t. Science, as far as I was taught, is supposed to take every proposed idea and test its merits. Perhaps Behe specifically wasn’t a good choice, I’m not familiar enough with his ideas to comment in that respect, but theres nothing wrong with giving the students a chance to evaluate his claims for themselves. If they(and by extension others) are convinced or even slightly swayed then it would point to some sort of merit, if not then the worst that happens is the loss of a bit of free time.

Read this carefully - One of us has taken the trouble to learn about the relevant "proposed ideas" here and the tests of their merit. That one is me, and not you. Why don't you take your own advice, which is pretty good advice? Why don't you learn something about Behe, his claims, and the response of critics who are extensively familiar with his work? Use Wikipedia as a convenient starting point. Here's some free information - "Intelligent Design" was crafted after the Edwards v Aguillard decision, to "court proof" sectarian evolution denial by presenting it in a way that is coy about the exact identity of the "the designer" and trying to avoid testable positive claims. Learn more about biological evolution, too.

Such a wonderful passive aggresive tone, however you seemed to have missed the point of my previous comments, which is to say listening to a view you disagree with is not going to cause any harm when the people listening are objective, which from personal knowledge of actually going to the school and knowing the kids in question, I am qualified to say they are.

Matt Young said: I have not been following this discussion in detail, but it seems to me that Mr. Kelch is correct at least insofar as it has entered the insult phase. I will send further off-topic retorts to the Bathroom Wall.

I strongly suspect that he is actually an advocate of either ID/creationism, or feels compelled to pander to it for ideological reasons.

So the alternative is to censor speakers out of fear they might convince somebody of something that you think is wrong?

Bennigan Kelch said: When I say your personal opinion I don't mean to suggest that you just up and decided he was wrong, nor do I mean that ID has anywhere near the same amount of evidence as evolution. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that says ID, or at least certain forms of ID is impossible.

And it isn't that I'm remaining agnostic until I hear from speakers. I remain agnostic after being told things as well. Do I think vaccines cause autism? No, but I do not know for a fact they don't either so I would be willing to listen to someone whos claims they have evidence they do, or evidence the pyramids were alien lauchpads.

harold said:

So the alternative is to censor speakers out of fear they might convince somebody of something that you think is wrong?

Bennigan Kelch or whatever its account name is believes that not inviting someone to speak at the Schilling school is exactly equivalent to censoring them. That's a very fair paraphrase. That's its point in every comment. Not having Behe speak at the Shilling school is censoring him. This puts a huge burden on the Schilling school. Not being invited to speak at the Schilling school is censorship! Classes will have to cease, because, after all, it will only be fair to invite EVERYONE to speak at the school. I strongly oppose censoring Behe. Of course, since he's already a tenured professor, author, and paid speaker, the idea that he was being censored never occurred to me. But I'm being censored too - the Schilling school has never invited me to speak! If not being invited to speak at the Schilling school is censorship, then the school is literally obliged to invite everyone to speak there. Fortunately, there is a solution to this dilemma. We can simply note that Bennigan Kelch is wrong. Lack of an invitation to speak at the Schilling school is not censorship. Of course, reality is funny. I thought it was a bad idea for Behe to be chosen as an invited speaker, because Behe's ideas are transparently wrong. Well, Behe "won" - he went there as a speaker. And his ideas were shown to be transparently wrong. Sorry about that Bennigan Kelch. Reality always wins in the end.

harold said:

I strongly suspect that he is actually an advocate of either ID/creationism, or feels compelled to pander to it for ideological reasons.

I want to emphasize that the most basic requirement for a rational conversation is honesty on the part of both parties. Conversely, although illogical argumentation and misrepresentation of others may result from cognitive deficit or transient alcohol intoxication, in my observation, its most common cause is dishonesty. I simply observe, after years of attempting logical discourse, that those who defend a self-serving ideology no matter what won't be swayed by logic, and that most of those who seem "incapable" of logical discourse are actually capable, but emotionally compelled to defend what cannot be logically defended, due to a hidden agenda. I challenge the unlikely idea that Mr Kelch, or Ms Kelch, whichever the case may be, is a mere naive defender of fairness or goodness. I challenge th idea that he or she is as ignorant of Behe as claimed. If he or she (again) responds to this in an exaggerated tone of martyred outrage, while simultaneously hurling far more nasty insults than anything directed at him or her, I will consider my point supported.

harold said:

Bennigan Kelch said:

harold said: Bennigan Kelch - You have some misperceptions about the nature of "intelligent design"

Its not a waste of valuable teaching time if the speaker comes after school hours. It’s simply a volunteer speaker.

Is it wise for a school to allow any speaker whatsoever to use their facilities and be presented as a speaker invited by the school, as long as it's a "volunteer" coming "after hours"? Please post a comment directly answering "yes" or "no" to this question. The argument by some here, which I agree with, is that if the answer to the question is "no", then Behe is a speaker who should not have been invited. My comments below will clarify why. "As far as wise, thats would be debateable, as evidenced by our discussion. I would argue that yes, in this case the pros outweigh the cons. I think that after inviting bill nye in to speak the previous month it is smart to also invite someone with an opposing view to present why they are in opposition, and to then let the students themselves compare and contrast the merits of each.

As far as proven to be wrong, I’m not sure of Behe’s specific take on inteligent design,

Is someone who is "not sure of Behe's specific take on intelligent design" in a good position to comment on whether Behe should be invited by school to use their facilities, as an official guest, to talk about his specific take on intelligent design? Please post a comment answering "yes" or "no" to this question. Should the first step of someone who wishes to decide whether a school should invite Behe to do this, be to familiarize themselves with Behe's take on intelligent design? Please post a comment answering "yes" or "no" to this question. "My knowledge of Behe does not preclude the schools knowledge of him. Nor would it justify a recjection simply because I personally disagree/agree with him. I will point out that it is much better to get your view of someones ideas straight from them rather than off the internet."

but there is nothing out there I am aware of that precludes evolution and intelligent design.

Look, it's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's the common human illusion that you know about a topic that you are completely ignorant of. We all suffer from it from time to time. It appears to be causing you to think you know something about Behe. Intelligent design is specifically denial of evolution. According to Behe, bacterial flagella, malaria parasites, and the clotting cascade are examples of things that could not possibly have evolved. "I have not once said that I know behes specific take, and have made an effort to clarify that. I am arguing that it doesn't hurt to know opposing ideas when forming your own interpretations. Your definition of intelligent design is limited, there are plenty of proponents that have reconciled ID with evolution. One such case would be where the designer(a product of evolution itself) specifically manipulates genes within the mechanism of evolution. The examples you have behe as listing are weak, I would agree, but again they aren't directly harmful provided you analyze them objectively.

Do I think the designer was a cosmic superman? Probably not, but a suffciently advanced alien species sure, why not?

But Behe doesn't present evidence for the existence of a "designer"; he doesn't address this question.

The speaker isn’t coming in and saying his take is fact,

Not that it matters, but how do you know that?

or even if he is then you’d be stupid for believing him at his word. What he should be saying is this is the way that he thinks makes the most sense, and then gives his evidence.

Although it seems to have gone well, a short speech to naive high school students is not a venue that is ideal for critiquing Behe's evidence. "Oh yes, fall back on an age based argument. Forget that this is a school specifically for students with high IQ's and ignore my previous comment on how having gone there personally and knowing that almost everyone in that school is a die hard skeptic. You are projecting your own idea of what the students are like to a person that actually grew up with them.

There’s a bit of a difference between flat-earthers and intelligent design. One topic can be disproven rather easily, by looking at the earth. Anti-vaxers would be a little more grey for me personally, but I would at least be willing to listen to their side and judge whether it has any merit for myself, even given that I’m rather sure it doesn’t. Science, as far as I was taught, is supposed to take every proposed idea and test its merits. Perhaps Behe specifically wasn’t a good choice, I’m not familiar enough with his ideas to comment in that respect, but theres nothing wrong with giving the students a chance to evaluate his claims for themselves. If they(and by extension others) are convinced or even slightly swayed then it would point to some sort of merit, if not then the worst that happens is the loss of a bit of free time.

Read this carefully - One of us has taken the trouble to learn about the relevant "proposed ideas" here and the tests of their merit. That one is me, and not you. Why don't you take your own advice, which is pretty good advice? Why don't you learn something about Behe, his claims, and the response of critics who are extensively familiar with his work? Use Wikipedia as a convenient starting point. Here's some free information - "Intelligent Design" was crafted after the Edwards v Aguillard decision, to "court proof" sectarian evolution denial by presenting it in a way that is coy about the exact identity of the "the designer" and trying to avoid testable positive claims. Learn more about biological evolution, too.

Such a wonderful passive aggresive tone, however you seemed to have missed the point of my previous comments, which is to say listening to a view you disagree with is not going to cause any harm when the people listening are objective, which from personal knowledge of actually going to the school and knowing the kids in question, I am qualified to say they are.

There's nothing passive aggressive about my direct challenges, or my tone. I notice you evaded my simple, direct, relevant questions. I don't agree that this was the point of your previous comment. If it had been, I would have agreed with your previous comment. After all, I The point of your previous comment was that a school should invite Behe as an official guest speaker. Yet, as I noted before, you exhibited (or feigned) ignorance of Behe's work, disqualifying you from having a rational opinion on this topic.

eric said:

Bennigan Kelch said: When I say your personal opinion I don't mean to suggest that you just up and decided he was wrong, nor do I mean that ID has anywhere near the same amount of evidence as evolution. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that says ID, or at least certain forms of ID is impossible.

But that's an extremely low bar. Too low a bar to let it be the criteria you use to decide what to present to kids, because the set of "not impossible" hypotheses is infinite. Astrology is not impossible. Geocentrism is not impossible. The humor theory of disease is not impossible. Again, you need to have higher criteria for deciding what you present as part of a good pedagogy, and I think that if you really, honestly try to come up with good criteria, ID will fail it. I invite you to do so. I've already given you two possible criteria: some evidential support for it vs. competing hypotheses, and explanatory power. But if you don't like those, come up with your own and see if ID passes them. I bet that for any reasonable criteria, it doesn't.

And it isn't that I'm remaining agnostic until I hear from speakers. I remain agnostic after being told things as well. Do I think vaccines cause autism? No, but I do not know for a fact they don't either so I would be willing to listen to someone whos claims they have evidence they do, or evidence the pyramids were alien lauchpads.

If "for a fact" you require absolute philosophical certainty, you realize that science cannot achieve that, right? Not ever, for any hypothesis or theory. You are basically invoking Hume's problem of induction here. While that problem affects all inductive conclusions, it is not a good reason to consider drastically differently supported hypotheses as relatively equal in presentation value. Be careful you don't accidentally or unconsciously use it as a leveler, because it does not really do that. I would suggest that you read Asimov's essay, The Relativity of Wrong. The relevant point for this discussion is: when people thought that organisms were designed, they were wrong. When people accept the modern theory of evolution, they are (probably) wrong. But if you think the latter is just as wrong as the former, you are wronger than both put together. Behe is wrong. Maybe Miller is wrong too. But if you think Behe's ideas should be given the same weigjht as Miller's, you are wronger than either.

harold said: Bennigan Kelch or whatever its account name is believes that not inviting someone to speak at the Schilling school is exactly equivalent to censoring them.

Bennigan Kelch said: What I am saying is that there is no evidence that says ID, or at least certain forms of ID is impossible.

Bennigan Kelch said: The desire to censor so obviously evident in the literaly shitstorm his guest speaking has inspired in this blog is what I was referring to in my comment. Am I nor right in determining that was the original point of this entire convo?

That having someone like behe be a guest speaker at a school is an egregious affront to education?

Its a low bar only if you present them as fact, which is not what I’m advocating.

I do not believe that simply listening to him speak is going to corrupt my views, nor do I think my classmates would be susceptible either.

Bennigan Kelch said: I find it interesting that many of you are saying that behes views are such garbage that anyone with half a brain would know he's full of crap after listening to him, but then you turn around and are worried that he's going to manage to convince someone otherwise. If its such obvious garbage then why are you worried about it being able to convince people otherwise? Your arguments seem to be based on young people are gullible but as far as I'm aware I'm the only one here thats actually been to the school and personally knows the students in question.

I do understand that science cannot give 100% facts. I would not consider behes ideas to be the strongest either, especially if hes as bad as you claim. However I would say that there are still arguments to be made for ID as a possible place for the origin of life. I also recognize that this would simply provide more time for it to evolve naturally in some other form, not that all life that ever exists was designed.

Here is a problem which arises only because the advocates of ID refuse to describe the processes of ID.

In the ordinary meaning of "design" (remember, this is all we have to go on, lacking any description) there is a difference between "design" and "make". There is a difference between the "design division" (people producing "blueprints" and specifications) and the "manufactory division" (which produces things to be sold).

In the ordinary meaning of "design", the shmoo was intelligently designed by Al Capp; the "Penrose triangle" was intelligently designed (originally by someone earlier than Penrose, but that's another topic); and Rube Goldberg machines, etc. These things do not exist even though they were intelligently designed. That tells us this: ID is not an explanation for why something exists. If I ask about how the statues on Mt. Rushmore came to be there, you do not answer my question by telling me that they were intelligently designed: how did the designs come to be realized there and then? (By the way, if you include under ID the sort thing included in facets of the world of life, telling me that those statues were designed does not exclude that they just grew there, but that's another digression).

Unless the advocates were to show some interest in telling us something about "intelligent design", many questions such as these are left unaddressed.

If he or she (again) responds to this in an exaggerated tone of martyred outrage, while simultaneously hurling far more nasty insults than anything directed at him or her, I will consider my point supported.

So your point is supported if I defend myself from accusations about me based entirely on your own assumptions and preconceptions?

Reading all this, I'll make my two predictions about Bennigan Kelch: A) he secretly is a supporter of ID/creationism but he's trying to argue without revealing that card; or B) seems like a fairly recent grad from this school (sorry, ageism, I know) and part of his youth and background is a great overvaluation of scepticism, whereas this results in being sceptical about *everything*, it's equally valued to be sceptic of mainstream science as well as pseudoscience because the scepticism is the point.

I think either option is possible. And my apologies Bennigan Kelch, it is enjoyable to ascribe motivations to someone based on observed behaviour. Feel free to jump in.

According to the logic presented, the criteria for inviting a speaker is that no one will be stupid enough to believe a word he says! If that is the case, then the students must be a lot smarter than the guys running the place, who were apparently taken in, hook line and sinker by pseudo scientific nonsense. Why not invite real scientists to present real science? WHy not give the kids an example of sound reasoning? Why provide a con man with no scientific expertise to spout his brand of idiocy? Sounds like someone was taken in by the snake oil pitch and is now making excuses. You might want to consider the reputation of the school before inviting speakers known to be scam artists.

DS said: According to the logic presented, the criteria for inviting a speaker is that no one will be stupid enough to believe a word he says! If that is the case, then the students must be a lot smarter than the guys running the place, who were apparently taken in, hook line and sinker by pseudo scientific nonsense. Why not invite real scientists to present real science? WHy not give the kids an example of sound reasoning? Why provide a con man with no scientific expertise to spout his brand of idiocy? Sounds like someone was taken in by the snake oil pitch and is now making excuses. You might want to consider the reputation of the school before inviting speakers known to be scam artists.

DS said: Why not invite real scientists to present real science? WHy not give the kids an example of sound reasoning?

gnome de net said:

DS said: Why not invite real scientists to present real science? WHy not give the kids an example of sound reasoning?

According to an earlier post, Bill Nye spoke at the school shortly after his debate with Ken Ham.

daoudmbo said:

DS said: According to the logic presented, the criteria for inviting a speaker is that no one will be stupid enough to believe a word he says! If that is the case, then the students must be a lot smarter than the guys running the place, who were apparently taken in, hook line and sinker by pseudo scientific nonsense. Why not invite real scientists to present real science? WHy not give the kids an example of sound reasoning? Why provide a con man with no scientific expertise to spout his brand of idiocy? Sounds like someone was taken in by the snake oil pitch and is now making excuses. You might want to consider the reputation of the school before inviting speakers known to be scam artists.

It is buried somewhere in Bennigan Kelch's posts that Behe is a friend of someone either on the board or administration of this school (sorry, don't feel like going back and reading through all of it again to specify which).

daoudmbo said: Reading all this, I'll make my two predictions about Bennigan Kelch: A) he secretly is a supporter of ID/creationism but he's trying to argue without revealing that card; or B) seems like a fairly recent grad from this school (sorry, ageism, I know) and part of his youth and background is a great overvaluation of scepticism, whereas this results in being sceptical about *everything*, it's equally valued to be sceptic of mainstream science as well as pseudoscience because the scepticism is the point. I think either option is possible. And my apologies Bennigan Kelch, it is enjoyable to ascribe motivations to someone based on observed behaviour. Feel free to jump in.

eric said:

daoudmbo said: Reading all this, I'll make my two predictions about Bennigan Kelch: A) he secretly is a supporter of ID/creationism but he's trying to argue without revealing that card; or B) seems like a fairly recent grad from this school (sorry, ageism, I know) and part of his youth and background is a great overvaluation of scepticism, whereas this results in being sceptical about *everything*, it's equally valued to be sceptic of mainstream science as well as pseudoscience because the scepticism is the point. I think either option is possible. And my apologies Bennigan Kelch, it is enjoyable to ascribe motivations to someone based on observed behaviour. Feel free to jump in.

Okay, I will. First, I really dislike this sort of indirect motivational analysis. Its too easy a vehicle for just insulting someone while pretending that's not what you're doing. If you were really interested in understanding his background rather than ad hom, why not just ASK the guy instead of attributing these traits to him? He's visting here multiple times a day, its not like there is any need to speculate about his background when you could probably get a direct answer in a couple of hours. Secondly, while I probably disagree with BK on its validity in this particular case, "know your audience" is a perfectly reasonable defense, in principle, of the school's actions. After all, few of us would object if Behe spoke 'uncontested' at some technical session of an AIBS, ACS, or APS meeting. Why is that? Because we know the sort of audience that's going to be present at those meetings. We figure that those audiences are sophisticated enough to handle it. Part of the issue with this particular event is that most of us outsiders are skeptical that High School students have the biology background and critical thinking skills needed to remain unbaffled by bullshit, so to speak. If BK's personal experience with Schilling leads him to believe that they can handle it, we should listen seriously to that argument. Doesn't mean we necessarily have to accept it as true, but we should definitely give it some thought. For my part, I think there is pretty much no way to see this invite as a good pedagogical decision on the part of the school. Even if the faculty had a high and justified confidence that the students could see through Behe's baloney, it is still true that choosing to invite him carries an opportunity cost: what else could the school have done with that lecture time? Sean Carroll? Neil Shubin? Ken Miller? It seems such a waste of the students' time to give them an hour of Behe when they could've given their students an hour of far more legitimate and interesting cutting edge science. Its like the school chose to give the students an hour of Friends reruns when they could've shown them Cosmos. Arguably that decision doesn't hurt them, but it sure is a crappy decision given the available alternatives.

daoudmbo said: I was really trying to avoid insults. And my interpretation is not based on BK's defense of the this school audience, but rather his equivocal statement like the following (quoted in full): "When I say your personal opinion I don’t mean to suggest that you just up and decided he was wrong, nor do I mean that ID has anywhere near the same amount of evidence as evolution. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that says ID, or at least certain forms of ID is impossible.

If you read the Schilling School announcement it says the Behe presentation is about "Feeling left out by the Ham-Nye Debate? The Reasonable Middle Ground of Intelligent Design."

Seems to me that the Schilling School IS endorsing Behe as a legitimate "reasonable" alternative between Nye and Ham, implying that each represent an extreme of a continuum and moderates should be drawn to the "middle" ground that is ID; pseudoscience notwithstanding.

Bobsie said: If you read the Schilling School announcement it says the Behe presentation is about "Feeling left out by the Ham-Nye Debate? The Reasonable Middle Ground of Intelligent Design." Seems to me that the Schilling School IS endorsing Behe as a legitimate "reasonable" alternative between Nye and Ham, implying that each represent an extreme of a continuum and moderates should be drawn to the "middle" ground that is ID; pseudoscience notwithstanding.

I think that part of the problem is distinguishing between someone you do not agree with and a charlatan. A charlatan, in this context, is someone who denies known scientific fact: a climate change denier, an evolution denier, a vaccine denier. Such people, obviously, have freedom of speech, but that does not mean that you have to invite them to your school or allow them the unlimited right to comment on Panda's Thumb. Behe, for all that he is a trained biologist, becomes a charlatan whenever he promotes intelligent-design creationism. It is inappropriate to invite a charlatan to speak at a school, whether public or private.

The root of this problem may well be that the American press in the last generation or so has suffered from what I call terminal objectivity (a phrase that I think I may have stolen from the former Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman). Terminal objectivity means that even if there is an open-and-shut case in favor of a proposition, the reporter has to go out and find a crank who denies that proposition. And never mind investigating – just go out and get both sides and report on them, whether or not there are two sides.

If I wanted to truly teach a controversy, I think I would go out and find a competent person who agrees that climate change is anthropogenic but argues, for example, that the problem is insoluble and that we had better find ways to adapt. That is a true controversy and could probably be presented to students at a level they can understand and discuss. And the presenter is someone I do not agree with, but need not be a charlatan.

a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack.

Apparently the general public and BK in particular have a confused understanding of exactly what "Intelligent Design" truly is. Of course, any religious person with a belief in a "creator" would say their "God" was most "intelligent" and if s/he created our world, s/he must have "designed" it. And their understanding of either science or ID goes no deeper.

However, the general public needs to know that Intelligent Design is much more narrowly defined and that gets by those with a more self-serving and simplistic understanding. And the ID folks are content not to disabuse anyone of this thinking. As has been said here many times before, ID is not science; it's a conservative anti-science political movement.

I'm from the Cincinnati area myself. High IQ notwithstanding, Cincinnati is politically very conservative (John Boehner anyone) and ID fits well within the politically conservative mindset. BK is not so much representing a high IQ but much more likely representing the conservative environment of his upbringing.

Anyone with a reasoned respect for legitimate science would not have been so intellectually conflicted and defensive. ID deserves no attention from the “reasonable middle ground” folk unless it’s of the rubbernecking kind stretching to see a train wreck.

Just Bob said: An important finer distinction is that a charlatan KNOWS that he is a charlatan.

a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack.

A person who honestly believes what he is claiming may be ignorant, egregiously mistaken, or just crazy, but he is not a charlatan. A charlatan is a LIAR. And mistaken could shade into charlatan when he may still believe his own BS, but he persists in presenting 'evidence' that has repeatedly been shown to be completely worthless -- even that he himself has admitted to be worthless in other venues. Behe, I would judge, is somewhere in that shady category: honest in his belief, but shady in his 'facts'.

Just Bob said: Behe, I would judge, is somewhere in that shady category: honest in his belief, but shady in his 'facts'.

Just Bob said: An important finer distinction is that a charlatan KNOWS that he is a charlatan.

a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack.

A person who honestly believes what he is claiming may be ignorant, egregiously mistaken, or just crazy, but he is not a charlatan. A charlatan is a LIAR. And mistaken could shade into charlatan when he may still believe his own BS, but he persists in presenting 'evidence' that has repeatedly been shown to be completely worthless -- even that he himself has admitted to be worthless in other venues. Behe, I would judge, is somewhere in that shady category: honest in his belief, but shady in his 'facts'.

I guess I forgot about the fifth element.

DS said: So, in summary, he is a charlatan and he should know it. If he doesn’t, he has no excuse. Denying the obvious isn’t going to get him anywhere.

Okay, I will. First, I really dislike this sort of indirect motivational analysis. Its too easy a vehicle for just insulting someone while pretending that’s not what you’re doing. If you were really interested in understanding his background rather than ad hom, why not just ASK the guy instead of attributing these traits to him? He’s visting here multiple times a day, its not like there is any need to speculate about his background when you could probably get a direct answer in a couple of hours.

harold said: To deal with people who are not telling the truth, you don't have to be harsh, you don't have to threaten, you don't have to use vulgarity, you don't have to hurl blatant insults or epithets. None of those uncivil tactics are necessary.

TomS said:

harold said: To deal with people who are not telling the truth, you don't have to be harsh, you don't have to threaten, you don't have to use vulgarity, you don't have to hurl blatant insults or epithets. None of those uncivil tactics are necessary.

To resort to the "harsh" may be welcome to them. It is being persecuted. A mark of their devotion to the Truth. The lurker is likely find it unpleasant. A flame war is not enlightening. For those who like to read flame wars ... are we supposed to be entertainers, or defenders of rational thinking?

SWT said: Even if it turns out the BoZ3MaN is Ken Miller (and I am skeptical of that), the text omitted by FL significantly changes how a reasonable adult will understand the comment. Also, kudos for getting the link to work. I tried to, but in preview it didn't work for me. Now I just have to live down the shame of having admitted to searching for something with Yahoo. In my own defense, it was the third search engine I tried.

harold said: They use straw man constructions and quote mines to lie about what other people believe. That's flat lying; they are intellectually capable of understanding what their critics actually said.

DS said: I guess I forgot about the fifth element.