Kitzmas -- tenth anniversary of <i>Kitzmiller</i> victory

He was an activist judge, beholden to mere reality.

You won't find that at EN+V, or UD.

Glen Davidson

Aw! Merry Kitzmas, one and all!

(And, Profs. Steffi Steffi and Steve Steve)

Except that there was no attempt to "teach" intelligent design at Dover. The objection made by the NCSE, and the rest of the anti-American crowd, was that there was a book in the school library which exposed pupils to the scientific arguments supporting intelligent design. That was deemed unacceptable to those who want to deny students such information and want to shove down their throats scientifically unsupported Neo-Darwinist dogma masquerading as science.

Ravi said: Except that there was no attempt to "teach" intelligent design at Dover. The objection made by the NCSE, and the rest of the anti-American crowd, was that there was a book in the school library which exposed pupils to the scientific arguments supporting intelligent design. That was deemed unacceptable to those who want to deny students such information and want to shove down their throats scientifically unsupported Neo-Darwinist dogma masquerading as science.

John said: The teachers were required to read an official statement from the then creationist-dominated school board to inform students about Intelligent Design and to notify them of the existence of the "Panda" textbooks. If that's not teaching, then I don't know what the meaning of the word "teaching" is.

Ravi said:

John said: The teachers were required to read an official statement from the then creationist-dominated school board to inform students about Intelligent Design and to notify them of the existence of the "Panda" textbooks. If that's not teaching, then I don't know what the meaning of the word "teaching" is.

That is simply making an announcement in school. No ID lessons were provided. Anyway, fortunately, students can learn about ID in states which have passed academic freedom legislation. We can expect scientific achievement in these states to flourish as a result.

Ravi said:

John said: The teachers were required to read an official statement from the then creationist-dominated school board to inform students about Intelligent Design and to notify them of the existence of the "Panda" textbooks. If that's not teaching, then I don't know what the meaning of the word "teaching" is.

That is simply making an announcement in school. No ID lessons were provided. Anyway, fortunately, students can learn about ID in states which have passed academic freedom legislation. We can expect scientific achievement in these states to flourish as a result.

Ravi said:

John said: The teachers were required to read an official statement from the then creationist-dominated school board to inform students about Intelligent Design and to notify them of the existence of the "Panda" textbooks. If that's not teaching, then I don't know what the meaning of the word "teaching" is.

That is simply making an announcement in school. No ID lessons were provided. Anyway, fortunately, students can learn about ID in states which have passed academic freedom legislation. We can expect scientific achievement in these states to flourish as a result.

Ravi said: Except that there was no attempt to "teach" intelligent design at Dover. The objection made by the NCSE, and the rest of the anti-American crowd, was that there was a book in the school library which exposed pupils to the scientific arguments supporting intelligent design. That was deemed unacceptable to those who want to deny students such information and want to shove down their throats scientifically unsupported Neo-Darwinist dogma masquerading as science.

Seems to me that it would do just the opposite: No point in investigating how or why something came to be 'designed' that way if the answer is "God did it." There are those who inevitably would consider it sacrilegious to even ask the question of why God did it that way. Who are we to question the works or motives of God?

If ID were science, why were the DI and its supporters unable to convince anyone of that? Perhaps it is the comical definition that the DI provides:The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Certain features - only certain, why not all? and aren't living things a part of the universe? Can you name which features of living things are intelligently made?

What intelligence? buildings and automobiles and cell phones etc. etc. are best explained by an intelligent cause, but is anything not made by humans?

If it is a positive "theory" then why the tacked on clause at the end? What makes natural selection stop working? When does naturalism stop and supernaturalism begin?

What would you have them teach Ravi? You can't even name the intelligence behind the curtain and even if you believe it is your god you have absolutely no idea how it made a single thing. Why would this god make the first living things by magic and not continue to do so? Why convert the system to naturalistic processes like reproduction, development, acclimation, and adaptation?

Ravi said: Anyway, fortunately, students can learn about ID in states which have passed academic freedom legislation. We can expect scientific achievement in these states to flourish as a result.

In all the centuries humans have been asking the "designer" for a cure for disease, has it ever given them one? If I have an issue with a human-made system, I can call or email or read an owner's manual for help - why can't I do that for things wrong with my body? Why isn't there 24hr support? Did the company go out of business?

If Ravi thinks that there was nothing wrong going on a in Dover, how about this, how about if he is required to read the following statement in church every Sunday:

"There is no scientific evidence for creationism and creationists can't even agree on one story. So we have put several textbooks on evolution in the church library. If you want to know the truth about evolution you should read them, because you sure won't here the truth being told from this pulpit."

DS said: Well now, there is a testable hypothesis. We will indeed see the results of anyone trying to substitute pseudo scientific nonsense for science. I don't think the results are going to be what you thinks they are. After all, look at how scientific achievement has flourished at the Discovery Institute for all these years.

Just Bob said: Seriously, Ravi, why would assuming that "god designed it that way" be a great stimulus that would inevitably lead to 'scientific achievement flourishing'?

Ravi said:

Just Bob said: Seriously, Ravi, why would assuming that "god designed it that way" be a great stimulus that would inevitably lead to 'scientific achievement flourishing'?

If there is an intelligent designer, who engineered all these biological systems, then this is inspirational because we can learn from his designs and apply it in our own science. ID makes students aware that they are not jury-rigged products of a blind, directionless and meaningless process, but are instead wonderfully designed contrivances. More students would become interested in science because they would want to know more about their own designer and his works.

Ravi said:

Just Bob said: Seriously, Ravi, why would assuming that "god designed it that way" be a great stimulus that would inevitably lead to 'scientific achievement flourishing'?

If there is an intelligent designer, who engineered all these biological systems, then this is inspirational because we can learn from his designs and apply it in our own science.

Ravi said:

Just Bob said: Seriously, Ravi, why would assuming that "god designed it that way" be a great stimulus that would inevitably lead to 'scientific achievement flourishing'?

If there is an intelligent designer, who engineered all these biological systems, then this is inspirational because we can learn from his designs and apply it in our own science. ID makes students aware that they are not jury-rigged products of a blind, directionless and meaningless process, but are instead wonderfully designed contrivances. More students would become interested in science because they would want to know more about their own designer and his works.

Ravi said: If you want Darwinobots as your future scientists, then go ahead and teach Darwinism to the exclusion of anything else. But if you want scientists who can think critically, and are prepared to follow the evidence and not the prevailing dogma, then embrace academic freedom.

Just Bob said: Then I guess so far we haven't learned anything useful from or about the 'designs' in nature because we haven't attributed them to your god. Yeah, that must be why materialistic science has gotten nowhere.

Yardbird said: By academic freedom, of course, you mean a lack of rigor. We don't teach telepathy, auras, or astrology in science class either, because they are equally as unproven as Intelligent Design.

Ravi said:

Just Bob said: Then I guess so far we haven't learned anything useful from or about the 'designs' in nature because we haven't attributed them to your god. Yeah, that must be why materialistic science has gotten nowhere.

If we take the evolutionist argument that living organisms are the product of the sloppy and stupid work of natural selection, then we have nothing to learn from biological systems. If, on the other hand, we infer the handiwork of an intelligent designer, then we have much to learn and to emulate.

Ravi said:

Just Bob said: Then I guess so far we haven't learned anything useful from or about the 'designs' in nature because we haven't attributed them to your god. Yeah, that must be why materialistic science has gotten nowhere.

If we take the evolutionist argument that living organisms are the product of the sloppy and stupid work of natural selection, then we have nothing to learn from biological systems. If, on the other hand, we infer the handiwork of an intelligent designer, then we have much to learn and to emulate.

John said:

Ravi said:

Just Bob said: Then I guess so far we haven't learned anything useful from or about the 'designs' in nature because we haven't attributed them to your god. Yeah, that must be why materialistic science has gotten nowhere.

If we take the evolutionist argument that living organisms are the product of the sloppy and stupid work of natural selection, then we have nothing to learn from biological systems. If, on the other hand, we infer the handiwork of an intelligent designer, then we have much to learn and to emulate.

If the "intelligent designer" is so smart, then explain why: 1) More than 95% of Earth's biota died out in "The Great Dying", the terminal Permian mass extinction approximately 250 million years ago. 2) More than 50% of Earth's biota - most notably the nonavian dinosaurs and ammonites, among others - died out at the end of the Cretaceous Period, approximately 66.4 million years ago. The "handiwork" of an intelligent designer can't be so good if the designer has to wipe out most of Earth's biota every now and then. Right, Ray?

Ravi said:

Yardbird said: By academic freedom, of course, you mean a lack of rigor. We don't teach telepathy, auras, or astrology in science class either, because they are equally as unproven as Intelligent Design.

I mean applying the same critical attitude to Darwinian evolutionism that Mivart, Owen, Agassiz and Driesch adopted. These men were all great scientists of their time. They didn't advocate ID, but neither did they pay homage to Darwin's theory and were happy to find fault with it just as ID proponents do.

Ravi said:

Yardbird said: By academic freedom, of course, you mean a lack of rigor. We don't teach telepathy, auras, or astrology in science class either, because they are equally as unproven as Intelligent Design.

I mean applying the same critical attitude to Darwinian evolutionism that Mivart, Owen, Agassiz and Driesch adopted. These men were all great scientists of their time. They didn't advocate ID, but neither did they pay homage to Darwin's theory and were happy to find fault with it just as ID proponents do.

Ravi, meet Ray.

I will wager that if you explain in detail to him your exact positions on evolution, adaptation, 'intelligent design', etc., they won't agree in every particular with his views, so you're an atheist evolutionist.

Just ask him.

He belongs to a VERY small club, and wants to keep it that way.

Ravi said:

Just Bob said: Then I guess so far we haven't learned anything useful from or about the 'designs' in nature because we haven't attributed them to your god. Yeah, that must be why materialistic science has gotten nowhere.

If we take the evolutionist argument that living organisms are the product of the sloppy and stupid work of natural selection, then we have nothing to learn from biological systems. If, on the other hand, we infer the handiwork of an intelligent designer, then we have much to learn and to emulate.

phhht said: But you're no great scientist of our time, Ravi, and there IS no great scientist today who finds serious fault with the theory of evolution. That's one reason we can say evolution is true.

Ravi: the website you linked names no scientist who "finds fault" even with whatever straw man concept of "Neo-Darwinism" that it dislikes. It's up to you, I'm afraid.

Name a scientist - an actual scientist who conducts research in the lab or the field, who relies on observation, whose results are published in peer-reviewed journals, who "finds fault" with common descent, deep time, natural selection by environmental pressure, speciation, or the separation of higher taxa.

You cannot. There are none.

Ravi said:

phhht said: But you're no great scientist of our time, Ravi, and there IS no great scientist today who finds serious fault with the theory of evolution. That's one reason we can say evolution is true.

And what has anyone suggested as an alternative account of what happens in the world of life so that things turn out as they do? It is obvious that the world of life is arranged in a complex pattern of relationships, similarities and differences, known as taxonomy, which is explained by descent with modification. Do any of this "plenty" of scientists have any suggestion for an alternative explanation? There are plenty of scientists who find fault with Neo-Darwinism: http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

Sorry, again, for my mistake in inserting my reply.

Dave Luckett said: Ravi: the website you linked names no scientist who "finds fault" even with whatever straw man concept of "Neo-Darwinism" that it dislikes. It's up to you, I'm afraid. Name a scientist - an actual scientist who conducts research in the lab or the field, who relies on observation, whose results are published in peer-reviewed journals, who "finds fault" with common descent, deep time, natural selection by environmental pressure, speciation, or the separation of higher taxa. You cannot. There are none.

Ravi said:

phhht said: But you're no great scientist of our time, Ravi, and there IS no great scientist today who finds serious fault with the theory of evolution. That's one reason we can say evolution is true.

There are plenty of scientists who find fault with Neo-Darwinism: http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

DS said:

Ravi said:

Just Bob said: Then I guess so far we haven't learned anything useful from or about the 'designs' in nature because we haven't attributed them to your god. Yeah, that must be why materialistic science has gotten nowhere.

If we take the evolutionist argument that living organisms are the product of the sloppy and stupid work of natural selection, then we have nothing to learn from biological systems. If, on the other hand, we infer the handiwork of an intelligent designer, then we have much to learn and to emulate.

This is of course completely backwards. The fact that evolution has been going on for billions of years and has produced the diversity of life we see today has sparked some of the most impressive and awe inspiring research ever undertaken by human beings, encompassing everything from comparative genomics to evolutionary development. This knowledge has proven to invaluable in such diverse fields as agriculture, medicine, wildlife management and many more. It has literally transformed our view of where humans came from what it means to be human.

eric said: Yes I must agree. Ravi, you are simply and factually wrong to claim humans can learn nothing from evolved biological systems. We learn stuff from them all the time.

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

Mike Elzinga said: From that "Third Way site that Ravi linked to:

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

This is a mischaracterization of all the work that is taking place on many fronts in the characterization and evolution of biological systems. It makes it appear that scientists are too stupid to think of things. Ravi seems to be unaware of the fact that, in addition to the biologists, there are physicists and chemists studying these systems as well. There have been hundreds of new insights in the last 30 or 40 years into how biological systems are driven by energy and matter gradients and how complex systems such as these change over time. Even where the details are still hazy, the big picture is very clear; biological systems are soft-matter systems that exist in an extremely narrow energy window, and all their behaviors are very sensitively dependent on temperature. No ID/creationist - in the nearly 50 years that ID/creationism has been a socio/political movement attempting to force its sectarian views into public education - has ever been able to grasp these important facts; let alone their implications. The problem with explaining any of this to an ID/creationist is that ID/creationists stopped learning science in middle school and replaced it with pseudoscience because their pseudoscience fits with their prior committment to their sectarian dogmas. As a result, there is no common language one can use; what one learns from studying science has been distorted to mean something entirely different to an ID/creationist. So you can never go onto ID/creationist territory and hope to explain science using their bent and broken concepts because it will always lead to a "gotcha moment" that the ID/creationist is more than happy to exploit. ID/creationism is millions of words piled on top of completely vacuuous concepts.

Michael Fugate said: Shapiro doesn't help Ravi at all.

John said:

Michael Fugate said: Shapiro doesn't help Ravi at all.

True, but in the past, he's been the DI's "favorite" evolutionist, earning praise from the likes of William Dembski and David Klinghoffer.

Michael Fugate said:

John said:

Michael Fugate said: Shapiro doesn't help Ravi at all.

True, but in the past, he's been the DI's "favorite" evolutionist, earning praise from the likes of William Dembski and David Klinghoffer.

The DI is pure apologetics - they are convinced that science is a religion and not something else all together. They really do believe that Darwin is the atheist's Jesus with the belief that "if we can only discredit Darwin and natural selection, then ID/creationism wins!" Their latest ally is librarian Michael Flannery who like Richard Weikart before him writes hit pieces against Darwin - any day now I expect one denying Darwin was a real person. Why would Darwin's supporters bury him in Westminster Abbey?

Perhaps you meant, Patrick Henry College.

Scott F said: Perhaps you meant, Patrick Henry College.

Ravi, any great scientist today who finds serious fault with the ToE? Fault(s)? It may not be perfect or faultless, but is it false or untrue?

There probably isn't any theory one as easily may find fault with. Even ID accept of evolution, it's just about that caveat - it needs a "designer" to tinker with life sometimes, say, to provide a flagellum for a poor bacterium. Did Behe's empty box change anything?

Rolf said: Ravi, any great scientist today who finds serious fault with the ToE? Fault(s)? It may not be perfect or faultless, but is it false or untrue? There probably isn't any theory one as easily may find fault with. Even ID accept of evolution, it's just about that caveat - it needs a "designer" to tinker with life sometimes, say, to provide a flagellum for a poor bacterium. Did Behe's empty box change anything?

Ravi said: No scientist has demonstrated, or can demonstrate, how the bacteria flagellum evolved from the natural selection of copying mistakes in DNA.

Ravi said:

Rolf said: Ravi, any great scientist today who finds serious fault with the ToE? Fault(s)? It may not be perfect or faultless, but is it false or untrue? There probably isn't any theory one as easily may find fault with. Even ID accept of evolution, it's just about that caveat - it needs a "designer" to tinker with life sometimes, say, to provide a flagellum for a poor bacterium. Did Behe's empty box change anything?

"Evolution" can mean so many things that it is pointless to try and refute or confirm it. Most creationists, for example, accept "microevolution" and this process is what 99% of evolutionary biologists actually study. No scientist has demonstrated, or can demonstrate, how the bacteria flagellum evolved from the natural selection of copying mistakes in DNA.

phhht said: But that is no reason to think it did not evolve that way. Why do you think that? Do you have some alternative explanation, more plausible, more supported by what we DO know and CAN demonstrate?

No, of course you do not. You're nothing but a religious loony. You can no more demonstrate the reality of your gods than you can fart yourself into orbit.

Ravi said:

phhht said: But that is no reason to think it did not evolve that way. Why do you think that? Do you have some alternative explanation, more plausible, more supported by what we DO know and CAN demonstrate?

There is every reason to think that the bacterial flagellum did not evolve in the way in which the Darwinists claim. Their assertion is entirely implausible and unsupported. Hence, it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated supposition. The inference to intelligent is much more logical. However, that still leaves open the question as to how the design was implemented.

No, of course you do not. You're nothing but a religious loony. You can no more demonstrate the reality of your gods than you can fart yourself into orbit.

Whether something has been purposefully designed, or not, is not a religious question. It may have religious and philosophical implications, but it is still fundamentally a matter of science.

phhht said: 1. Define "design." 2. Say how to detect "design."

Ravi said:

phhht said: 1. Define "design." 2. Say how to detect "design."

Design: the purposeful arrangement of parts. Design detection: irreducible or specified complexity.

Ravi said:

phhht said: 1. Define "design." 2. Say how to detect "design."

Design: the purposeful arrangement of parts.

Design detection: irreducible or specified complexity.

Ravi said:

phhht said: 1. Define "design." 2. Say how to detect "design."

Design: the purposeful arrangement of parts. Design detection: irreducible or specified complexity.

"Purposeful arrangement"? What purpose is served by the parts of living organisms? Why, simply to enable and facilitate their remaining alive until they successfully reproduce. The only purpose of living things is to survive to reproduce. That's it. That's all that is actually required. We human beings may theorise about other purposes to life - but really, as far as the species is concerned, the only requirement is that we survive and successfully raise offspring.

If their parts were not arranged in a manner sufficient for that purpose, that purpose would not be achieved. That is, those organisms would not survive. It is not to be wondered at, then, that we observe that living organisms generally are arranged to meet that purpose. But that occurs simply because any organism that does not meet it is eliminated. No intelligence is required for this elimination. It consists simply of a fact: populations of living things must at least replace their numbers, or die out. Individuals are in competition, so improved fitness results in improved chances of success. It really is as simple as that.

Irreducible complexity occurs in many living systems. It is easily explained by exaption, followed by elimination of redundant parts, the latter driven by improved efficiency. Again, this occurs as the necessary consequence of a continuous automatic hunt for fitness, not by design.

Specified complexity, as has been explained, is actually not specified. It just means whatever level of complexity that the proposer thinks too great to be explained by natural processes - usually by misunderstanding those processes or from faulty - sometimes downright fraudulent - calculations. It's nothing more than an argument from ignorance, or worse, incredulity. These go, respectively, "If I don't understand the natural-cause explanation, I am entitled to assume supernatural cause", and "If I don't believe the natural-cause explanation, I am entitled to assume supernatural cause."

No, you are not so entitled, not in either case.

Ravi said:

phhht said: 1. Define "design." 2. Say how to detect "design."

Design: the purposeful arrangement of parts. Design detection: irreducible or specified complexity.

A long, flexible vine hanging between two trees assumes the shape of a catenary curve that has as its mathematical representation the hyperbolic cosine of the distance between the suspension points (i.e., y proportional to cosh(x/a) for some scale factor a).

How did the vine know how to replicate a mathematical formula?

phhht said:

Ravi said:

phhht said: 1. Define "design." 2. Say how to detect "design."

Design: the purposeful arrangement of parts. Design detection: irreducible or specified complexity.

No good. You did not say how to detect purpose or complexity.

Re "How did the vine know how to replicate a mathematical formula?"

Maybe it went to an ivy league university?

What on earth are you on about, alfalah12345? Do you really think that linking to the website of Al Falah University, Dubai, is going to do anything other than annoy people here?

Ravi said: ... Design: the purposeful arrangement of parts. Design detection: irreducible or specified complexity.

What on earth are you on about, alfalah12345? Do you really think that linking to the website of Al Falah University, Dubai, is going to do anything other than annoy people here?

Ravi said: Were the Dover Trial conducted now, and not 10 years ago, the verdict would be completely different. This is because there is a growing number of peer-reviewed papers that question Neo-Darwinian evolutionism (an essentially Anglo-American scientific perspective) and lend support for intelligent design.

Ravi said: Design: the purposeful arrangement of parts. Design detection: irreducible or specified complexity.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ravi said: ... Design: the purposeful arrangement of parts. Design detection: irreducible or specified complexity.

Does Ravi think that in seeing Specified Complexity, we know that there must be design? There has been a long series of posts, here and elsewhere, taking apart that argument, piece by piece. It turns out that (a) If Specified Complexity is defined as Leslie Orgel did in 1973, and as William Dembski did in No Free Lunch (2002) did, detecting design by seeing enough of it that it constitutes Complex Specified Information does not show that there was design. Simply because Specified Complexity can arise by natural selection. Dembski has a theorem, his Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information, which is supposed to rule out that CSI could come to be in the genome by natural evolutionary forces. But alas, his argument does not work. For a clear review of all this, see my article in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education. (b) Dembski redefined Specified Complexity in 2005-2006. The new definition solved that problem by adding a condition that to declare SC to be present, one had to do a probability calculation that showed that it was extremely improbable that natural selection and other natural evolutionary forces could produce that particular pattern. Now the Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information was no longer needed. By definition natural selection could not have created SC. But that left an even bigger problem, for it left it up to the user to show that SC was present, and did not say how to do that probability calculation. And if one could somehow do it, one had then shown that natural evolutionary forces could not have produced the adaptation. And then the further declaration that there was SC present was simply redundant and useless. For discussion of this see posts by me here and by Elizabeth Liddle at The Skeptical Zone (here, here, and here). So Ravi is mistaken to think that Design detection by "specified complexity" works at all. If Ravi wishes to establish that it does work for this, I will be happy to the discuss the matter here with Ravi, step by step, and show that it does not work.

Matt Young said:

What on earth are you on about, alfalah12345? Do you really think that linking to the website of Al Falah University, Dubai, is going to do anything other than annoy people here?

That comment was spam -- we received a comment with the same URL in the Toxicodendron rydbergii post. I deleted them both.

The spam shows up here too:

Please do not forget the early contribution of Tim Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate, 1990, Stanford University Press.

In response to the Columbus, Ohio, science curriculum of 1982, it laid the ground work for many refutations to come.

Many thanks are due Tim Berra.

Scott F said: Perhaps you meant, Patrick Henry College.

John said:

Michael Fugate said:

John said:

Michael Fugate said: Shapiro doesn't help Ravi at all.

True, but in the past, he's been the DI's "favorite" evolutionist, earning praise from the likes of William Dembski and David Klinghoffer.

The DI is pure apologetics - they are convinced that science is a religion and not something else all together. They really do believe that Darwin is the atheist's Jesus with the belief that "if we can only discredit Darwin and natural selection, then ID/creationism wins!" Their latest ally is librarian Michael Flannery who like Richard Weikart before him writes hit pieces against Darwin - any day now I expect one denying Darwin was a real person. Why would Darwin's supporters bury him in Westminster Abbey?

You should see their recent "Ten Myths About Dover" screeds, with six written by a Sarah Chaffee - who is apparently a recent graduate of Patrick History College - a Virginia liberal arts college founded by Fundamentalist Protestant Christians and adhering to their worldview - and the rest by DI mendacious intellectual pornographer - and DI Minister of Propaganda - Casey Luskin. Here's the first which has links to the others: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/ten_myths_about_2101598101781.html

Joe Felsenstein said: So Ravi is mistaken to think that Design detection by "specified complexity" works at all. If Ravi wishes to establish that it does work for this, I will be happy to the discuss the matter here with Ravi, step by step, and show that it does not work.