Creationism education bills

[nikki2200 4]

No scientist has established that the flagellum evolved from something else, and if you believe they did, you're delusional.

 

 

I'm glad some of you guys have more energy than I do. I couldn't even respond anymore because I felt like I was arguing with a lunatic.

[Frank M 181]

 

I'm glad some of you guys have more energy than I do. I couldn't even respond anymore because I felt like I was arguing with a lunatic.

 

You were.

 

[MedStudent 56]

No scientist has established that the flagellum evolved from something else, and if you believe they did, you're delusional.

 

 

 

 

Article:

 

The Flagellum Unspun

The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity

 

 

 

 

Video with cool music:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

[Frank M 181]

This is from the link I posted earlier:

 

In summary, homology only tells us about the evolutionary history of a protein or a limb. Structures, whether at the level of amino acids or bones, can be adapted to completely new functions. Just as the human arm, the bat's wing and the dolphin's flipper share common origins, the structures responsible for flagellar motility and Type III Secretion share obvious homology but have evolved to have different functions. A flagellar system has clearly evolved to be a secretory system in an endosymbiotic bacterium, and an E. coli enzyme FucU has possibly evolved in humans to carry out some different function. One of our most important tasks as scientists is to communicate these concepts to a general populace that is woefully uninformed and misinformed about evolution.

 

I wonder if whoever named this enzyme had IDers in mind when he did.

 

[nikki2200 4]

Article:

 

The Flagellum Unspun

The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity

 

 

 

 

The assertion that cellular machines are irreducibly complex, and therefore provide proof of design, has not gone unnoticed by the scientific community. A number of detailed rebuttals have appeared in the literature, and many have pointed out the poor reasoning of recasting the classic argument from design in the modern language of biochemistry (Coyne 1996; Miller 1996; Depew 1998; Thornhill and Ussery 2000). I have suggested elsewhere that the scientific literature contains counter-examples to any assertion that evolution cannot explain biochemical complexity (Miller 1999, 147), and other workers have addressed the issue of how evolutionary mechanisms allow biological systems to increase in information content (Schneider 2000; Adami, Ofria, and Collier 2000).

 

The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum – the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.

 

 

 

I'm sure all those scientists are wrong though. The flagellum is irreducibly complex. MensaMind says so. And anyone that disagrees with him is wrong.

 

I really wish he would just watch the damn documentary of the 6 week long trial. Most of his points are covered and refuted in that. But he is familiar with the case, so he already knows that. And computer programmers write blogs to support everything he is saying, even if the scientific community doesn't agree with him, but they're all wrong. Clearly.

[penultimatestraw 473]

This is from the link I posted earlier:

 

 

 

I wonder if whoever named this enzyme had IDers in mind when he did.

 

That name is the product of intelligent design.

 

Admittedly, some of the findings are disturbing. Like the longer the evolving pilus, the more likely it is to find a suitable substrate. Those b!tches are all the same

Oh, I guess most of the rich, powerful, low body fat-having geeks won't relate to this.

[IMMensaMind 460]

 

 

I'm sure all those scientists are wrong though. The flagellum is irreducibly complex. MensaMind says so. And anyone that disagrees with him is wrong.

 

I really wish he would just watch the damn documentary of the 6 week long trial. Most of his points are covered and refuted in that. But he is familiar with the case, so he already knows that. And computer programmers write blogs to support everything he is saying, even if the scientific community doesn't agree with him, but they're all wrong. Clearly.

 

 

And for your part:

 

The flagellum is reducable. Nikki says so. Anyone that disagrees with her is wrong.

 

Are you not doing something different, but from the other side?

 

You suffer severe confirmation bias; at best this argument is a draw, because neither side contains proof - only evidence. At worst, you're using argumentation that lies in defense of Darwinism, and Shapiro's research skewers Darwinism.

 

You seem satisfied that because someone posted a counter argument, the discussion is over. How very intelligent of you, considering that some of the science that the opponents of ID relied upon in that case is now opposed by the science of James Shapiro.

 

You don't seem to be able to contest Shapiro's research, so I wonder why you and yours so vehemently defend a Darwinian position, when the evidence points the other way?

 

As for refuting what Ken Wilson has said, you can find that right here. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

 

An excerpt:

 

Yet for Miller, intelligent design purports to show that it is logically impossible for the Darwinian mechanism to generate irreducibly complex biochemical systems. And since there is in fact no logical impossibility for the Darwinian mechanism to accomplish this feat, intelligent design has no traction against Darwinism and can safely be ignored (at least on scientific, though perhaps not on political, grounds). The question we should therefore be asking is why Miller, as a scientist, raises the standard so high against intelligent design. Certainly he realizes that as a criterion for judging claims, strict logical possibility/impossibility applies only in mathematics. Miller might answer that intelligent design proponents have themselves set so high a standard and that he is merely reporting that fact. But Miller is responding to Behe and me. For my part, I carefully avoid tying intelligent designs critique of Darwinism to the unreasonably high standard of logical impossibility or mathematical certainty (though, granted, I employ mathematics). Nor does a charitable reading of Behe yield such an interpretation. So let me pose the question again: Why is intelligent design held to such a high standard when that standard is absent from the rest of the empirical sciences (nowhere else in the natural sciences is strict logical possibility/impossibility enforced, not even with the best established physical laws like the first and second laws of thermodynamics)?

 

 

 

Whats behind this double-standard is a curious logic that propels evolutionary reasoning. I call it evolutionary logic or the logic of credulity. Evolutionary logic takes the form of a reductio ad absurdum. The absurdity is intelligent design or more generally any substantive teleology. For evolutionary biologists, to treat design or teleology as fundamental modes of explanation capable of accounting for the emergence of biological structures is totally unacceptable. Any valid argument that concludes design in such cases must therefore derive from faulty premises. Thus, in particular, any claim that entails, makes probable, or otherwise implicates design in the emergence of biological structures must be rejected. But evolutionary logic doesnt stop there. Not only must any claim that supports design be rejected, but any claim that rules out design thereby demands assent and commands belief. Hence evolutions logic of credulity belief in an evolutionary claim is enjoined simply because it acts as a defeater to design and not because any actual evidence supports it.

 

 

 

Millers appeal to the TTSS as a precursor on an indirect Darwinian pathway to the bacterial flagellum is a case in point. Behe has decisively ruled out direct Darwinian pathways as unable to account for irreducibly complex biochemical systems (a direct Darwinian pathway being one where a system evolves by improving a fixed given function). If indirect Darwinian pathways could also be ruled out as unable to account for such systems, that would sink Darwinism and support intelligent design (an indirect Darwinian pathway being one where a system evolves by also modifying its function). But intelligent design in biology is unthinkable you cant go there! So anything that that leads you there must be rejected and anything that protects you from going there receives support. The Darwinian conclusion: indirect Darwinian pathways are not ruled out and in fact account for the way such systems evolved. This is a counsel of credulity: Believe despite the lack of evidence because the alternative is unthinkable.

 

 

 

Behe decisively closes off avenues by which the Darwinian mechanism could have given rise to irreducibly complex systems. Yet instead of casting doubt on the Darwinian mechanism, Behes closing off of avenues merely confirms for Miller that the Darwinian mechanism operated through other avenues, which have the advantage of being completely unspecified and unsupported by empirical evidence, to wit, indirect Darwinian pathways. Behe rules out ways the Darwinian hypothesis might be true. Is this hypothesis therefore disconfirmed or brought into question? No. Instead, ways (however implausible) that the Darwinian hypothesis might remain true are thereby confirmed.

 

Bottom line: Calculate the probability of getting a flagellum by stochastic (and that includes Darwinian) means any way you like, but do calculate it. All such calculations to date have fallen well below my universal probability bound of 10^(-150). But for Miller all such calculations are besides the point because a Darwinian pathway, though completely unknown, most assuredly exists and, once made explicit, would produce probabilities above my universal probability bound. To be sure, if a Darwinian pathway exists, the probabilities associated with it would no longer trigger a design inference. But thats just the point, isnt it? Namely, whether such a pathway exists in the first place. Miller, it seems, wants me to calculate probabilities associated with indirect Darwinian pathways leading to the flagellum. But until such paths are made explicit, theres no way to calculate the probabilities. This is all very convenient for Darwinism and allows Darwinists to insulate their theory from critique indefinitely. Over six years after Michael Behe made the bacterial flagellum the mascot of the intelligent design movement, Ken Miller has nothing more than the TTSS to point to as a possible evolutionary precursor. Behe and the ID community have therefore successfully shown that Darwinists dont have a clue how the bacterial flagellum might have arisen. Miller, however, wants more, namely for ID proponents to show that Darwinists dont have a prayer for the naturalistic origination of the flagellum. But as a good Roman Catholic, Miller must realize that no sinner is beyond the reach of prayer, not even the Darwinist. At any rate, prayer is not the issue. The issue is whether design does have a clue about the flagellum. The intelligent design community argues that it does. Miller doesnt like the argument, but dont think for a moment that he has anything equal or better.

[nikki2200 4]

And for your part:

 

The flagellum is reducable. Nikki says so. Anyone that disagrees with her is wrong.

 

Are you not doing something different, but from the other side?

 

You suffer severe confirmation bias; at best this argument is a draw, because neither side contains proof - only evidence. At worst, you're using argumentation that lies in defense of Darwinism, and Shapiro's research skewers Darwinism.

 

You seem satisfied that because someone posted a counter argument, the discussion is over. How very intelligent of you, considering that some of the science that the opponents of ID relied upon in that case is now opposed by the science of James Shapiro.

 

You don't seem to be able to contest Shapiro's research, so I wonder why you and yours so vehemently defend a Darwinian position, when the evidence points the other way?

 

 

No. I'm not. I've only discussed science here. Not personal opinions. All I have done is regurgitated information that is considered scientific facts by the scientific community. There is no confirmation bias because I am not arrogant enough to try to interpret or put meaning into someone else's work. The evidence me and mine have provided are real scientific studies, factual information from a court case, and Shapiro's exact words without interpretation into what's really going on in his head. Not biased blogs or opinion pieces. And I do have a basic understanding of scientific theory, so I am able to discern between what is actually scientific research and what is grasping at straws.

 

My argument is in support of teaching real science in the classroom and not some made up interpretations and huge leaps to a conclusion that if something can't yet be explained scientifically, the logical conclusion is that god did it. I have no issue with Shapiro's research. However, he himself said they are on the brink of something. Once they have established his findings through the same rigors that all other scientific theories go through, I have no doubt it will be taught as science as well. It's just not there yet. However one thing I am certain of is that the conclusion of his research will not be that there is a designer/god/aliens whatever, because jumping to that conclusion is a personal belief, not a scientific fact.

[IMMensaMind 460]

No. I'm not. I've only discussed science here. Not personal opinions. All I have done is regurgitated information that is considered scientific facts by the scientific community. There is no confirmation bias because I am not arrogant enough to try to interpret or put meaning into someone else's work. The evidence me and mine have provided are real scientific studies, factual information from a court case, and Shapiro's exact words without interpretation into what's really going on in his head. Not biased blogs or opinion pieces. And I do have a basic understanding of scientific theory, so I am able to discern between what is actually scientific research and what is grasping at straws.

 

My argument is in support of teaching real science in the classroom and not some made up interpretations and huge leaps to a conclusion that if something can't yet be explained scientifically, the logical conclusion is that god did it. I have no issue with Shapiro's research. However, he himself said they are on the brink of something. Once they have established his findings through the same rigors that all other scientific theories go through, I have no doubt it will be taught as science as well. It's just not there yet. However one thing I am certain of is that the conclusion of his research will not be that there is a designer/god/aliens whatever, because jumping to that conclusion is a personal belief, not a scientific fact.

 

Your argument is personal, and it is directed at me. You have your rebuttal, now read it - if you're really interested in Science, this is how it works.

 

Both Behe and Dembski make very good points in rebuttal - and one of their points explains that those who you laud as irrefutable are making "huge leaps" of their own.

 

We can disagree, but stop being so damned disagreeable.

[GettnHuge 1]

Your argument is personal, and it is directed at me. You have your rebuttal, now read it - if you're really interested in Science, this is how it works.

 

Both Behe and Dembski make very good points in rebuttal - and one of their points explains that those who you laud as irrefutable are making "huge leaps" of their own.

 

We can disagree, but stop being so damned disagreeable.

 

It sounds like you are declaring victory and basing it on simply not liking the tone of the argument against you.

You have been repeatedly slammed to the mat. suck it up and move on.

[nikki2200 4]

Your argument is personal, and it is directed at me. You have your rebuttal, now read it - if you're really interested in Science, this is how it works.

 

Both Behe and Dembski make very good points in rebuttal - and one of their points explains that those who you laud as irrefutable are making "huge leaps" of their own.

 

We can disagree, but stop being so damned disagreeable.

 

Says the guy who has called people fat and told them that you have so much money you could buy and sell them as slaves several times over.

 

How the hell have I made it personal? But then again... you can read minds so maybe you know the only reason I was participating in this thread is because I didn't like you. Everything I have said here has been in direct response to something you posted. I have not mentioned one thing in this thread unless it was a response to something you said. And yes.... I have a big problem with you lying about direct quotes and trying to interpret scientific research in a way the actual scientist doesn't agree with. And yes.... I'm going to call you out on that. Maybe you're not used to doing or saying whatever you feel like and not being called on it. Who knows. But grow a ball sack for chrissake.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Says the guy who has called people fat and told them that you have so much money you could buy and sell them as slaves several times over.

 

Yeah. Says that guy. That guy who put up with a sh!tton of hostility from the crowd in this room. Only your moral relativism allows you to criticize me for returning insults, but not criticize others for forcing it. By your standard, people who get incessantly insulted should never insult in return, and if they do, it justifies the insults with which to begin.

 

You create an impossible paradigm. It's obvious evidence of just how impossible it is to debate with leftists, and other mean people. You'll notice that my conversation with The Next Generation was extremely civil - that's because he approached the topic by respecting the person with whom he was discussing this.

 

How the hell have I made it personal? But then again... you can read minds so maybe you know the only reason I was participating in this thread is because I didn't like you.

 

Your first post:

 

Nah. That one doesn't have enough semi-colons in it. Surely there must be a better one somewhere.

 

That was about my posting style. You want to deny that this was personal? Your very first focking post was derisive and mocking.

 

Your second post:

 

You know things have gotten serious when we've moved into CAPS LOCK mode.

 

This too was about my posting style. Again, personal. You getting the picture here? If you are in denial of your own actions here, I seriously doubt that you'll admit it when directly faced with it. Instead, you'll deflect and claim something about thicker skin: which isn't a denial; it's an admission. And you'll be just as wrong about this point as any you could make - but I'll still be the bad guy here, because you and others decided it to be so.

 

So we're clear: I don't post because of people like you. I post in spite of people like you. I can argue that you're lying and in denial of your personally insulting style which results in return insults without actually giving a flying fock if you insult; it's just another point about which I'll be correct, and you will not.

 

Post three:

 

Dude.... that is some guys blog. It's a blog. It's a blog that likens evolutionary theory to MS-DOS programming, Swiss Army knives, and Six Sigma manufacturing process.

 

Really?

 

This is perhaps your least derisive post in the thread, but it is still derisive. Yes, it was a blog. Blogs can contain useful information. Unless you happen to disagree with what is in the them - and that's why you felt you could actually post a blog of your own in response. But yours was credible. Naturally.

 

Post four compares the blog to "Flava of Love". This was, of course, before you offered your own blog.

 

Post five:

 

I'm just merely pointing out what a pile of shiit your source was.

 

Again: before you posted your own blog, in which blogs magically converted into incontrovertable bastions of truth.

 

More:

 

It's like arguing with a brick wall that thinks it is a wooden fence, that it is, in fact, a brick wall.

 

I knew I shouldn't have come in here.

 

***

 

OK. Now we've moved into BOLDED mode. Things have gotten REALLY REALLY serious now.

 

***

 

Dude.... he recited a passage from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion and you were twitching so much like a ferret in heat to have someone agree with you you didn't even notice. And ironically never once did he mention anything about anything that you were talking about, including McClintock or Shapiro.

 

I think that kind of sums up this whole thing.

 

Again.... /thread

 

***

 

It's obvious that nearly all you did was make this thread personal.

 

Everything I have said here has been in direct response to something you posted. I have not mentioned one thing in this thread unless it was a response to something you said. And yes.... I have a big problem with you lying about direct quotes and trying to interpret scientific research in a way the actual scientist doesn't agree with. And yes.... I'm going to call you out on that. Maybe you're not used to doing or saying whatever you feel like and not being called on it. Who knows. But grow a ball sack for chrissake.

 

And there it is: ball sack. Predictable. This has nothing to do with my tolerance to hear insults. Obviously: I put up with tons of them.

 

Now deny that I just proved you completely wrong about your intolerant approach to debate in this thread. And also: I already posted why my "quote" was misconstrued as ' ' - a synopsis of what I believed Shapiro's research is doing. But even then, I clarified and apologized for the misunderstanding. You can't and won't drop it, actually getting offended at such a thing while being perfectly fine with the raft of insults directed my way, many of which were written long before any supposed error I make about which you feign objection or insult.

 

You fabricate your whininess. Get bent.

[Me_2006 14]

And we've reached the part of the argument cycle where Mensa will turn this into a 'why do you make this personal and complain when I do the same?' while he searches for another link to beat the everloving hell out of with semantics for four more pages. Rinse and repeat.

[IMMensaMind 460]

It sounds like you are declaring victory and basing it on simply not liking the tone of the argument against you.

You have been repeatedly slammed to the mat. suck it up and move on.

 

You too warp the debate for your own gain - and this coming from someone who I ignored, because of the loony responses. You don't believe that this stuff is very compelling evidence for Designed Evolution? Great: go away. It's obvious that the scientist believes it contradicts Darwinian Evolution, and that's major - and like it or not, contradicting Darwinian Evolution in this way is supportive of those who have been objecting to how Darwinism has been co-opted by Secularists.

 

You have a group coward mentality here who join hands and kick someone for expressing an opinion, and to fortify their continued efforts, they intentionally mis-state what I've said and what I mean.

 

Utterly dishonest. You think any of you will win by continuing to insult me? You think that bothers me? That fuels me; I'm not going to quit ever. I will outlast you; not a one of you has the intestinal fortitude for persistance that I possess. Not one.

[IMMensaMind 460]

And we've reached the part of the argument cycle where Mensa will turn this into a 'why do you make this personal and complain when I do the same?' while he searches for another link to beat the everloving hell out of with semantics for four more pages. Rinse and repeat.

 

There is no poster in here who I insult unless they've first insulted me. You seem unable to place greater blame on the instigator than you the response. None of you do, because you're being dishonest.

 

Rinse, repeat.

[GettnHuge 1]

I will outlast you; not a one of you has the intestinal fortitude for persistance that I possess. Not one.

 

says the guy with 2,500 posts to the guy with 37,000.

Have you seen my muscles?

[Me_2006 14]

Utterly dishonest. You think any of you will win by continuing to insult me? You think that bothers me? That fuels me; I'm not going to quit ever. I will outlast you; not a one of you has the intestinal fortitude for persistance that I possess. Not one.

 

Really? Because I've been reading this entire thread, word-for-word, and not for any sort of personal sense of accomplishment or to feel superior about something no one can prove or disprove to people I'll never meet while bragging about my own wealth, physique, intelligence or intenstinal fortitude for persistance.

 

 

I've gotta think that puts me one-up on you in the persistence category, man.

[Me_2006 14]

There is no poster in here who I insult unless they've first insulted me. You seem unable to place greater blame on the instigator than you the response. None of you do, because you're being dishonest.

 

Rinse, repeat.

Where did I say you weren't insulted first? I just said that's where the debate was going again. And it is. Calm yourself, sparky.

 

 

 

I clearly don't know anything about evolutionary science and won't allow myself to have the ego it takes to assume I understand how everything came into being. I'm reading this thread to learn a thing or two and stimulate my own mind but you keep getting worked up by insults and exploding into narcissistic rants. That amuses the hell out of me (and apparently others), so they keep goading you into it. You'd think you would be smart enough to realize that. You can't defend your own honor on the internet in an anonymous forum. Especially not in a place that doesn't give a fock to start with.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Really? Because I've been reading this entire thread, word-for-word, and not for any sort of personal sense of accomplishment or to feel superior about something no one can prove or disprove to people I'll never meet while bragging about my own wealth, physique, intelligence or intenstinal fortitude for persistance.

 

 

I've gotta think that puts me one-up on you in the persistence category, man.

 

What? Break that down so that run-on sentence actually has clear meaning, please. It's clear who has tried to make stuff I've shared about my life into something that it isn't.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Where did I say you weren't insulted first? I just said that's where the debate was going again. And it is. Calm yourself, sparky.

 

 

 

I clearly don't know anything about evolutionary science and won't allow myself to have the ego it takes to assume I understand how everything came into being.

 

Who said that they did understand such a thing? This is a discussion about the possibilities, and not knowing doesn't and shouldn't stop people from forming opinions about such things - nor stop them from discussing which opinion has merit, for crissakes.

 

I'm reading this thread to learn a thing or two and stimulate my own mind but you keep getting worked up by insults and exploding into narcissistic rants. That amuses the hell out of me (and apparently others), so they keep goading you into it. You'd think you would be smart enough to realize that. You can't defend your own honor on the internet in an anonymous forum. Especially not in a place that doesn't give a fock to start with.

 

Oh, I fire back and add content. There is nothing wrong with that. It should be noted that the insults are intended to chill debate; to stop my side from continuing to be expressed. Anyone with a brain can see that. It's a shout-down technique. Duh.

[Me_2006 14]

What? Break that down so that run-on sentence actually has clear meaning, please. It's clear who has tried to make stuff I've shared about my life into something that it isn't.

 

What is it you always say about those who resort to talking about the length, style, etc of the post and not the content? Don't tell me you can't understand that sentence. Folks less infatuated with their own intelligence can understand it, I'm sure, and there's little doubt you can do the same. Though I do wonder why you find it necessary to insult the intelligence of those who disagree with you.

[IMMensaMind 460]

What is it you always say about those who resort to talking about the length, style, etc of the post and not the content? Don't tell me you can't understand that sentence. Folks less infatuated with their own intelligence can understand it, I'm sure, and there's little doubt you can do the same. Though I do wonder why you find it necessary to insult the intelligence of those who disagree with you.

 

Probably for the same reason you cannot help insulting me in your posts.

[Me_2006 14]

Anyone with a brain can see that. It's a shout-down technique. Duh.

Hot damn! My cells have developed psychic abilities.

 

 

 

And you didn't answer my question. Where did I say you weren't insulted first? Don't be so defensive. Others here may be attacking you, I'm just mocking your behavior.

[Frank M 181]

Your argument is personal, and it is directed at me. You have your rebuttal, now read it - if you're really interested in Science, this is how it works.

 

Both Behe and Dembski make very good points in rebuttal - and one of their points explains that those who you laud as irrefutable are making "huge leaps" of their own.

 

We can disagree, but stop being so damned disagreeable.

 

From Wikipedia:

Behe grew up in Harrisburg,Pennsylvania, where he attended grade school at St. Margaret Mary'sParochial School and later graduated from BishopMcDevitt High School. He graduated from Drexel University in 1974with a Bachelor ofScience in chemistry.He got his PhD in biochemistry at the University ofPennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease.From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the NationalInstitutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professorof chemistry at QueensCollege in New York City,where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985, he moved to Lehigh University and iscurrently a Professor of Biochemistry. Due to Behe's views on evolution, LehighUniversity exhibits the following disclaimer on its website:

 

" Whilewe respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and arein no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position thatintelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentallyand should not be regarded as scientific."

His own department where he works thinks his work isn't scienceI

 

A couple selected from the ruling on the Dover court case:

 

"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreduciblecomplexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and(3) the immune system.Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemicalsystems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presentedevidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact,irreducibly complex."

 

 

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe wasquestioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find anevolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented withfiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunologytextbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simplyinsisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that itwas not "good enough."

 

Sounds like someone we all know that posts at FFToday.

 

 

 

Dembski is a mathemetician, and has published four papers in his career...all on information theory, not any biological science. in fact, from his Wiki page:

 

Computerscientist and numbertheorist JeffreyShallit states in an expert report that despitecommon claims in the popular and religious press, Dembski is not a scientist byany reasonable standard, has not published any experimental or empirical testsof his claims, submitted his claims to the scrutiny of his peers or publishedin a scientific journal. In a footnote Shallit states that he does not considermathematics to be science. Shallit describes Dembski's published mathematicaloutput as "extremely small" for a research mathematician, and remarksthat "it is very unlikely that his meagre output would merit tenure at anymajor university".

 

He's also been reprimanded several time for using other people's work in his presentations, using his own narration with images clearly not meant to convey what he was saying, and presenting his own views as representing the views of his employer, Baylor University.

 

 

 

 

Sounds familiar again.

 

 

 

 

The tactics are completely the same.

 

And these are the heroes of ID.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Me_2006 14]

Probably for the same reason you cannot help insulting me in your posts.

So you're 0-fer-2 on answering questions now? That's a pretty horrible ratio for someone so intelligent. I thought you a worthy adversary.

 

 

I am disappoint.

[IMMensaMind 460]

From Wikipedia:

[/size][/font]

His own department where he works thinks his work isn't scienceI

 

A couple selected from the ruling on the Dover court case:

 

 

 

 

Sounds like someone we all know that posts at FFToday.

 

Okay - so is this some form of character assassination? We all know scientists who were stigmatized by the hoi polloi of their time. Many of them now are credited for views which are now the widely accepted norm.

 

The fact is that they make a very compelling case, and that case being compelling means that the views that they represent should not be treated as they are here.

 

It doesn't matter to me if you don't want to accept the views as science. That shouldn't stop the topic from even being discussed, however: we're supposed to teach kids critical thinking. How is that done, exactly, without exposing kids to all views of merit?

 

You can try to say here that there is no merit, but that flies in the face of just exactly what is being talked about here. Meritless views are easy to disperse. This is not one of those. Behe's and Dembski's arguments are extremely strong, and it is also readily apparent that they can hang with just about anyone on this topic.

 

Dembski is a mathemetician, and has published four papers in his career...all on information theory, not any biological science. in fact, from his Wiki page:

 

 

He's also been reprimanded several time for using other people's work in his presentations, using his own narration with images clearly not meant to convey what he was saying, and presenting his own views as representing the views of his employer, Baylor University.

 

 

 

 

Sounds familiar again.

 

 

 

 

The tactics are completely the same.

 

And these are the heroes of ID.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More character assassination. Behe happens to be a big fan of Dembski, and he's a biologist. Try attacking what he says, instead of who he is. Resorting to this weak tactic also speaks for itself.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Hot damn! My cells have developed psychic abilities.

 

 

 

And you didn't answer my question. Where did I say you weren't insulted first? Don't be so defensive. Others here may be attacking you, I'm just mocking your behavior.

 

You'd probably just leave the thread, and not address the topic again. Right?

[IMMensaMind 460]

Though I do wonder why you find it necessary to insult the intelligence of those who disagree with you.

 

I don't do that; It's not my MO. I insult those who insult me - and usually only after hearing insults repeatedly (I usually try to work through them). Once a poster has decided that insulting is more important than talking, any constructive result from the conversation is over, and all that is left is merely having fun popping someone back.

 

That's why respectful posters like The Next Generation get from me a very considerate discussion, where we can agree to disagree.

 

With posters like you, that's not possible: it's not possible to merely agree to disagree, and move on. You have to throw your rocks.

[Me_2006 14]

You'd probably just leave the thread, and not address the topic again. Right?

 

 

I think there's enough speculation in this thread. To say anymore would allow your attempts at deflecting (or worse, admitting you were wrong) to work.

 

 

Don't bother going into some in-depth analytic bullshit and try to rope-a-dope me at this point. I saw an easy opportunity to prove a simple point and did so. In a disappointing and non-amusing amount of time and posts, I might add. You're better than that, or at least try and appear that way. The only hilarity I was able to entertain myself with is the fact that you'll act all indignant and dismissive while everyone else laughs at you.

 

 

You're awfully predictable to hold yourself in such high esteem.

[IMMensaMind 460]

I think there's enough speculation in this thread. To say anymore would allow your attempts at deflecting (or worse, admitting you were wrong) to work.

 

Actually, that's your misimpression working. Because I have strong opinions does not mean that what I'm saying is fact. You're falling victim to a knee-jerk reaction in the other direction (you disagree with my opinion), and because of that, you mistake a strong opinion argued vehemently as somehow someone claiming something to be a fact when it wasn't represented that way at all.

 

That is a problem with your comprehension of my argument, and not a problem with my argument.

 

Don't bother going into some in-depth analytic bullshit and try to rope-a-dope me at this point. I saw an easy opportunity to prove a simple point and did so. In a disappointing and non-amusing amount of time and posts, I might add. You're better than that, or at least try and appear that way. The only hilarity I was able to entertain myself with is the fact that you'll act all indignant and dismissive while everyone else laughs at you.

 

 

You're awfully predictable to hold yourself in such high esteem.

 

As opposed to yourself, who seems to believe that he possessed humility.

 

There isn't a poster in here who doesn't hold themselves in high esteem, nor believe they are correct. Don't be a hypocrite. You didn't make any worthwhile point while here, and didn't address the topic at all. You as well make this about me, just as Nikki claimed wasn't happening.

 

Oh, and BTW: you are leaving the thread, and not addressing the topic. Just as I said.

[GettnHuge 1]

The fact is that they make a very compelling case, and that case being compelling means

 

compelling? if I posted the definition of compel I don't think the word 'fact' would appear.

 

 

com·pel

–verb 1.to force or drive, especially to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him. 2.to secure or bring about by force.3.to force to submit; subdue.4.to overpower.

[IMMensaMind 460]

compelling? if I posted the definition of compel I don't think the word 'fact' would appear.

 

 

com·pel

–verb 1.to force or drive, especially to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him. 2.to secure or bring about by force.3.to force to submit; subdue.4.to overpower.

 

Where did I use the word 'fact' that you have a problem with?

[Frank M 181]

Okay - so is this some form of character assassination? We all know scientists who were stigmatized by the hoi polloi of their time. Many of them now are credited for views which are now the widely accepted norm.

 

The fact is that they make a very compelling case, and that case being compelling means that the views that they represent should not be treated as they are here.

 

It doesn't matter to me if you don't want to accept the views as science. That shouldn't stop the topic from even being discussed, however: we're supposed to teach kids critical thinking. How is that done, exactly, without exposing kids to all views of merit?

 

You can try to say here that there is no merit, but that flies in the face of just exactly what is being talked about here. Meritless views are easy to disperse. This is not one of those. Behe's and Dembski's arguments are extremely strong, and it is also readily apparent that they can hang with just about anyone on this topic.

 

 

 

 

More character assassination. Behe happens to be a big fan of Dembski, and he's a biologist. Try attacking what he says, instead of who he is. Resorting to this weak tactic also speaks for itself.

 

 

That's funny. I just gave several examples of bad science by both of these guys, in fact dishonest science where Dembski is concerned, and all you can come up with is a lame accusation of character assassination? Behe is a bad scientist whose views are not even considered science by his own department, and with all of his lofty claims of the irreducible complexity of the human immune system, when confronted with 58 peer reviewed articles, 9 books, and several immunology texts showing that, in fact, the immune system did evolve, all he says is that's not enough?

 

And Dembski is lucky to have a job still with his plagiarism, misrepresentation, and out and out theft of others work.

 

And because the first sh1tty scientist likes the second sh1tty scientist who isn't even a scientist, that's supposed to bolster your viewpoint?

 

If these were the shining examples of anything I held dear, I'd be embarrassed.

 

 

[Me_2006 14]

Actually, that's your misimpression working. Because I have strong opinions does not mean that what I'm saying is fact. You're falling victim to a knee-jerk reaction in the other direction (you disagree with my opinion), and because of that, you mistake a strong opinion argued vehemently as somehow someone claiming something to be a fact when it wasn't represented that way at all.

 

That is a problem with your comprehension of my argument, and not a problem with my argument.

 

 

 

As opposed to yourself, who seems to be so humble.

 

There isn't a poster in here who doesn't hold themselves in high esteem, nor believe they are correct. Don't be a hypocrite. You didn't make any worthwhile point while here, and didn't address the topic at all. You as well make this about me, just as Nikki claimed wasn't happening.

 

Oh, and BTW: you are leaving the thread, and not addressing the topic. Just as I said.

 

 

Nope, I'm still here. And you still pulled all the dissecting flawed arguments and misrepresentation bullshit after I told you not to bother and yet STILL didn't answer either question. Which again proves my point that you can't and won't admit you spaz out and treat every discussion like your own personal crusade or cast yourself the victim.

 

But I know a man of your intestinal fortitude of persistence is too stubborn to admit you jumped to a ridiculous and completely predictable false conclusion as soon as I addressed you. Just so you're aware, I'm not leaving the thread, because I'm still reading and learning about what I find to be an interesting topic, and when that breaks down, I can laugh at how ridiculous you act in an attempt to impress complete strangers.

 

It really is a shame that you've already used all those words and yet STILL can't and wont answer either question because it hurts your pride too much to do so. It's perfectly fine to be an ass here, in fact it's encouraged, but to be a pompous and stubborn one who takes themselves so seriously only sets you up to be laughed at.

 

But go on. Maybe I'll get some personal entertainment out of this yet.

[IMMensaMind 460]

That's funny. I just gave several examples of bad science by both of these guys, in fact dishonest science where Dembski is concerned, and all you can come up with is a lame accusation of character assassination? Behe is a bad scientist whose views are not even considered science by his own department, and with all of his lofty claims of the irreducible complexity of the human immune system, when confronted with 58 peer reviewed articles, 9 books, and several immunology texts showing that, in fact, the immune system did evolve, all he says is that's not enough?

 

And Dembski is lucky to have a job still with his plagiarism, misrepresentation, and out and out theft of others work.

 

And because the first sh1tty scientist likes the second sh1tty scientist who isn't even a scientist, that's supposed to bolster your viewpoint?

 

If these were the shining examples of anything I held dear, I'd be embarrassed.

 

Behe's writings are considered controversial - to those who study what I would call a "competing" ideology. Not a surprise. And please note that Behe is still employed there - so you'll pardon me if I take your claim of "bad science" with a giant grain of salt. He's a scientist with a view that contradicts yours. Who cares?

 

Dembski is flat-out brilliant. You aren't the first one to attempt character assassination, and others have done to Dembski (used his writings without permission) what they claim Dembski has done. He's cited the opinions of others, and commented upon them. You and others try to demonize him for it, so perplexed you are with his views.

 

You're so tolerant of the views of others which you cannot disprove, but still revile.

 

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Nope, I'm still here. And you still pulled all the dissecting flawed arguments and misrepresentation bullshit after I told you not to bother and yet STILL didn't answer either question. Which again proves my point that you can't and won't admit you spaz out and treat every discussion like your own personal crusade or cast yourself the victim.

 

Don't know what you're talking about. You are making this about me, and I'm not supposed to respond as though it's about me? Just WTF do you expect, assh0le?

 

But I know a man of your intestinal fortitude of persistence is too stubborn to admit you jumped to a ridiculous and completely predictable false conclusion as soon as I addressed you. Just so you're aware, I'm not leaving the thread, because I'm still reading and learning about what I find to be an interesting topic, and when that breaks down, I can laugh at how ridiculous you act in an attempt to impress complete strangers.

 

I couldn't care a whit about impressing a single person. Not a single whit. You are meaningless to me.

 

It really is a shame that you've already used all those words and yet STILL can't and wont answer either question because it hurts your pride too much to do so. It's perfectly fine to be an ass here, in fact it's encouraged, but to be a pompous and stubborn one who takes themselves so seriously only sets you up to be laughed at.

 

I'm not even sure what you asked, exactly. What you think you are making clear...isn't. You are just trying to make this thread about me; you've already admitted it.

 

But go on. Maybe I'll get some personal entertainment out of this yet.

 

Who cares?

[Frank M 181]

Behe's writings are considered controversial - to those who study what I would call a "competing" ideology. Not a surprise. And please note that Behe is still employed there - so you'll pardon me if I take your claim of "bad science" with a giant grain of salt. He's a scientist with a view that contradicts yours. Who cares?

 

Dembski is flat-out brilliant. You aren't the first one to attempt character assassination, and others have done to Dembski (used his writings without permission) what they claim Dembski has done. He's cited the opinions of others, and commented upon them. You and others try to demonize him for it, so perplexed you are with his views.

 

You're so tolerant of the views of others which you cannot disprove, but still revile.

 

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

 

Yeah, he's a scientist whose views are not considered science by not only me, but by the scientists he works with, as well as the court system.

 

And if Dembski is so brilliant, why the reprimands for using other people's work and representing it as his own? Why present your views as that of the university that employs you when you know they are not the same?Why the dearth of publications? Surely such a brilliant guy doesn't need to resort to such tactics as those he's been called out for, and surely such a brilliant guy with such novel ideas about intelligent design would be the author of many papers on the subject, no? I've worked with scientists for 23 years. Do you realize how blatant a transgression has to be before a reprimand comes from a university? Not to mention repeated reprimands. It doesn't happen to good scientists at all, only lazy, dishonest ones.

 

I'm not perplexed with his views. Obviously bad science isn't perplexing, just obvious.

 

And your definition is wrong.

 

 

bi·ol·o·gy (b-l-j)

 

n.

 

1. The science of life and of living organisms, includingtheir structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. Itincludes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions.

 

2. The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a groupor category of living organisms: the biology of viruses.

 

3. The plant and animal life of a specific area or region.

 

 

 

However, seeing as ID proponents have to resort to making stuff up in the absence of evidence, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

[Me_2006 14]

Don't know what you're talking about. You are making this about me, and I'm not supposed to respond as though it's about me? Just WTF do you expect, assh0le?

 

 

I'll add a third question for you not to answer then: Where did I say this wasn't about you?

 

 

 

I couldn't care a whit about impressing a single person. Not a single whit. You are meaningless to me.

 

I'm as meaningless as everyone else here to you. And yet you keep letting us wind you up for 17+ pages over something no one will change the other's mind about.

 

 

 

I'm not even sure what you asked, exactly. What you think you are making clear...isn't. You are just trying to make this thread about me; you've already admitted it.

 

This is perfectly clear and you know that as well as I do. Stop deflecting and ANSWER THE FOCKING QUESTIONS, or at least admit you won't and can't.

 

 

Who cares?

 

You do. More than is healthy. Or you'd stop letting me yank you around for my own amusement even after I've made clear what I'm doing.

[IMMensaMind 460]

I'll add a third question for you not to answer then: Where did I say this wasn't about you?

 

I'm as meaningless as everyone else here to you. And yet you keep letting us wind you up for 17+ pages over something no one will change the other's mind about.

 

This is perfectly clear and you know that as well as I do. Stop deflecting and ANSWER THE FOCKING QUESTIONS, or at least admit you won't and can't.

 

You do. More than is healthy. Or you'd stop letting me yank you around for my own amusement even after I've made clear what I'm doing.

 

 

Huh! Do you really think that the reverse of this isn't true? I'm yanking you around for my amusement. Fock dude: are you that dense as to not understand that I had the power to pull you in here and make you whine?

 

I've got you wrapped around my focking finger, pinhead. You're a marionette; bobbing around at the end of strings which I am pulling. I am the fisherman, and you've chomped the hook. Keep talking.

 

Meanwhile, another line gets cast into the water, for all of those who find Darwinian study so incontrovertible, while bitching about ID:

 

This unwillingness of Darwinism to assume its due evidential burden is unworthy of science. Science, if it is to constitute an unbiased investigation into nature, must give the full range of logically possible explanations a fair chance to succeed. In particular, science may not by arbitrary decree rule out logical possibilities. Evolutionary biology, by unfairly privileging Darwinian explanations, has settled in advance which biological explanations must be true as well as which must be false apart from any consideration of empirical evidence. This is not science. This is arm-chair philosophy. Even if intelligent design is not the correct theory of biological origins, the only way science could discover that is by admitting design as a live possibility rather than by ruling it out in advance. Darwin unfairly stacked the deck in favor of his theory. Notwithstanding, elsewhere in the Origin of Species, he wrote: A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.[84] That balance is now shifting away from Darwinism and toward intelligent design.

Brilliant writing. Dembski is a focking genius.

[nikki2200 4]

He's gone full retard.