Chicken Little is in the House

Oh no, the sky is falling for the Darwinists!  This is so absurd that it’s laughable.  When Bush resorted to playing on people’s fears to get re-elected in 2004 it was a disgusting display of a win at all costs mentality that goes beyond moral bounds.  This is not much different.  Darwinists are trying to play off of people’s fears in order to win the battle of ideas, and they have the gall to accuse ID of being about PR?  How disgusting.

“I would worry that a president who didn’t believe in the evolution arguments wouldn’t believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin,” added Omenn…

No, sir, that is incorrect.  What will lead our country to ruin is fear-mongers like yourself that care so much about your worldview that you are willing to do anything and everything to force it on others.

“Scientific inquiry is not about accepting on faith a statement or scriptural passage. It’s about exploring nature, so there really is not any place in the science classroom for creationism or intelligent design creationism,” said Omenn.

Apart from the strawman of labeling ID as creationism, what Omenn is doing here is pure projection.  He complains about accepting things on faith, yet that is exactly what he would have done by teaching evolution as a fact that has no weaknesses.  Mr. Omenn should be ashamed of himself.

Advertisements

38 responses to “Chicken Little is in the House

  1. In the past 7 years, I think I supported President Bush Junior for about one week post-9/11. But I’m not convinced that the 2004 alternative would have been much better – FlipFlop Kerry. Things would have been interesting in 2000, I think, if Gore had won, without that recount-crybaby stunt. (At least we all know what a “chad” is now! 🙂 )

    Evolution does have gaps, weaknesses if you will, which I know that biologists readily admit. But I don’t know of any weaknesses that would be applicable to an entry-level course, like a high school course or Freshman biology at uni. Most of the “weaknesses” I’ve heard of exist at a more advanced level. My biology expertise is, I guess, high school level. Could I request from you a link or two where I can examine some that aren’t over my head? Thank you.

  2. I happen to be a bit liberal, and I would have preferred Kerry to Bush in 2004, especially because of the 9/11, fearmongering rhetoric.

    I’m not sure that biologists are willing to admit weaknesses, at least most aren’t that I know. As for links to weaknesses, I think you can find some on the DI sight with a search (you’ll definitely find Wells’s points against evolution). You can also find others if you search for them. I don’t have any handy, but perhaps I can find some and then post them sometime in the near future.

  3. I don’t know of any scientist who says there are NO controversies about evolution. But nearly all also say that these exist at a level that one typically doesn’t attain until late in undergrad studies. I’m sure I can hunt down quotes and links if you’d like.

    I perused through the DI’s website at least a year ago, and found most of their arguments lacking. I think most of their arguments are, in fact, countered on the talk.origins site, on the “Common Creationist Claims” pages. I find the fact that most of the DI’s arguments against evolution appear on the Creationist Claims page more persuasive than any other argument: if ID is not creationism, why are so many of the arguments used the same as those used for decades by genuine creationists?

    As for political leanings, the last “what’s your party” test I took had me split 50/50 Dem/Rep, with very strong Libertarian tendencies. But, then again, I wasn’t using my personal liberties anyway 😉

  4. Darth Piglet

    The Darwinist website talk origins itself has also been debunked. This link here should help. It has many links of its own that directly counter talk origins claims.

    http://creationwiki.org/Talk_Origins

  5. Darwinists are trying to play off of people’s fears in order to win the battle of ideas, and they have the gall to accuse ID of being about PR? How disgusting.

    Seriously. The Darwinists would be well served to actually get themselves into a laboratory, or out in the field, to look for evidence of their just-so story. They out to be publishing scientific papers rather than press releases.

  6. Mark: I don’t know of any scientist who says there are NO controversies about evolution. But nearly all also say that these exist at a level that one typically doesn’t attain until late in undergrad studies.

    ===========

    I had a course titled “Controversies in Evolution” — about my third year of grad school. It concentrated on fossil man, and not a one of those controversies would gladden the heart of an evolution-denier.

    Not that an evolution-denier would understand any of what was being discussed without a number of years of study beforehand.

  7. 3000 dead Americans and you attack a setting President that must make very difficult choices by repeating flippantly the false bleatings of leftist propaganda muck rakers?

    Is that the extent of your thinking and knowledge on the subject? At least you have rights and are protected to spew forth such spiritually blind blather.

    Try attacking Assad in Syria, or the nutjobs in Iran. Or, go back in time to Iraq and attack Saddam. You know, the way CNN did. Oh wait…, they didn’t attack Communist Stalin admirer Saddam. They agreed to run all reports past his Minders for approval before going on the air. How pathetic. But then, thats CNN, the “most trusted network…” iccck, makes one want to vomit. CNN bending over to Saddam.

    There is your true representation of liberals today. Still watch CNN by “chance?”

    The only people that give in to Fear Mongors are those who appease Tyrants. You mock those that fight the real Fear Mongors. In fact, that is what most of us did prior to 9/11 under Clinton. We were all guilty of “turning the other cheek” while others died.

    While Americans were blown up in 1st 1993 WTC and murdered around the world in embassies, planes, boats. You, me, Americans partied like it was 1999, following our own false messengers. The first Bush made the mistake of leaving a thug in Iraq because, the UN agreement, with Russia, France and China stated we must leave a murdering Tyrant in Baghdad. Thats when Russians were still in Iraq and the French. Saddam committed genocide afterwards. You, me? We kept on partying, ey? Saddam kept paying $25,000 checks out to suicide bombers that murdered thousands of Israeli women and children. You and me? We kept partying, ey?

    Then 9/11 happened. Normal people woke up and asked why, who, where and when will we respond, how fast and made a committment, said never again shall we fall asleep. We will stop looking the other way! In fact, 2004 was a great conclusion to continue true CHANGE in foreign policy. We decided to take a stand. No more would we allow Americans to be murdered around the world and more importantly we stood up for the oppressed in the world as well, starting in Iraq. Or maybe you did’nt get this radical message of self preservation and sacrifice for others? Its called CHANGE.

    Your analogy is false. The Darwinistas are like Stalin admirer Saddam, refusing to allow any open discussion, or dissent. Attacking those who do, albeit on a much harher level. The Darwinistast have not committed head chopping to their list yet. But they do have their Minders, don’t they?

    Bush OTH supported Intelligent Design and liberating Iraqis to freely talk, vote 3 times for freedom and determine their life, and valiently protecting them until they can defend themselves from al Qaeda, Syria, Russia and Iran.

    In fact, Bush supported ID. But don’t let facts hit you in the face. Just keep putting your hands over your eyes Professor “Smith.”

    It is the liberal who support the FearMongors in this world by “fearing” to take them on and then telling everone else we should fear to change the world from tyrannical rule to freedom.

    Bush decided to take on the true FearMongors that actually do keep people living in fear daily, but not just in thoughts by pushing peoples buttons, which is what you’re alluding to. No, he attacked the true FearMongors Professor Smith, the ones that kill, destroy, torture, rape, imprison, pillage property, enslave, and commit genocide by the thousands and millions.

    You OTOH seem to want to go back to sleep or take the blue pill and eat your juicy steak while others fight the battle. Fine, there’s a real neat place for scientist in Syria, China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia. In America, we were taught long ago not to take the blue pill, but to read the red lines. But maybe you forgot this sense the Founding Fathers are no longer quoted in religious liberty. Who gives your authority to speak in America Professor Smith? The secular liberals? Or was it God? Think long and hard on these questions as Europe and Canada shut down free speech, and the liberals in our country try to do the same.

    Before you go tossing out anymore leftist propaganda, please consider the truths above and below.

    It is the liberals who support the Darwinist that scare you from admitting your true name. Your knees shake at the thought of someone finding out your name, while soldiers fight to secure liberty for children they do not know in IRaq.
    It is the Conservatives that want to remove this hindarnce to free thought in academia and liberate you Professor Smith. It is the majority Conservatives that want to free Iraqis. Maybe you need to reconsider your position, read something beside NYT and watch something besides CNN, NBC, CBS, or ABC.

    You might try reading some volunteers milblog who are fighting in these wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Philipines, Somalia and other parts of the world. Or reporters like Michael Totten, Michael Yon, The Long War Journal to name a few. You might try realizing that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are fighting for liberty too, sacrificing their lives along side Americans. So that they may one day be able to ridicule their President just like you and not be shot in the head for doing so.

    I think you’ve been sadly confused by liberal TV and 40 years of socialist liberalism run amok, infusing itself into the halls of academia since the 60s. Turn on, Tune out, Flake out, Do nothing, Sex, Drugs, Rock N Roll man. Osama would never have hurt us if we just got high and left him alone… Dude. Hey, lets talk philosophy man, not war, peace dude, really.

    I know I was confused, but then one day I took the red pill and I awoke. The world is ugly. Freedom is not free if you do not fight for it Mr. Smith.

  8. terryf,
    Sarcasm is not appreciated.

    Coyote,
    Your condescension is also not appreciated. Simply because I disagree with you doesn’t mean that I’m incapable of understanding evolution. In fact, the more I find out about it, the more dubious it becomes.

  9. Michael,
    This is why I shy away from politics, because it brings about the anger that I am sensing from your post. I guess I opened the door, however.

    Try attacking Assad in Syria, or the nutjobs in Iran. Or, go back in time to Iraq and attack Saddam.

    I regret that you got the idea that I don’t love this country and the freedoms that we enjoy here. That is simply not the case. I’m well aware that others are not so fortunate.

    The only people that give in to Fear Mongors are those who appease Tyrants. You mock those that fight the real Fear Mongors.

    Yes, Bush feels that he’s doing his part to fight the terrorists that have attacked our country, and even though I disagree with the way he has gone about it, I don’t disparage his moral imperative to do what he thinks is right. What I was criticizing was his political tactics in trying to use 9/11 as a bludgeon against voters so that he could get re-elected.

    Your analogy is false. The Darwinistas are like Stalin admirer Saddam, refusing to allow any open discussion, or dissent.

    Every analogy breaks down at some point. In this instance, Darwinists are trying to scare voters away from certain candidates. IMO, Bush was doing something analogous. I don’t think Bush actually wants to silence anyone, I just disagree with the political tactic he used.

    In fact, Bush supported ID. But don’t let facts hit you in the face. Just keep putting your hands over your eyes Professor “Smith.”

    I’m well aware of this, and I don’t fault him for it. Please understand that simply because I criticize one thing the man has done that it doesn’t mean that I think he’s all wrong. There are times when I agree with him and others when I don’t.

    Michael, this is a blog about ID science, so if you would like to talk about that, I wouldn’t mind your input. Please understand that I’m not out to crucify Bush or be part of some liberal conspiracy (not that one exists). I’m simply stating an opinion about one aspect of one issue.

  10. If you recognize it as sarcasm, then you must, as some level, recognize what ID’s problem is. They just don’t publish anything except potboilers and press releases. You can’t really even posit a Darwinist conspiracy, as the ID proponents don’t even publish their own journals anymore. It has been over 2 years since the last issue of Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design – The Journal of ISCID. Worse still, it is coming up on 8 years since the last issue of Origins and Design, which is published by Access Research Network.

    Hopefully, once you get tenure, you’ll do some groundbreaking research on ID. God knows, the movement could use it.

  11. I do recognize that the unyielding Darwinists have a stranglehold on academia and are unwilling to allow anything other than their dogma to be seen. When an ID paper is published, the editor is Sternberged as a show that that sort of behavior will not be tolerated. “Publish something we don’t agree with, will ya? Well, we’ll show you.” This is effectively putting a stranglehold on the IDer’s ability to do any work, because most of the necessary resources are under the control of the Darwinists. It’s very easy to armchair quarterback and demand research, it’s much harder to actually do it, especially without resources at one’s disposal.

    And, again your sarcasm is not appreciated. Let this be a warning that your smarmy attitude will not be tolerated. If you can’t act like a civil person, then you won’t comment here. It’s as simple as that. Your compadres can complain all they want about the way I run my blog, but when you come here to troll, why should you expect any different?

  12. I wasn’t aware I was being smarmy. Fair enough. I’ll soften it up a bit. But, this whole controversy is rather frustrating.

    The thing is that, as a deist, I am not unsympathetic to ID. I would welcome empirical support for the ID hypotheses. However, I am not well disposed to the current crop of ID advocates inasmuch as their
    cries of persecution ring hollow. Are they the target of criticism? Absolutely. Is some of it vitriolic? Sure. A lot of groundbreaking science faced similar attitudes when it was introduced . But the proponents didn’t pout and cry persecution. They got back to their research and continued to build the empirical support for their hypotheses which, eventually, won the day. The reigning paradigm can be overturned, but the current ID community isn’t
    taking the proven approach to paradigm shifting. Let me address a couple other points:

    This is effectively putting a stranglehold on the IDer’s ability to do any work, because most of the necessary resources are under the control of the Darwinists.

    The ID movement has access to money, they just choose not to use it to fund research. Consider the money that the Discovery Institute pays to lawyer Casey Luskin, political
    scientist Anika Smith, and journalist Rob Crowther. How many grad-students/post-docs could that fund? How much money is going into the production and distribution of “Expelled”? If you want to overthrow evolution, wouldn’t that money be better spent on funding an independent lab rather than a campy ocumentary about how Darwinists are mean? Why aren’t the “out of the closet” ID advocates conducting research to build empirical support?
    Jonathan Wells has the time to write a textbook but not conduct a research program? What is
    Cornelius Hunter up to down at Biola? Has Axe done anything at the Biologic Institute? There are plenty of folks in the movement with real science training who have chosen not to cower in the shadows. Maybe the Discovery Institute could employ a few less philosophers and theologians and throw some money their way?

    It’s very easy to armchair quarterback and demand research, it’s much harder to actually do it, especially without resources at one’s disposal.

    ID advocates like to make the rounds. Behe shows up at Coral Ridge. Dembski with Focus on the Family. For all the energy groups like that put into decrying Darwinism, you’d think they
    could loosen the purse strings and give
    the ID scientists something more than moral support. The fact of the matter is that there are numerous constituencies that share the goal of overthrowing Darwinism and have access to significant financial resources. Why are they funding political activities rather than an honest-to-goodness ID research program. Heck, Ken Ham found $20 million for the AIG museum. What does he know that the ID movement doesn’t?

    Your compadres can complain all they want about the way I run my blog, but when you come here to troll, why should you expect any different?

    I am not sure what you mean. As a deist, I have no compatriots in this whole controversy. I am stuck in the middle wishing the ID folks would deliver and, unfortunately, agreeing with the
    Darwinists that the ID movement, as it stands
    today, is a Potemkin village. If that is grounds for banning me, well have at it.

  13. Professor, I think Terry makes a very cogent point: the Intelligent Design community has its own labs doing experiments (so says the ID community), its own sources for funding, its own media, but yet isn’t actually publishing anything. There seems to be considerably more interest in writing popular books and press releases than science articles. There’s no threat of being “sternberged” if one’s own group runs the journal; there’s no threat of tenure denial if one is already tenured (Dr. Behe, for one). What’s the holdup?

  14. Darth Piglet

    You evolutionists can’t see the fog through the trees. The reason why no ID research is getting published is because they CAN’T. Darwinist academia has made up its mind about ID, which is why you won’t see an ID paper next to an evolutionist paper. So ID researchers have to fund their own research and gather their evidence slowly. Once enough evidence for ID has been gathered that shows it to be irrefutable, then you will see your “paradigm shift”.

    I for one can’t wait to see ‘Expelled’. Once it is open to the public, Darwinists will no longer be able to simply sweep ID aside out of sight. Everyone will want to know more and see what the controversy is all about.

  15. I’ve been trying to get at this in another thread. Let’s make some experimental predictions. Design an experiment for me that will find design. How do we produce evidence for your hypothesis that all of the diversity in nature that we see is the result of a supernatural creator? You, Professor Smith, are a scientist. Can you outline an experiment that would test your model?

  16. terryf,
    I fixed your broken blockquote.

    However, I am not well disposed to the current crop of ID advocates inasmuch as their cries of persecution ring hollow.

    Ruined careers and Darwinist witchhunts are pretty much persecution. Gonzalez and Sternberg, among others, should not be overlooked.

    The ID movement has access to money, they just choose not to use it to fund research.

    Paying a salary to someone or paying someone a thousand bucks to travel to a conference or speaking engagement is quite different from spending the billions necessary to build up a state of the art lab.
    Heck, Ken Ham found $20 million for the AIG museum. What does he know that the ID movement doesn’t?
    Yes, he has the force of a Biblical constituency that has an emotional stake in defeating Darwinism. ID science is dispassionate in that sense.

    I am not sure what you mean. As a deist, I have no compatriots in this whole controversy.

    Your first comments indicated to me that you were nothing but a troll. If I am mistaken, so be it, but I didn’t open this blog in order to get smart-alec remarks from Darwinist trolls. And, I get complaining comments all the time, challenging even, that unless I post whatever mean-spirited, erroneous, dishonest, whatever stuff they write, then I’m a horrendous nazi that is stifling free speech and intellectually dishonest, etc. If one trolls here though, I am under no moral or intellectual obligation to allow them to post here. That’s all I was saying.

  17. Mark,
    The only ID lab that I know of is just getting started. Perhaps you know of some others?

    factician,

    How do we produce evidence for your hypothesis that all of the diversity in nature that we see is the result of a supernatural creator?

    Your name seems rather ironic now seeing as how I’ve never advanced the argument that you are putting forth as mine. Please show me where I’ve said anything about a supernatural creator or else retract.

  18. “Ruined careers and Darwinist witchhunts are pretty much persecution.”

    True – and you don’t have to look hard to find many examples other than just Gonzalez and Sternberg. Here for example:

    http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html

    http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/news/mcintosh.htm

  19. Paying a salary to someone or paying someone a thousand bucks to travel to a conference or speaking engagement is quite different from spending the billions necessary to build up a state of the art lab.

    Billions? Billions? Tell you what, I can set you up a state of the art molecular biology lab for about 4 zeroes less than billions. What science are you in that costs billions to set up a lab? Anthropology?

    Your name seems rather ironic

    Thank you. I love irony.

    Please show me where I’ve said anything about a supernatural creator or else retract.

    Hmmm… you support intelligent design. I have yet to meet an intelligent design supporter that thinks that the Designer is anything other than the Abrahamic God (though they all claim to know someone who doesn’t, I have yet to meet such a character). Are you he? Do you think it was space aliens? Robots? Perhaps you’ll clarify for me, so that I’ll know that I was in error. Who, pray tell, is the Designer?

  20. Hi Factician,

    As far as I am concerned the “designer” in case of the bacterial flagella is the bacterial species itself. I think that species possess collective intelligences capable of significant designing work. The E-coli species is not the Abrahamic God.

    Hi Terryf

    ID is a revolution in science and society. As such the means of scientific publication is changing. Elitist orthodox peer reviewed journals are a byproduct of the materialist approach to science and are in the process of being replaced (in ID) by a grass roots medium more suitable for the delivery of ID science and its attendant philosophy of scholarly respect.

  21. The species themselves design their own parts? Well this is certainly a creative hypothesis… How would we test this model? Have we ever seen E. coli exhibiting collective intelligence before? How many E. colis would it take working together to think out a basic math problem? What about working out the ‘design’ of a bacterial flagellin?

    Can you define collective intelligence?

    What science did you say was your discipline? Have you never rejected someone else’s paper in peer review? When I reject a paper (which I confess I do fairly frequently) is it because I’m elitist? Or because I’m engaged in quality control? Can you tell the difference?

  22. factician,
    You are in violation of the moderation policy. You made an accusation against me and you failed to back it up, instead making insinuations and generally being a troll.

    As for peer review, if you automatically reject any paper that is suggestive of ID, you are certainly not doing quality control. All you are doing is stifling intellectual and academic freedom. But, I doubt that you actually peer review anything close to ID related work since I’m sure you don’t peer review anything even closely related to biology, if your claims of peer review are at all honest.

  23. Professor,

    I, too, doubt that factician, or anyone for that matter, rejects ID papers. For that to happen, they need to be written first.

    I agree with factician – I can’t envision that an ID lab will cost Billions. Unless there’s some equipment or scale you’re looking for, but I just don’t see more than a few million.

    The only thing I’ve heard about as far as a real ID lab is some rumors that started going around UD at least a year ago. But, rumors on UD don’t amount to a hill of beans in my book – you’d use the term “unsubstanciated.”

    However, I don’t see how an ID-only lab is required when there are people sympathetic to ID all over. There are tenured professors at secular universities, there are both tenured and untenured professors at Christian universities, there are scientists in industry, and there are armchair scientists. There are people who CAN do work. There are ways to publish scientific papers, like the Journal of ISCID. There is money available, especially from the Templeton Foundation, which was actually soliciting for propssals a while back. But the TF didn’t get any proposals and no papers to speak of have been published.

    I therefore submit my hypothesis that no scientific work is actually being done. I would dearly love to be proven wrong.

    William, there are certainly problems with and within the current methods of peer-reviewed publishing. Unfortunately, there aren’t many good alternative ways to control quality. Take ID: it seems everyone has a slightly different opinion as to what ID is, what ID says, and what ID is capable of. My position is that if the ID group had implemented more quality control methods earlier on, the described situation wouldn’t exist, because the message would be loud, clear, and most importantly, consistent.

  24. Mark,
    Why do you insist on writing “unsubstanciated”? I feel as though you’re harping on some misspelling that I’ve made, but I went back and I’ve never spelled it that way.

    Tenured professors at universities have to have lab access just as much as untenured ones and if the school won’t allow it and put some money towards it, what then? And, what do Christian universities have to do with anything? What will scientists in industry do when the bulk of research is done at the university level? And, what, pray tell, will armchair scientists do, experiments in their basements? Yet, your hypothesis is still wrong. There is research being done that is suggestive and evidential in support of ID science. It’s simply done under the guise of supporting evolution. I’ve pointed out studies of this nature before. However, these studies need to fly under the radar.

  25. What will scientists in industry do when the bulk of research is done at the university level?

    Wrong. More than 10 times as much money is spent on industry research as is spent on academic research.

    Which discipline is your discipline again?

  26. Exactly! Evidence for ID is being claimed as evidence for evolution to protect the Darwinists much vaunted theory! So much for Academic freedom!

  27. factician,
    Again, you need to check your facts. The number of published papers in journals from universities far outstrips the number from private industry.

  28. <blockquoteAgain, you need to check your facts. The number of published papers in journals from universities far outstrips the number from private industry.

    Professor, I have to assume that you are not involved in scientific research. The fact that you conflate research funding with publications belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of academic vs industrial research. The fact is that the primary goal of industrial research isn’t publication of papers but the development of patentable and sellable products. This is certainly true in the life sciences.

  29. And you would assume wrong. Why must you Darwinists insist on reading things into my statements that I didn’t say, and they are always erroneous things. This shows a rather bigoted attitude, in that you simply assume that ID supporters are ignorant, stupid, etc. Yes, all us ID supporters are backwoods hicks that have IQs of less than 10, don’t know nuthin’ ’bout no biologies or book larnin’, and we’s all just wild ’bout Jayzus. Please get a grip.

    ID is not at the stage of applied research, which is what private industry focusses on. They don’t do basic research, because basic research doesn’t pay the bills. ID is at the level of basic research. By the way you and your cohorts treat me, may I safely assume now that you didn’t know that, and therefore you are an ignoramous who doesn’t know anything about research, etc?

  30. Well, sir. I suppose the easiest way for you to dodge my question: “And could you tell me who you think the Designer is, so that I can apologize and retract my earlier statement? ” is to never display it.

    Good luck, sir.

  31. factician,
    This is a farce on your part. You’ve made a statement in error and instead of simply retracting it like a gentleman(woman) would do, you make demands and fail to accept your responsibility. This is yet another reason why you are on moderation. You are seriously lacking in honor and integrity.

  32. Professor:

    I misspelled unsubstantiated before is all. The scarequotes were indeed a reminder of a previous conversation.

    Professorsmith: “And, what do Christian universities have to do with anything? What will scientists in industry do when the bulk of research is done at the university level? And, what, pray tell, will armchair scientists do, experiments in their basements?”

    I think it’s common knowledge that Christian Universities are the most sympathetic to ID. I made the deduction that they would be the most willing of acedemia to tolerate, if not help fund, research into ID. As for armchair scientists, I was thinking of folks like DaveScot, Salvador Cordova, and many other of the UD regulars. If ID has its own journals with its own publishing criteria, why can’t experiments run in someone’s basement/workshop be allowed?

    As for industrial research, I think you should look into the pharmecutical industry.

    Professorsmith: “Yet, your hypothesis is still wrong. There is research being done that is suggestive and evidential in support of ID science. It’s simply done under the guise of supporting evolution. I’ve pointed out studies of this nature before.”

    No, you’ve confirmed my hypothesis: no scientific work on ID is being done. I don’t consider reading others’ papers and posting a blog message to the effect of “ID science is the better explanation” to be actual work. If you posted it, along with a concise explanation in, say, your own ISCID, then I would likely have a different opinion.

    Factician, the term the Professor uses is “intelligent agent.” (“Evolution is not so Smart” on Jan 2, 2008)

    Good day.

  33. Mark,

    I think it’s common knowledge that Christian Universities are the most sympathetic to ID.

    Well, it’s not common knowledge to me. Baylor certainly wasn’t amenable to it, and I don’t see why Christain Universities in particular would be most sympathetic. It’s science, not religion, no matter how many times Darwinists make their false claims. You know, it doesn’t matter how many times it is said, it doesn’t make it true.

    As for armchair scientists, I was thinking of folks like DaveScot, Salvador Cordova, and many other of the UD regulars. If ID has its own journals with its own publishing criteria, why can’t experiments run in someone’s basement/workshop be allowed?

    I believe the Mr. Cordova is an actual scientist gaining an advanced degree in physics (or something related). As for basement experiments, I don’t see why they wouldn’t be allowed and I never said they shouldn’t. My concern is that it’s simply not practical to expect scientific work to be done in a layman’s basement.

    No, you’ve confirmed my hypothesis: no scientific work on ID is being done.

    Then I submit to you that you are not even looking. I’ve already posted since your last comment on work that supports ID. Of course, I guess you don’t count it unless it gets published in a journal that specifically is devoted to design? That’s rubish. Data is data regardless of where it is published.

  34. I suspect the primary issues at Baylor were not ID, but Dr. Dembski himself. No disrespect intended.

    Basement experiments weren’t what I had in mind. I was moreso thinking of mathematical proofs, philosophical ramblings, refutations of published papers, etc. Basically “brain-work” of the kind Einstein is still famous for.

    “Then I submit to you that you are not even looking.”

    No, I’m not seeing the connection, and the IDists aren’t doing much to help anyone see it. I don’t care if it’s in a journal devoted to design, a journal devoted to science, or even a pop-sci journal like Popular Science or Scientific American. What I see are blog and forum posts, like your latest, where an IDer links to a scientific(ish) publication and go, “See! It’s Design!” That’s a 30-second aside in a world of 3-hour lectures. There’s no new evidence, no explanations, no interpretations. In short, there’s virtually no scholarly activity involved.

    I’ve found some free time, so I’ll read that MSNBC article and post in your new thread.

  35. And the way Baylor treated Dr. Marks?

    If you don’t see a connection, then I’m not sure what more I can do. I’ve pointed out papers that support design. I’ve pointed out ID predictions. I’ve pointed out instance of ID. What more does one have to do?

  36. I have no idea who Marks is.

    The papers you’ve pointed out that I’ve read don’t show intelligent design in nature (capital ID or lowercase id). I’ll work with the photosynthesis article in the proper thread – I have more to say about that one.

    Your ID predictions were, um, not convincing. “Junk DNA” was a term coined for media purposes, probably by some journalist looking for a jucier sound bite than “noncoding DNA”. I don’t know of any place where any biologist, geneticist, etc, has claimed there IS no function for “junk” DNA. Unless you can demonstrate that I’m wrong, then that prediction is not unique to ID. I can’t find where the other specific predition was posted, and I can’t remember what it was now. I see there’s a new thread posted on ID predictions, so perhaps that’s a better place to continue this?

  37. You have no idea who Marks is? I thought you were well versed on ID. Marks is Dr. Robert Marks.

  38. Pingback: Another Update from Florida « Professor Smith’s Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s