John West

Right now, as we speak, I am giving John West brain cancer with my mind.

Update: Jesus Christ Im bored. ‘Seven Myths about Darwinism’– the last 4 have been the same damn thing. I should have gotten drunk first.

He answered 3 4 questions. 3. 3. 4. I didnt ask my big-gun Q, but I got him over misrepresenting the New Scientists article.

Please act shocked he boasted about DARWIN WAS WRONG!

Update #2: I really wish I brought my Nintendo DS to John Wests presentation on ‘The Seven Myths of Darwinism’. I just started counting things I was so bored. But Ill list the ‘seven’ here for posterity:

1. There is no scientific debate over evolution.
West just plastered this New Scientist cover on the screen and read a line or two from it. I asked him about this during the Q&A, and he responded appropriately– its a web/net of life at the beginning, not ‘one’ LUCA. So I was like ‘So why did you say DARWIN WAS WRONG if you knew the information in that article was decades old?’ He just dirped on stage, I told everyone to go online to read the article. He tried to dirp back ‘Or go on your BLAGS LOL!’ and I was like, ‘Yeah, we talked about this weeks ago. Idiot.’

2. ID is just repackaged Creationism.
This was just bitching about the ACLU and Barbara Forrest.

3. ID is just an attempt to unify church and state.
John is offended by this claim. He doesnt want any ‘state’ in his ‘church’!

4. ID proponents are only motivated by religion.
Yes, this is a slightly reworded #3. However, he showed a really funny song about incompetent design that was supposed to be BLASPHEMOUS, but everyone just loled and clapped. Blasphemy fail.

5. ID is religion.
Yes, this is slightly reworded #3 and #4. Just more bitching about the ACLU, Barbara Forrest, and Eugenie Scott. Also, the Discovery Institute didnt have anything to do with Dover.

6. There is no connection between Darwin and social Darwinism.
John West fantasizes about sucking Hitlers cock for 15 minutes.

7. Modern medicine would collapse without evolution.
“JUNK DNA IS FUNCTIONAL!”

Yeah.

So those 4 points took over 1.5 hours to present.

I dont EVER want to hear ‘HARHAR! CREATUNIZT R GUD SPEKERS!’ ever again.

EVER.

Comments

  1. #1 John Phillips, FCD
    February 20, 2009

    But I like John West tinned salmon.

  2. #2 Tyler DiPietro
    February 20, 2009

    ZOMGNOWAI!!!!

  3. #3 vhutchison
    February 20, 2009

    Abbie: To keep my blood pressure down, I did not go tonight. Please keep us informed about this ‘event.’ AND give ‘em hell like you did Dumbski!

  4. #4 steve s
    February 20, 2009

    I should have gotten drunk first.

    Always a good plan when dealing with the cdesign proponentists.

  5. #5 sparkomatic
    February 20, 2009

    Wow! You are so much tougher than I am. Kudos for taking one for the team.

  6. #6 Rhology
    February 20, 2009

    Aw, Professor Hutchinson, you should’ve been there… I had a few questions for you about the ridiculous flyer you distributed on campus and was hoping you’d yell at me a bunch after I asked them and then showed you you were full of it. No such luck, maybe next time.

  7. #7 minimalist
    February 21, 2009

    Bwahahahaha! Yes, Rho, honey, I’m sure that’s exactly how it would have turned out. Your confrontations always turn out much better in the Land of Imagination than in real life, don’t they?

    It’s not like everyone here doesn’t see who actually skittered away from at least two threads with his tail between his legs.

  8. #8 Mobius
    February 21, 2009

    Abbie -

    I really don’t know how you could listen to these guys for that long without being drunk. Well, kudos to you for bringing us the news.

    As for the New Scientist cover, what else would you expect from these cretins?

  9. #9 Brian
    February 21, 2009

    Please act shocked he boasted about DARWIN WAS WRONG!

    As you wish …

    Shocked! Shocked I am, to find gambling in this establishment!

  10. #10 Bob O'H
    February 21, 2009

    Right now, as we speak, I am giving John West brain cancer with my mind.

    What? You’ve friended him on Facebook?

  11. #11 Diello
    February 21, 2009

    I don’t know if you give a flip, but I’ll be doing a column on this in Tuesday’s op/ed page of the Daily.

  12. #12 Erasmus, FCD
    February 21, 2009

    ERV rocka da house. They should know better than to come to your neck of the woods.

  13. #13 vhutchison
    February 21, 2009

    #6. You need to be corrected. The ‘flyer’ mentioned was NOT distributed on campus or elsewhere, except it was given only to a few (about 7) offices of State Senators at the Capitol. One of those Senators, or one of their staff members, apparently sent copies to someone on the OU Daily staff. They made copies to distribute to their followers. The Opinion Editor of the OU Daily, BTW, is a leader of the OU IDEA club. The student who interviewed me for the OU Daily had a copy (first page only). Now, for those who wish to read the material for themselves, it is posted on the OESE website (http://www.oklascience.org).

    Our views expressed in the ‘flyer’ have been supported by editorials in The Tulsa World (http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=61&articleid=20090218_61_A16_Alocal201496), The Oklahoma Gazette (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12738/a/3480/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQBzAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAzADgA) and the Norman Transcript (http://www.normantranscript.com/opinion/local_story_049010558.

    Furthermore, the senators who debated against the bill in the Senate Education Committee made some of the same points we made in the flyer. Fortunately, for the State of Oklahoma science education was spared by the failure of the bill.

  14. #14 ERV
    February 21, 2009

    Heck yeah I care, Diello!

    Email it to me or post a link here!

  15. #15 eddie
    February 21, 2009

    Its never wrong to stand up to nazis.
    So, Bob O’H, please don’t link to nazis.

  16. #16 Dr. J
    February 21, 2009

    It’s been great fun following these stories, many thanks to ERV and Vic for their work in Oklahoma. I spent 2 years post-docing at that other large OK university about an hour and a half up the road from Norman. I know full well that fighting anti-science in OK is going to be an ongoing battle. The wackaloons have a huge stranglehold on the state with many of the wackaloons being of the “earth is 6,000 years old” variety so you can throw evidence, reason, and logic out the window.

    He was right on his first point, there is no scientific debate between evolution and creatonism/ID.

  17. #17 Saddlebred
    February 21, 2009

    I really was shocked that anyone from the DI would use the “Darwin was Wrong” cover. Of all the groups out there, I actually expected them to maintain slightly higher standards than the AiGs and ICRs of the world. WTF was I thinking?

  18. #18 khan
    February 21, 2009

    John West fantasizes about sucking Hitlers cock for 15 minutes.

    Just thought that should be repeated.

  19. #19 SLC
    February 21, 2009

    I should be noted that Mr. West is also a global warming denier and sometime Holocaust denier.

  20. #20 J-Dog
    February 21, 2009

    Well, I couldn’ t find a picture of West sucking off Hitler, BUT, thanks to Quidam’s Magic , I did find a similar type pic of one of the other “stars” of the evening…

    See it here near the top of the page…
    http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=49a0639d3c59f936;act=ST;f=14;t=3636;st=300

  21. #21 Sili
    February 21, 2009

    Right now, as we speak, I am giving John West brain cancer with my mind.

    Is it really that hard to get research funding that you need to grab Randi’s million for it?

  22. #22 Ciaphas
    February 21, 2009

    Looking over “The Seven Myths of Darwinism” I noticed that 4 were talking about ID, not evolution and of the remaining three, 2 were bullshit and one was a logical fallacy. I’m disapointed, I expect a lot more logical fallacies from these people.

    Do you rebember if they managed to squeeze a few extra in with the bullshit and whining?

  23. #23 ERV
    February 21, 2009

    Ciaphas– Oh good god, there was no shortage of logical fallacies. For mind blowing irony, West also chastised evilutionists for not understanding basic logic.

    Carlsonjok took fantastic notes, and is putting them all up at AtBC for posterity. Only #1 is up now, so check back often!

  24. #24 Ciaphas
    February 21, 2009

    *checks for the /jk, doesn’t find it* You’re serious aren’t you? The people who think (ad hominem = insult) are saying other people don’t understand logic? I think my brain just shut down as a safty measure. Good thing I’m at work and don’t need it.

    Thanks for that link too, good reading there. Don’t feel bad about not taking notes, if you weren’t looking at lolcats you wouldn’t really be ERV.

  25. #25 paragwinn
    February 21, 2009

    The Center for Logical Fallacy Control has determined that there’s been a recent outbreak, possibly the largest to date, centered in Oklahoma of Mad Hominem Disease. The US Weather service reports that two F5 TARDnadoes have been reported in the same area. Residents are advised to stay tuned to this and other blogs for further updates.

  26. #26 Rhology
    February 22, 2009

    vhutchinson said:
    Senators and editorial writers liked our flyer

    1) Wow! And all this time I never imagined that the Darwinian side could marshal ignorant Tulsa World editors and state senators to their cause! My respect for your position is now greatly enhanced.
    2) This of course does not make up for the pitifully poor argumentation employed by your flyer.

    But I appreciate the info and the links. Good Sunday reading, I suppose.

  27. #27 minimalist
    February 22, 2009

    Wah wah wah wah wah.

    Put up or shut up, Rho.

  28. #28 LanceR, JSG
    February 22, 2009

    See, RhoBot, what you’ve done there is called “misquoting”. If done to twist someone’s statement, it is dishonest. It is called “lying”.

    vhutchinson never said “Senators and editorial writers liked our flyer”. What he actually said was that it was sent to 7 senators, and some of them found the information valuable. He also said they garnered some support from editorial writers.

    Isn’t there something in your rules about “bearing false witness”? Can ya try to follow at least that one?

  29. #29 vhutchisn
    February 22, 2009

    #26, #28. Hutchison (note spelling) did not discuss SB 320 with the editors/journalists linked (more than just the Tulsa World); they came to their own conclusions after reading the bill for themselves. Interestingly, the swing vote against SB 320 was by Sen. Halligan (Republican, Stillwater, Ph.D. in Chem. Engr.) former President of OSU. Also, if you read the World editorial, you will see that those Senators opposed to the bill used some of the same arguments. Thus, by extension Rho must consider them also ignorant; but does he do that with anyone with whom he disagrees? Just because someone does not agree with your views, does not mean their view is ignorant (however, I must admit that many of the creationist IDers lack of knowledge about science fully fits the definition of ignorance). One will find arguments very similar to ours in other states where so-called ‘Academic Freedom Acts’ have been introduced or passed (in Louisiana).The texts of these bills are essentially the same and are being supported (and likely written) by the Discovery Institute. Indeed, Casey went to LA to urge support of their bill when it was in the Legislature there. Thus, West and Luskin could be expected to criticize those of us who found SB 320 to be what it really is – an attempt to criticize science in public schools and thus allow pseudoscience to mis-educate students..

  30. #30 faithless
    February 23, 2009

    @ John Philips:

    It’s the fish John West rejects…

  31. #31 Rhology
    February 23, 2009

    #28 LanceR said:
    What he actually said was that it was sent to 7 senators, and some of them found the information valuable.

    You’re complaining b/c I assigned a stronger argument to your patron saint? Hmm, seems like you guys could use all the help you can get.

    #29 vhutchinson said:
    Thus, by extension Rho must consider them also ignorant; but does he do that with anyone with whom he disagrees?

    No, not everyone. But when a flyer is as poorly argued as yours is, with your colorful past of histrionics and poorly-held temper, the standards are lowered, sir.

    Thus, by extension Rho must consider them also ignorant; but does he do that with anyone with whom he disagrees?

    Which, again, is no defense but rather an argumentum ad populi. So what? The other states got it wrong too.
    It’s funny to me, sir, that your flyer warned of expensive lawsuits. Whether or not they have occurred in Louisiana, wouldn’t it be your side’s pals, the ACLU and AUSCS and such, who would be bringing said lawsuits? If you were really concerned about that, I would expect you to do your darnedest to prevent such suits, for the good of the state govt’s budget, right?

  32. #32 Shygetz
    February 23, 2009

    So Rhology’s argument is that the financial burden that comes from breaking the law and getting caught is the fault of those who sue the lawbreakers. That’s an intriguing morality system you got there, Rhology.

  33. #33 LanceR, JSg
    February 23, 2009

    Actually, that is *exactly* the moral system I would expect from a twit like Rho. “Anyone who disagrees with me is a heretic, and therefore evil. Anyone who tries to keep me to my own moral code is just being mean, and therefore evil. I don’t have to be nice to evil.”

    Three-year-old with a cookie.

    Still can’t keep your own commandments, can you, RhoBot? False witness and all that? If you want to plead that your moral code is the only authentic one, then perhaps you should actually follow it? “By their deeds shall ye know them”, right?

  34. #34 Albatrossity
    February 23, 2009

    Rho blathers “If you were really concerned about that, I would expect you to do your darnedest to prevent such suits…, apparently blissfully unaware that folks are doing their darnedest in this regard, by trying to prevent this sort of stupid legislation from being passed in the first place!

    Pass unconstitutional legislation, and you should expect to get sued. I suspect that Rho would have a hard time denying the right of some Xtian group to sue if they were aggrieved by unconstitutional legislation. I suspect that he would agree, in such cases, that preventing the passage of the offending legislation is a better strategy. I suspect that he also doesn’t have a clue that one of his favorite whipping boys, the ACLU, has a long tradition of defending Xtians whose religious rights were trampled.

    Then again, if he had a clue, he wouldn’t be here defending all of his monumental blunders…

  35. #35 Rhology
    February 23, 2009

    #32 shygetz said:
    the financial burden that comes from breaking the law and getting caught

    Um… see, the way it works is, if the legislature passes a bill and the governor signs it, it becomes a thing called a “law”. And once a “law” is passed, the things the law provides for/allows are now called “legal”, as opposed to “illegal”. Thus, if you act in accord with the law, then you’re not breaking it. See how that works?
    THAT’S when tools like the ACLU and AUSCS get involved and challenge the constitutionality of the law. Hutchinson’s flyer says “if you pass this law, it’ll be expensive b/c our buds will sue”. It’s a threat intended to play on weak legislators’ fears, not a legitimate reason not to pass it. Not sure if Hutchinson realised that, but that’s the way it is.

    #34 Albatrossity said:
    aggrieved by unconstitutional legislation

    I suppose then some proof that such teaching is unconstitutional would be forthcoming? Or is that too much to hope for?

  36. #36 Albatrossity
    February 23, 2009

    Rho rhetorically asks: I suppose then some proof that such teaching is unconstitutional would be forthcoming? Or is that too much to hope for?

    No, Rho, we can “hope” for it as soon as one of those pseudo academic freedom bills lands in court as the basis for some yahoo teaching his kids about Noah and Yahweh. Or are you so blinkered that you actually believe that these bills are really about academic freedom? If that’s the case, you have a lot to learn about the real meaning of academic freedom. Perhaps you can tell me why the DI, the champions of freedom of speech in their rhetoric at these events and in testimony at legislatures, won’t allow comments on their blogs? Why do they blather on about freedom of speech in places that they don’t control, and refuse to allow freedom of speech in the few places that they do control? Can you spell hypocrite?

    Given the track record of the creationists in re court cases revolving around teaching creationism in this country, I wouldn’t bet the farm on a favorable ruling in the next one. But if passing a stupid law that will certainly be tested in court is something you think will be useful this time, please carry on.

    Finally, I will note in passing that you ignored most of my comment. So I’ll ask point-blank. Would you deny some Xtian group the right to sue, and the legal talent of the ACLU, if legislation was passed to infringe on their right to practice their religion? If you would deny them that opportunity, you’re not a hypocrite, but you might be something else…

  37. #37 Rhology
    February 23, 2009

    Perhaps you can tell me why the DI, the champions of freedom of speech in their rhetoric at these events and in testimony at legislatures, won’t allow comments on their blogs?

    If the quality of comments they get at their blogs and in ERV’s “responses” to whatshername with the tits are any indication, I don’t blame them. Last time I checked, blogs aren’t part of academia. And in your case, if your blog comments are such an indication, I fear for your students.

    the track record of the creationists in re court cases

    My initial impressions of them are, in general, not all that favorable, but I’m sure not as bad as yours.

    Would you deny some Xtian group the right to sue, and the legal talent of the ACLU, if legislation was passed to infringe on their right to practice their religion?

    I assume you mean “to sue, and EMPLOY/UTILISE the legal talent of the ACLU…” If not, please correct me, but you left out at least one word.
    If I understood you correctly, of course I would suggest the Christian accept the ACLU’s help. All the better to use the enemy’s resources when he unwisely offers them. The ACLU is very rarely, however, any friend to Christians.

  38. #38 Rhology
    February 23, 2009

    If the quality of comments they get at their blogs and in ERV’s “responses” to whatshername with the tits are any indication

    Oops, meant to say “If the quality of comments they get at their blogs resemble ERV’s “responses” to whatshername with the tits or the general tone of comments here, I don’t blame them…”

  39. #39 Albatrossity
    February 23, 2009

    Rho

    Again with the insults, the last refuge of folks who have no real argument…

    If the DI’s science and research is useful, then the “quality of comments” should be of no concern to them on their EN&V site, for example. In fact, as your presence here proves, publishing the comments of ignorant ranters can be a plus for your side. The fact that they allow no comments is, sadly, a reflection of the reality that they have no real case.

    So you’d like no lawsuits targeted at stupid legislation in the case of your opponents, yet would allow them in the case of your compatriots. Yes, you can spell hypocrite…

    As for the ACLU not being a “friend to Christians”, perhaps you can read upstream and click on that relevant link that I already provided.

    And stow the unjustified slanders about your fears for my students. You’ve got no evidence for that position, and I’ve got plenty of evidence to the contrary.

  40. #40 Rhology
    February 23, 2009

    you’d like no lawsuits targeted at stupid legislation in the case of your opponents, yet would allow them in the case of your compatriots

    And I guess you know how to beg the question. That’s not a good thing, though.

  41. #41 Albatrossity
    February 23, 2009

    Rho

    Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in your position is not, at least in this universe, “begging the question”. You can look it up yourself while you continue to ignore the basic points in my comment.

  42. #42 windy
    February 23, 2009

    heh. shorter Rho: ‘I am shocked, shocked at the dismissive tone of the sexist comments directed at whatshername with the tits’!

    well done sir, I assume that was irony…

  43. #43 LanceR, JSG
    February 23, 2009

    Rho, you have got to start following your own commandments. Bearing false witness? Remember that one?

    The ACLU takes more cases from Xtians than it does from atheists. Not a policy, just the nature of America. To state otherwise is just flat lying.

    “By their deeds shall ye know them.” So we know Rho is a lying blivet.

  44. #44 Eric Saveau
    February 23, 2009

    Rhobot baselessly claimed-

    The ACLU is very rarely, however, any friend to Christians.

    That statement is a bald-faced lie; no surprise coming from Rhobot. The ACLU defends civil liberties, period. The reason that Christians like to think that ACLU is out to get them is simply because when someone’s civil liberties are under attack, it’s most Christians behind the attack. They think that freedom of expression means their freedom to suppress others.

  45. #45 vhutchison
    February 23, 2009

    Several comments by Rho require a FACTUAL response, but the court stuff for now. Once a bill is passed in a state, it is ‘legal.’ in that state, but once a law is ruled unconstitutional it is then illegal. EVERY court decision so far that has addressed the creationist/ID attempts to place their religion into schools has supported the evolution/science side. Here are a few, look them up for details. More on why ID IS religion later, using Dembski’s own words.

    1968, Supreme Court, Epperson vs. Arkansas; 1981, Sacramento Supreme Court, Seagraves vs. State of California; 1982, Federal Court, McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education; 1987, Supreme Court, Edwards vs. Aguilard; 1990, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Webster vs. New Lenox School District; 1994, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Peloza vs. Capistrano School District; 1997, U.S. District Court for Eastern District of LA, Freiler vs. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education; 2000, Minnesota State District Court, Rodney LeVake vs. Independent School District 656; 2005, U.S. District Court in Georgia, Selman et al vs. Cobb County School District; 2005, Kitzmiller at al vs. Dover.

    In the Cobb County case the school board had to remove disclaimer stickers from 38,000 textbook covers, glued on with ‘super’ glue that required hiring people to treat the books with glue remover and scrape them off with trowels. In the Kitzmiller case, the school district is paying $1 million in costs, reduced from $2 million after the voters threw out the creationist members in an election. I guess they will hold a lot of cookie/cake sales to raise the money. As readers on this blog surely know Judge Jones (a Republican conservative appointed by George W. Bush) ruled that ID was religion and was not science. If the DI gets a lawsuit, as they apparently wish, on the academic freedom acts, want to bet on the outcome, given the legal history of such suits?

    BTW, if the insistence on misspelling my name is meant to tick me off, forget it. I am used to it – even some of my orders in the Army were wrong, including an alert to send me to Korea.

  46. #46 Rhology
    February 24, 2009

    Professor Hutchison,

    I am sorry, all this time I actually did think that it had two ‘n’s. I will correct this error immediately in my blogposts.
    Congratulations on being familiar with the copy and paste function available in MacOS and Windows. I consider the topic open for debate even in my own mind, but this isn’t a worthwhile response.

  47. #47 Brain Hertz
    February 27, 2009

    Um… see, the way it works is, if the legislature passes a bill and the governor signs it, it becomes a thing called a “law”. And once a “law” is passed, the things the law provides for/allows are now called “legal”, as opposed to “illegal”. Thus, if you act in accord with the law, then you’re not breaking it. See how that works?

    And you do know the thing about the Constitution being the highest law in the land, yes? And therefore if you break your hypothetical law, and the supreme court finds that said law is not in accordance with the constitution, that means you didn’t act illegally after all, right?

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!