Abbie Smith is a graduate student studying the molecular and biochemical evolution of HIV within patients and within populations. She also studies epigenetic control of ERVs.
No, not Myers. Meyer. Stephen Meyer. Looks like John Edwards mutant cousin? You know him. Got some earth science degree so he for some reason writes about molecular biology? I dunno why, but I always get him confused with Paul Nelson.
And Jonathan Wells. The HIV Denier? In that Moonie cult, but for some weird reason Evangelicals have a boner for him? Co-authored that book with DembskiTARD, where they tried to steal from 'Inner Life', AGAIN?
Yah, theyre going to be here to show us the DI bukakke, 'Darwin's Dilemma', then squirt some Creationist spooge irl with a Q&A. And I guess Meyer is going to talk about his book, which will be hysterical since he has zero biology background. Like watching Adrian Beakey for an hour, squawking off words and phrases hes heard other people use, no idea what hes actually saying.
September 29th, yo! Give yall more details when I get em! w00t!
Comments
Don't they know if you speak at OU on creation/evolution/Darwin the OK legislature gets all in a tizzy and says mean things about you, puts the screws to the university administration to 'splain themselves, and whatnot?
You gotta warn them. These poor guys don't know what's in store for them.
Posted by: Divalent | September 14, 2009 9:09 PM
HAHA!
Hey, maybe I can get one of our legislators to ban them from the state! Shouldnt be hard, Creationists are so persecuted, you know!
HAHAHA!
Posted by: ERV | September 14, 2009 9:15 PM
I think Dumbski is better than DembskiTARD. Just sayin'. :P
What's the status of you possibly debating Ray Cumfart?
Posted by: ix | September 14, 2009 10:31 PM
I started looking for details about the movie references and can't find much about it at all. Not even at IMDB. I have however tentatively concluded that the film does not star Ben Stein. He's too busy whining about how he got fired from the New York Times.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | September 14, 2009 11:45 PM
I used to attend a University where Meyer was a philosophy professor! I thought he was batshit crazy back then then he joined the Douchebag Institute. As Bugs Bunny would say..."What a Maroon!"
Posted by: Jammer | September 14, 2009 11:53 PM
Abbie, You posted something new!
I was thinking when I went through my bookmarks
"Oh I hope ERV has something new"
: )
Posted by: Amplexus | September 14, 2009 11:57 PM
Yeah, what the heck is up with the evangelical / Moonie axis?
http://www.gorenfeld.net/book/
Posted by: Douglas McClean | September 15, 2009 12:00 AM
CFI is getting Dan Barker to speak at OU, November 20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Barker
Posted by: Aseem | September 15, 2009 2:06 AM
Stephen Meyer. Looks like John Edwards mutant cousin? You know him.
Remember when Expelled came out, and you said there was a cute tard in it? I thought you meant that guy, so I ended up confusing him with Doug Axe! hehe. Different strokes... isn't he kind of cute in a weasely way though?
Posted by: windy | September 15, 2009 6:54 AM
@8 Aseem "CFI is getting Dan Barker to speak at OU, November 20. " Source???
Posted by: nate | September 15, 2009 8:09 AM
Damn, that is a weekday. If it had been that weekend, I couldn't have made it either. *sadface*
Posted by: BeamStalk | September 15, 2009 8:18 AM
Abbie - Will you and some of our other Mighty Darwinist Cabal be there to call them out? With video? Please, please please?
Posted by: J-Dog | September 15, 2009 9:21 AM
At NECSS last saturday, rebecca watson described what I think it probably the most effective way to deal with these kind of things. But it requires a group of people.
She mentioned that some creationist was giving a talk, in a church, and afterwards he took questions. He received question after question pointing out one inconsistency after another.
You won't change Wells' or Meyer's mind. That is a pointless task. Its the audience you are after. You want to show to them that they have just been lied to. I dont even think debates are that useful. But this seems to be the best method. I hope a group local to this event could pull something like that off.
Posted by: techskeptic | September 15, 2009 9:42 AM
In fairness I should say that I have an earth sciences doctorate and I do biophysics. Meyer is a blot on the scutcheon for _other_ reasons. :)
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 15, 2009 9:52 AM
"The film, shot on location at fossil digs in China and Canada, traces Darwin's
own study of the fossil record and recreates the prehistoric world of the
Cambrian era with state-of-the-art computer animation."
Ahhhhh Darwin's less well known Sino-Canadian expedition will be revived with computer animation. I will bring popcorn and a sense of wonder at people with no concept of shame.
I wonder what the people conducting those digs were told when they signed their release forms. I'll bet it wasn't "We're making a film to help peddle bronze age magic bullshit!....Sign here Mister Scientist."
Posted by: Prometheus | September 15, 2009 10:22 AM
So...is the plan to crash the party?
Posted by: Mobius | September 15, 2009 10:31 AM
#13 techskeptic. Folks at OU are experienced in how to put down such events. An example is the thorough dismantling of Dembski about three years ago. I expect that there will be plenty of students and others well-prepared with good questions and comments at both scheduled events - especially on the crap the film will have about the so-called 'Cambrian Explosion.' The DVD goes on sale shortly and a preview of the film should give some ideas of good points to bring up, but unfortunately, this would add to their sales!
However, opponents should get to the events EARLY. At the Dembski debacle many could not get in, including some clergy members prepared to challenge him! Local crationists, including the possibility that some churches will bus in a crowd. Hopefully, there will be student groups that will come up with other opposition as they did with Dembski (e.g., handouts given to folks attending the talks, an ad in opposition published in the OU paper [IDEA will likely place ads in the OU Daily]), etc.)
So far, this will be the first public showing of the film. Two others are listed on the DI web site, but are later than the one at OU. Note that the press release of the event was issued by the Discovery Instutute.
Posted by: vhutchison | September 15, 2009 10:36 AM
To get some idea on how the Discovery Institute is covering the film, see the post on Uncommon Descent (http://www.uncommondescent.com/podcastss/podcasts-in-the-intelligent-design-controversy-with-comments/ by the awful O’Leary, including the following:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/podcastss/podcasts-in-the-intelligent-design-controversy-with-comments/#more-8670
http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2009-09-09T14_34_18-07_00
Posted by: vhutchison | September 15, 2009 11:04 AM
Well thats good to hear. Comforting, thanks for posting.
I don't think it matters really is a few copies of nonsense are purchased in order to make a better showing. Those few bucks aren't going to make or break DI. And if it leads to a more informative Q&A, then I think its worth it.
Lemme make one more suggestion for any OU student skeptics who will participate in this. Sit near the aisles. Its much easier to get out an ask a question from that position than it is from the center.
Posted by: techskeptic | September 15, 2009 11:23 AM
Wells is one of my favorite nuts to ask questions to. There's nothing quite like "You always say that you were a mild mannered biology student who didn't disagree with evolution until you found out the science was weak - but in your essay on tparents.org, you tell the story of how you and your pastor decided getting a biology degree would help you 'destroy Darwinism.'
Could you explain that for us?"
Posted by: TJ | September 15, 2009 2:41 PM
Oh, Stephen Meyer. I read that as Stephanie Meyer, and I thought "Man, Twilight is terrible, but at least there's no attempts at science bashing!"
Have fun riding them out on a rail!
Posted by: JustaTech | September 15, 2009 3:01 PM
@ #10
Source: Myself :-)
The Secular Students Alliance has confirmed that he is coming. We at CFI at OU are in charge of publicity and booking the venue. November 20. Wait till be make it official though.
Posted by: Aseem | September 15, 2009 3:26 PM
oops! I meant 'Wait till *we make it official'
Posted by: Aseem | September 15, 2009 5:07 PM
For Joshua at #4, IMDB may not know about it, but the folks at Uncommon Descent were treated to a sort of press release last month:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/cambrian-explosion-caught-on-film/
Posted by: bfish | September 15, 2009 7:00 PM
I will be back from Alaska during this time and have plans to visit a good friend in OKC. I may just have to make a trip down to Norman to witness the event and provide my atheistic support.
Posted by: VenDexter | September 15, 2009 8:34 PM
Posted by: llewelly | September 15, 2009 8:48 PM
The more I ponder the meaning of your "bukakke" analogy, the more I really, REALLY want to go to this talk.
Posted by: isotope | September 15, 2009 10:14 PM
If the IDiots are in for a thrashing, I'll be there.
Posted by: Mind Over Splatter | September 15, 2009 10:26 PM
Sounds gnarly, dude!
ROTFLMAO
Posted by: R. Schauer | September 15, 2009 10:49 PM
Go get 'em ERV!
Now if intelligent people will only hang around outside with huge placards with stuff like "Evolution is True", "Science says Creationism is silly", "Creationists are ignorant liars", "Dumbski's a dumbshit" and so on. The only problem with that idea is that we can't be certain that the audience can read.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 15, 2009 10:56 PM
Ask why The Council of the Biological Society of Washington released a statement retracting Meyers' (2004) article as not having met scientific standards and not being peer reviewed.
Why was it not peer-reviewed, and if he claims it was...by WHO?
Posted by: deadman_932 | September 16, 2009 12:43 AM
a la Inner Life
is any of their animation swiped from the Field Museum's cambrian seas video?
sample here
http://www.phleschbubble.com/album/movies/phlesch_cambrian_01.mov
Posted by: j a higginbotham | September 16, 2009 12:59 AM
We're supposed to be the rational ones, yet you're calling people "Dumbski". I know it's justified, but it sounds a lot like name calling at the local primary school.
Posted by: Numerous | September 16, 2009 1:42 AM
Numerous, you must be new.
Posted by: Ty | September 16, 2009 1:46 AM
Giving lying idiots the respect of non-childish names is too much, Numerous...
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | September 16, 2009 3:19 AM
Numerous, calling him Dumbski is an ethical necessity based on the premise of truth in advertising :)
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | September 16, 2009 5:23 AM
Hello,
My daughter is a freshman at OU. How can I put her in touch with the Secular Student Alliance on campus? The chapter wasn't listed on the SSA site.
Thanks!
Posted by: Marty | September 16, 2009 10:03 AM
Marty @ #37
The Center for Inquiry and Secular Student Alliance run informal and interchangeable chapters at O.U. which will also merge with AOK (Atheists Oklahoma) for events like these
They will all turn out for this but I think CFI's first meeting is the beginning of October. Here is their Facebook page. Nice kids, your daughter will be in good company:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2251735287&ref=ts
Posted by: Prometheus | September 16, 2009 12:35 PM
Thanks!
Posted by: Marty | September 16, 2009 1:59 PM
Dan Barker, eh?
Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised since Dick Dawk already came. Throw in Sam Harris and you'll complete the Clueless Triumvirate.
Thanks for the info, Aseem. It'll be a good time!
Posted by: Rhology | September 16, 2009 3:57 PM
Rhology called someone else clueless!
Irony, he haz it.
Posted by: Ty | September 17, 2009 2:23 AM
Only in Rholand are a former evangelical preacher who has forgotten more scripture than Rhology ever learned, an award winning evolutionary biologist, and a doctoral candidate in neuroscience "clueless". *eye roll*
Posted by: Wolfhound | September 17, 2009 10:42 PM
Yeah, it's crazy how someone could be critical of two men who are completely out of their field and use stupid argumentation.
Barker's not out of his field but his arguments are so bad anyway that he earned his place.
Posted by: Rhology | September 20, 2009 8:43 AM
"Yeah, it's crazy how someone could be critical of two men who are completely out of their field and use stupid argumentation."
Theology itself is characterized by astoundingly stupid arguments.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 20, 2009 7:31 PM
Well looky here! The Darwhiners are all out in numbers whining and complaining, ad homming and trying to actually think but failing - as ever and always.
What a surprise reaction!
The whole of the "article" is but a Darwinian fundamentalist rampallian's ad hom with the standard Darweenie "duh duh, what's information anyway, I'm confused" drivel.
Who runs this inane blog anyway? Oh, its the dog in the profile pic. Ok I see.
Nice doggy, sit, sit! Stop drooling on the floor!
Posted by: Borne | September 22, 2009 9:02 AM
Wow! Such bitter derision for something that is not true.Why the fear boys? Is it that they are breaking your tiny kahunas bit by bit or that there is truth that you fear. I say the latter. Truth won't be stopped. Not by silly blogs run by boys that probably trade great chemistry stories on Friday nights while the rest of the world is living their life.If macro evolution is so true, why bother boys? Now shoo, get off my lawn, I've got real answers to share with people.
Posted by: Truth | September 22, 2009 9:20 AM
So, do any of you IDiots have the slightest speck of evidence to support your bullshit? Anything that even LOOKS like evidence? Are you capable of anything more than whining and flinging around creationist crap debunked decades ago?
No, of course not. If the facts were on your side you wouldn't need to lie every second of every day. If you had any interest in the truth you wouldn't be running bait-and-switch scams on your own supporters, or fawning over a lying cult member who worships a convicted felon.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | September 22, 2009 10:10 AM
Not by silly blogs run by boys
blogs run by boys
boys
lol, Design Inference FAIL.
Posted by: ERV | September 22, 2009 10:11 AM
I can respect people that go where the truth leads.I love science, it is profound. But you guys will never gain respect for your views by the childish rants and name calling.In fact, it makes you seem so less credible than you really are not. Nothing scientific explains the origin of the universe, certainly not multi-verse string propositions. Nothing scientific explains the fine tunedness of the universe. Stephen Jay Gould and Hawking both agree its not possible to ever happen again. Nothing scientific explains the complexity of life. There is reason, and purpose even if you ignore it. But do call in the Shriners because you guys keep getting burned. I attend these debates where possible, and quite frankly I don't hear you guys returning fire with more than a finch beak.They are still finches fellows. So where are you folks at these debates? The wall of Darwinism is crumbling. I hear the fear in your attempts to make any valid point. Buy some hard hats boys, you're going to need them
Posted by: Try Reason | September 22, 2009 11:59 AM
Sock-puppetry is one of the few bannable offenses at ERV. First and last warning Truth/Try Reason.
Posted by: ERV | September 22, 2009 12:37 PM
I still chase after truth, using reason, where ever it leads. So I'll be banned for having a voice that stands against the mighty blog-watcher? Dude, for real, that is some awesome power you yield. It will not be the first time a mongrel has banned me for not believing "their" bible. But here is the thing, you are the real phony, the sock puppet. You hide behind your presuppositions to prove your world view. You would not believe anything that might upset how you wish to live your life. You are more brainwashed than the people you oppose.There are thousands of blogs just like yours. Let people think for themselves. If they disagree with me they move on. So what is it that threatens you? C'mon, you can tell me. Am I out of your league? When you ban me, I can't wait to share with my readers what bold statements of insolence got me banned.So relax, sit back and sip a beaker of kool-aid and let's talk. Your readership would surely increase to see what this brash ranker has written.
Posted by: So What? | September 22, 2009 2:21 PM
So, sockpuppet, that's your admission that you DON'T have any evidence. Thanks, it makes things so much easier. It's clear you're just throwing out whatever lies you can get away with, you wouldn't know reality if it bit you in the ass. You're incapable of discussing this issue honestly, and totally uninterested in even trying. There's no point in treating you like a serious person with a legitimate point to make. All you're worthy of is mockery. You're full of shit, and you know it.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | September 22, 2009 2:25 PM
No, you'll be banned for being unable to choose a name and stick to it. That's a special kind of stupid.
You could have continued to post here, saying almost anything you like so long as you just used the same name. So now that you've blown your chance, make sure to tell your readers that you were banned because you were too stupid to pick a name.
Dumbass.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | September 22, 2009 3:45 PM
Hey, ERV, over at Evo Newts and Snooze, Robert Crowther his own self is dissin' you for "nasty personal attacks" on his boy Stevie.
I guess Robbo ain't an Edwards fan. Mind your PZ and Queues or he'll sic Luskin the Wonder Gerbil on you.
(Oh, was that a nasty personal attack on the Honorable Mr. Luskin? So sorry! Srsly.)
Posted by: Doc Bill | September 22, 2009 9:13 PM