Now on ScienceBlogs: HeartlandGate: Anti-Science Institute's Insider Reveals Secrets

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Greg Laden's Blog

Evolution, Life Sciences, Science Education, Human Evolution, and Stuff

Darwing_Face.jpg Learn more about Charles Darwin and his work.

Hornbill170.jpg Looking for stuff about birds?

Lion_mane170.jpg Lean more about lions

Congo_sidebar.jpg An archaeological expedition to the Congo


The Skeptical Search Engine


Nature Blog Network
Climate Defense Fund


The contents of Greg Laden's Blog are copyrighted by Greg Laden.

Recent Comments

Search

Profile


Click on "About" for the big picture, and "Archives" for the details.


Recent Posts

Blogroll

If you don't see yourself on my blogroll, just drop me a line and let me know. I'll add you.*
*Assuming that I'm on your blogroll, of course!

Archives

« FreeBSD 8.0 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 | Main | Gay? Don't die in Florida. »

The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

Category: Creation ScienceCreationismEventsIntelligent Design
Posted on: September 30, 2009 5:17 PM, by Greg Laden

A lecture, by Dr. Don Bierle of FaithSearch International.... Sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ at UW-Superior. Dr. Bierle is a "former skeptic" and everything.

Location:
Kathryn Ohman Theater, McCaskill Hall
U. Wisconsin-Superior
Superior, WI 54880

10/04/2009 · 07:00 PM - 09:00 PM · (715) 394-8320

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Education

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/121144

Comments

1

What's he going to do? Stand up there with a blank stare and empty hands?

Posted by: Lou FCD | September 30, 2009 5:38 PM

2

Hey Greg, thanks for making me vomit in my mouth. 'preciate it

Posted by: Lorax | September 30, 2009 5:43 PM

3

If I didn't have a wedding to go to, I'd ask you to accompany me to the talk, Lorax!

Posted by: Greg Laden | September 30, 2009 6:09 PM

4

There is a biologist at UW-Superior who actually supports ID http://www2.uwsuper.edu/rseelke/

Posted by: Doyle | September 30, 2009 7:04 PM

5

Doyle,

That biologist's web page looks like it was designed by a 10 year old.

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | September 30, 2009 7:32 PM

6

"Expelled" is a major documentary? That's news to me. I thought it was a propaganda film made for the sole intention of obfuscating any facts associated with evolution.

Posted by: Jared | September 30, 2009 7:48 PM

7

Oh I see, Im good enough to invite to the psychobabble talk, but not good enough to escort you to a wedding. I get it, I embarrass you, you're just like all the others.....

Posted by: Lorax | September 30, 2009 8:11 PM

8

...how promising, seems like it may be possible to have cake and eat it too.

Posted by: ASternEmeraldInk | September 30, 2009 8:52 PM

9

Place your bets, folks! What arguments will Dr Bierle present?

Currently, I've got Cosmological Fine Tuning at 4:1, Mischaracterization of Evolution at 3:1, Irreducible Complexity at 3:2, Lack of Transitional Fossils at 1:3, Something New and Original at 15:1, and Genuine Scientific Evidence at 32767:1.

Posted by: Snoof | September 30, 2009 10:27 PM

10

Your reading it wrong. The scientific case is simply an antique box filled with test tubes, beakers, and other sciencey stuff. It's being auctioned off, with all the proceeds going into researching how different fruits fit in the human hand.

Posted by: José | September 30, 2009 11:42 PM

11

Snoof, your odds need adjusting
1) their arguments evolve, they're never "new and original"--that should be ∞:1; remember the "cdesign proponentsists" transitional form?
2) this guy seems like a complexity guy, teaching immunology and all. I'm going to go with "compliment cascade is too complex"--but I would feel bad with 3:2 odds; that should be 30:1 or higher.

Posted by: Jared | September 30, 2009 11:56 PM

12

While it is is easy to dismiss IDiots, it is also dangerous to underestimate their appeal. A few years ago, when I was teaching a course at UMN-Duluth, I offered extra credit to students if they attended a presentation on the "evidence" for ID and wrote a summary of it. Despite having spent the better part of a semester discussing evolution, and despite the fact that I lectured specifically on the fallacies of ID, I still had some students write about how convincing the evidence for ID was. Rather depressing...

Posted by: Doyle | October 1, 2009 1:29 AM

13

Why are Liars for Jeezus always:

1. a former skeptic
2. a former godless fornicator
3. a former gambler
4. a former drunkard

Why don't any of them claim to have simply been born an ignorant Liar for Jeezus?

Posted by: MadScientist | October 1, 2009 6:35 AM

14

Doyle: yes, that is depressing. Expected, but depressing.

Madsci: It seems that being one of us is excellent for cred-building.

Posted by: Greg Laden | October 1, 2009 9:54 AM

15
Why are Liars for Jeezus always [...]a former...

because you have to be Saved of course! The more heinous your previous situation, the better, and it doesn't get any more heinous (to a Xian) than atheism!
Look! Jeebus saved even this terrible sinner from his apostacy! Behold the Power_of_the_Lord_Jeebus™

Posted by: tonyc | October 1, 2009 10:36 AM

16

A male friend of mine believes in Intelligent Design. He's otherwise quite boyfriend worthy, but I can't bring myself to date an ID believer :(

Posted by: marilove | October 1, 2009 11:41 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.