Pharyngula

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 17, 2008 1:07 PM

Internet Echo Chamber is an Echo Chamber.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 17, 2008 1:11 PM

I guess if you failed to even understand which direction the race is running, you have nothing to do but complain that it was fixed. And to whine that you couldn't enter the race.

These are insurmountable barriers to them saying anything interesting for any reason other than the degree to which they manage to cozen the marks.

So no, I don't think they can be any more boring.

The only way they could be interesting is by ceasing to censor dissenters.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 17, 2008 1:23 PM

O NOES! With Bill Dembski gone, who will be left to cite Conservapædia as an authoritative resource?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 17, 2008 1:28 PM

Why do you call those who have a different view of science "kooks" and "lunatics"?

Posted by: Orac | November 17, 2008 1:31 PM

Once upon a time, I'd check in weekly to see what flavor of nonsense they were promoting, but increasingly I've found that I simply don't care what the kooks were saying. It's become a nice self-constructed ghetto for the irrelevant lunatics, with the virtue that I can easily ignore them. The changes will, I think, make them even more boring.

Sounds a lot like the antivaccine cranks over at Age of Autism. The only difference is that I still check in to see what the pseudoscience- and quackery-friendly antivaccinationists there are up to, and I still occasionally have some fun demolishing particularly ridiculous bits of nonsense. However, I find myself checking in less and less frequently.

One big difference, though, between AoA and UD is that, unfortunately, AoA's traffic is nothing to sneeze at, and it's growing; so it looks unlikely that I'll ever reach the level of unconcern about AoA that you've reached with UD.

Posted by: J-Dog | November 17, 2008 1:33 PM

Dear D Ray,

Intelligent Design Theorists = Flat Earth Theorists = kooks and lunatics.

Write it down, and don't forget it next time.

HTH

Posted by: cactusren | November 17, 2008 1:34 PM

Why do you call those who have a different view of science "kooks" and "lunatics"?

Because what you claim as "science" simply isn't. Science is carried out by a specific method, which ID and creation science do not follow, as they are built on an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 17, 2008 1:36 PM

How is it lunacy?

Yeah, uh, sorry that we have never addressed that issue.

Oh, wait, this blog and many others have exhaustively gone over it, and anyone who doesn't know is ignorant, stupid, or dishonest, none of which is an exclusive category.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Aseem | November 17, 2008 1:39 PM

@D Ray
Science doesn't work by making up stuff to explain a phenomenon. It works by theorizing observable evidence. But to shun all obvious, proven, reviewed, time-tested evidence to push forth your own hypothesis for which there isn't even a shred of empirical evidence is equivalent to lunacy. In science, you gather evidence and then arrive at a conclusion. What ID proponents are doing is the exact opposite - assume the existence of a designer and then force non-existing evidence. Isn't this lunacy?

Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | November 17, 2008 1:41 PM

D Ray, not everyone PZ disagrees with he thinks are kooks and lunatics. For example, there are biologists who disagree with PZ about how important evo-devo is. I doubt that PZ thinks they are kooks and lunatics. Similarly, almost no two biologists agree precisely on how important neutral drift is in evolution. I doubt PZ thinks that almost all the other biologists are kooks and lunatics.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 17, 2008 1:44 PM

Paul: huh?
Of course it's a good fit. I meant that D Ray had questioned "lunacy" but did not question (hence conceded) "kooky."

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 17, 2008 1:45 PM

Paul burnett@20: I believe Sven was implying that D Ray implicitly conceded that they were kooks (having challenged us PZ to defend the claim) not that any opponent of the kooks had conceded that they were not in fact kooks.

Posted by: James F | November 17, 2008 1:46 PM

How is it lunacy? They keep on doing the same thing and expecting a different result, namely, they keep predicting the imminent demise of evolution without producing any data to refute it, and all the while evolutionary biology has flourished.

Posted by: notedscholar | November 17, 2008 1:46 PM

Indeed this is good news! Dembski has some brains, but DaveScot is just wacko. I had my own argument with him recently on UD here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/one-third-of-british-teachers-think-id-or-creationism-okay/

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 17, 2008 1:47 PM

heh. I type slowly, don't I?

Posted by: Dave | November 17, 2008 1:48 PM

I'll donate to UD if they promise to use the money to get Denyse O'Leary some medication.

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 17, 2008 1:50 PM

D Ray: O, I see; you're a troll. Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. But you knew that, right?
It's a bit like asking what neo-classical economic theory says about black holes.

Posted by: Chiroptera | November 17, 2008 1:52 PM

D Ray, #30: Can anyone point me toward what Darwin himself said about the origins of life and what current evolutionary theory states?

Why do you think it's relevant to whether uncommondescent.com is a bunch of kooks and lunatics?

Posted by: strangest brew | November 17, 2008 1:53 PM

"imminent demise of evolution"

More a forlorn desperation then a confident prediction...

Posted by: Matt7895 | November 17, 2008 1:55 PM

D Ray, can I presume you are a Christian? Would you kindly go and see what your good book says about lying. Thanks.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 1:57 PM

Matt Heath@33,
That's not fair Matt! I'm sure neo-classical economic theory posits that black holes result from every particle following its own self-interest under the invisible hand of gravity ;-0

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 17, 2008 2:00 PM

notedscholar is here (@27)! Do you guys mind clicking on his name and seeing if you think he's for real?

I'm leaning towards yes. If so, that's some interesting kookery.

Posted by: Paul Burnett | November 17, 2008 2:01 PM

Here's DaveScot's parting shot, just published at UD:

This was essentially a decision on my part that it would take up too much of my time to continue effective moderation of the site under relaxed rules.

The "crisis" I warned about by mimicing Joe Biden's infamous "test the mettle of the new guy" gaffe was anticipation of a rush by gratuitous religion bashers and design deniers to see what disruption and inflammatory comments they could get away with. Keeping the current polite dialog going in such an environment is more work than I'm prepared to take on. Under the previous rules it was only taking a few minutes of targeted intervention each day. That's solely, IMO, a result of the ruthless moderation policy established by Bill Dembski in the first months of UD and carried on by me in the subsequent few years with his almost constant approval, support, and trust in my judgement.

Bill is an extraordinary person who has earned my utmost respect and loyalty over the years and with me respect and loyalty like that isn't given easily. I wish him and everyone else here success and fulfillment in everything they choose to pursue.

I'll be restricting my outward participation here to an occasional science blog and will continue behind the scenes in an advisory capacity as time permits.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 17, 2008 2:02 PM

Must get tiresome moderating the same 20 kooks day after day after day after day after day...

Bye DaveScot.

I will miss your pedestrian, mindless, derivative slop:

"There are people who believe that because Darwin provided a theoretical basis that humans and animals have a common ancestor it becomes a rationale for treating humans more like animals. Thus we get things like Nazi Germany and the holocaust."

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bass-ackwards-darwinism/

"Imagine, as you read his latest rabble rousing speech, a small man reminiscent of Fidel Castro only in a white labcoat instead of olive drab military dungarees. He's waving around a test tube and pipette instead of a 9mm Glock and AK-47. He rants to a crowd of nerdish college kids that aren't old enough to shave and despite their best efforts to change the situation are all still virgins. Warning the juvenile sycophants about teh ne plus ultra danger of Intelligent Design like it was capitalism encroaching on the communist world and extoling the virtues of Teh Scientific Way like it was Marxism reincarnate. AND he gets fan mail. FAN MAIL! Proof positive he's doing it right. Uber validation! What a dork. Fierce like a potted plant. ROFLMAO"

http://www.uncommondescent.com/just-for-fun/pz-myers-fierce-like-a-potted-plant/

Posted by: Alex | November 17, 2008 2:09 PM

@andafterscience

[...]but in order for this debacle to EVER find an end, the focus on those with religious backgrounds is that they need to be convinced that evolution is compatible with their faiths[...]

The problem is that it isn't compatible, actually. Sadly, that's about the only fact they have right.

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 17, 2008 2:09 PM

Nick Gotts @41: shh! You'll wake the libertarians. ;)

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 17, 2008 2:12 PM

If man was not made in the image of god they why have no other animals "evolved" higher reasoning skills.

If man were made in God's image, why can't IveSeenTheLight/D Ray make a single logical argument?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: damitall | November 17, 2008 2:15 PM

Origins of life? Well, it's all a bit difficult, since we don't know exactly what planetary conditions were like around the relevant time - you know, how much oxygen there was or wasn't, stuff like that.

But biologists don't forget that life must have originated somehow, and there are one or two more or less plausible ideas around.

I'm not sure if ID has a theory about origins any more detailed than "someone musta done it 'cos it's so dam' complicated", and I'm not sure they know or aven guess what conditions were like when the designer snapped the last nucleotide into place, wiped his (or her)(or its) clammy brow, took a good swig at his/her/its cup of tea, and pushed the Big Red Button. They don't go in for that sort of detail.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 17, 2008 2:15 PM

Without god you can have no good and there is good in the world, not much but there is, so there must be a god.

Without the man made Idea of god how could people use it to control massive portions of the population?

If man was not made in the image of god they why have no other animals "evolved" higher reasoning skills.

WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS!!!!?????!?!?!??!?

Posted by: IveSeenTheLight | November 17, 2008 2:19 PM

Monkeys are here for our amusement. That is why there are still monkeys.

Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 2:20 PM

Why do you call those who have a different view of science "kooks" and "lunatics"?

Because their "different view of science" is motivated entirely by kooky metaphysics at odds with empirical epistemology and predicated on the lunacy of belief in a meddling tinker god for whose existence there is no evidence. Pretty basic stuff.

Why do you have a problem with it, more to the point?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 2:25 PM

If the blue whale was not made in God's image, why has no other animal "evolved" to be so large?

If the ocean quahog was not made in god's image, why has no other species "evolved" to live so long?

If the rabies virus was not made in God's image, why has no other organism "evolved" to cause its victims to spread it by biting other animals?

Each of these makes just as much sense as your question, doesn't it, IveSeenTheLight? Which is to say, none whatever.

Posted by: IveSeenTheLight | November 17, 2008 2:28 PM

@#63
How long does a quahog live? Is that the same species that tastes so yummy with butter?

Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 2:32 PM

If man was not made in the image of god they why have no other animals "evolved" higher reasoning skills.

Such skills are not necessarily adaptive. You seem at least able to operate a keyboard without using them, after all.

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 17, 2008 2:37 PM

From notedscholar's blog http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/ "About":

I am a student of science and math from the Detroit area.
This blog is dedicated to the critical exploration of contemporary science and mathematics. It is also for truth-telling where scholarship has been lacking. While the views expressed here are not always representative of academia at large, the views are nevertheless correct.
If you want to know my influences, you can see in the links on the main page. But in terms of mathematicians and scientists, I would say that my biggest influences and heroes are Richard Dawkins, Aristotle, Kent Hovind, Renes Descartes, and definitely Buckminster Fuller. That gives a pretty good and broad span I think.

Posted by: Chiroptera | November 17, 2008 2:39 PM

IveSeenThe Light, #46: Without god you can have no good and there is good in the world, not much but there is, so there must be a god.

Except that there isn't a god, so I guess it isn't true after all that without god you can have no good.

Posted by: ggab | November 17, 2008 2:41 PM

notedscholar is a GENIUS!!
That blog is fantastic.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 2:45 PM

Depends where you live. It's scientific name is Arctica islandica. The "quahog" without the "ocean" qualifier is Mercenaria mercenaria. From wikipedia on Arctica islandica:

"In October 2007, researchers from Bangor University in North Wales determined that an ocean quahog clam dredged off the Icelandic coast was between 405 and 410 years old by drilling through and counting rings on its shell (a technique known as sclerochronology). This made it the longest-lived animal on record."

Posted by: ggab | November 17, 2008 2:46 PM

IveSeenTheLight
"If it weren't for the crazies, how would we know who is sane?"

We may not know who here qualifies as sane, but we've got a good idea who doesn't.

Thanks for playing.
Spade or neuter your pets.
This episode has been brought to you by the letters G, O,and D. Goodnight everybody!

Posted by: dean | November 17, 2008 2:52 PM

notedscholar is either a class-A prankster, or is a complete moron. If you read his posts, you notice what seems to be a significant lack of understanding of even basic math and science. i'm willing to guess he knows something, or he wouldn't be able to fake so well. whether he is writing the things he believes, or whether he really is a crank/fool is probably open to debate. i'm betting on the second possibility.

Posted by: Christopher | November 17, 2008 2:55 PM

It's troll feedin' time!

"Without god you can have no good and there is good in the world, not much but there is, so there must be a god."

Yes, we've all seen what good comes from a god. You know, inquisitions, witch burnings, genocides, crusades, wars, clinic bombings, lynchings...

With all that good, we must be bad!

"If man was not made in the image of god they why have no other animals 'evolved' higher reasoning skills."

So H. erectus was made in the image of God? A. garhi? Tool makers and users millions of years before H. sapiens. Plus our great ape cousins can use very simple tools. Our overlord cephalopods are learning how to open their own jars!

H. sapiens may be highly functioning in brain capacity, for those who tend to use those brains, but how many trade-offs have been made? Sometimes-fatal births due to huge craniums, slower movement, minimized olfactory sense compared to non-primate mammals, etc.

To say that humans are perfect specimens is laughable. We're deeply flawed in many ways, and not in the Biblical sense.

Posted by: Moses | November 17, 2008 3:02 PM

Posted by: D Ray | November 17, 2008 1:26 PM

Sir:

Why do you call those who have a different view of science "kooks" and "lunatics"?

Your statement is begging the questions. The answer is they don't have a "different view" of science. What they have is theology which they pretend to be science.

Another way to view it is science is process in which you gather all the facts and take them to the best "truth" available. The ID clowns decided on the truth, then only look at such facts, if any, that will support their "truth."

Now, to get further into your victimization argument, we should also point out that all of these individuals have had science and the scientific process explained to them. They have all the available facts available to them. There is no reason that, being relatively intelligent people, that they should not come to the correct and obvious conclusion.

Yet they do not come even close. Then moralize about those who do. While lying, distorting and generally making complete asses of themselves.

You may, if you wish, insist on retaining a Ptolemaic view of the universe. But the rest of us will use the Copernican view because it is the correct view. And if you call us names and tell us we're stupid when we're right, well, we're going to mock you and treat you with the disrespect you have shown us and, by your ignorance, earned.

Evolution is a fact. It is NOT in dispute. And while there is a less than 1% (0.15%) belief in the practitioners of biological and geological sciences that evolution isn't true, frankly even science will get its kooks.

Posted by: D Ray | November 17, 2008 3:16 PM

Ok. Wow. I didn't even mention religion, Christianity, intelligent design and I'm not going to.

As far as Darwin and origins go, I was simply asking a question about where I can go Internet wise to find this information. I'm not attempting to provoke a debate.

Darwin doesn't say much about origins from what I've thus far read, at least not in the way I was expecting. I was simply curious about what current evolutionary perspectives are on the origins question.

That's it.

Thanks for the info.

Posted by: raven | November 17, 2008 3:21 PM

dumb troll lying:

Sir:

Why do you call those who have a different view of science "kooks" and "lunatics"?

I usually call them dumb trolls, liars, christofascists, Death Cult Nihilists, or just stupid and delusional. The English language has long ago run out of words to describe mental defectives of any and all etiologies.

Occasionally vampires, ghouls, or zombies show up. Since they are hard to tell apart on the internet, we just lump them together as the "undead". And hope they don't live within a thousand miles of us.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 17, 2008 3:23 PM

Edgar Allen ______

Posted by: Tulse | November 17, 2008 3:26 PM

Without god you can have no good and there is good in the world, not much but there is, so there must be a god.

Nothing is better than god. Beer is better than nothing. Ergo, beer is better than god.

Posted by: strangest brew | November 17, 2008 3:28 PM

#26

"Reiss has argued that disrespecting those who have different worldviews only turns children away from science and is therefore counter-productive to providing good science education"
'Unfortunately, I believe this quote in the last entry in the uncommon descent website should at least be considered.'

Why ?
It is a red herring.
It is a non argument based on the flavour of a poor down trodden Christian whining about unfairness.

It is not the world-view per se that is disrespected it is the premise it is hiding behind.
The biblical story has more holes and certainly larger then the leaky ark they sail their delusion in.
The whole idea of religion is not a new phenomenon for sure but why should the present religion be taken any more seriously then the pre Abrahamic or Greek or early Celtic beliefs.

It is counter productive to the religiously motivated that ID is not taken seriously enough to be considered for inclusion that is true, but it is not children that are turned away, but the dogmatic attitude or the adults around the kids...either the parents or the snake oil salesmen in society. The kids will accept truth...but whose truth?...both disciplines are arbiters of some truth, either evidential on one hand or faith based on the other.
One is science the other not...there is no in between stage!
It is a duty to present the truth and not the belief, it being the only honourable action possible.

'I'm not saying that ID should be taught in the classroom, but in order for this debacle to EVER find an end, the focus on those with religious backgrounds is that they need to be convinced that evolution is compatible with their faiths, which IS possible'

Although unfortunately not.
Evolutionary theory will never be accepted by a mindset that parrots Genesis to any poor sod to close to escape the waffle.
They are not interested in compromise it is Genesis or Armageddon to these folks, there is no accommodation possible and never has been in 500 odd years...

'but maybe not immediately accessible to a traditional faith that needs an updated point of view.'

Fundamentalist numbers swell daily they are flooding to the extreme because their own church appears to be going soft on the doggerel that reflects their hatreds and dislikes and predudices, they are not liberal by default they like their religion like their coffee... strong black as night and without sweeteners...
There is no updating 17th century mind sets...

'Otherwise, evolution is ruled out in their minds because of the overbearing association with atheism'

Evolution is ruled out anyway and it has nothing to de with the Atheist tag they minted for the rational....It is because it destroys utterly the delusion which is the tenant of their shaky philosophy, they can only ignore it, misquote it, disparage it, they certainly do not in tend to work with it.

The Atheist contention is totally their correlation in the first place, and it still is the overriding prejudice reinforced by the church and various mouthpieces for Christianity today.
That thought is a comfort to the majority of gods little sunbeams, anything else is to likely to allow a question to emerge as to the veracity of their belief.

'which COULD be a turn-off for religious fundamentalists'

The fundamentalists gave up on moderate worship a while ago..that is why they are fundamentalist...they have no care what the softies do or think...after all they are not true Christians, apparently!

'If we really want this debate to be solved'

Yep fair point but who is this we...
The only folks creating a stench are the religionists, anything is fair game to bitch about, from science to sex to education seems to be a ploy to keep and promote religion in the media and therefore unaligned folks minds, they are the high profile hunters and it is they who want their version to be the only version in town, there is no half way house, they want the whole damned mansion, and want us to pay the exorbitant rent.

'The debate has been warped so much in people's minds'

What is warped is the frequent flagrant and persistent lying and quote mining and misdirection these folks use by nature, they have been doing it so long that is who they are
...lying for jebus apparently is an honourable goal...
Maybe proper uncompromising education is the answer, sod this pandering to their world view nonsense and this tip toeing through the tulips approach.

If Students answer a scientific question by a scriptural quote, fail them, a church wants to set up shop, tax them, they want ID in the science lessen , let them prove it is a scientific discipline, the longer they are given special status for being jebus lovers the longer and deeper they will push their rather foetid version of reality.

The more they get away with the more they will take.
Being all tolerant and understanding of their world-view is not going to solve the frequent dilemmas these folks cause in society, they are anti-social and very arrogant with it!
And society in general lets them walk all over it, with an indulgent nod and a wink, are we not a tolerant society?

yep! ya betcha!...gonna be the secular downfall for sure!
Now who is fiddling with Perceived Correctness while rationality burns?

Posted by: Richard Wolford | November 17, 2008 3:32 PM

@D Ray's #85

D Ray, fair enough. Evolution doesn't concern itself, generally speaking, with the origins of life (PZ would disagree here). The origin of life is abiogenesis, and you can find a lot of information about it at the Talk Origins website. Evolution requires that life already exist; it concerns itself with how life diversifies as it reproduces and how natural selection pressures will allow "more fit" (very subjective term there) organisms to thrive moreso than their "less fit" constituents.

Second, and I say this light-heartedly, but fuck Darwin. Darwin is irrelevant. Yes, he started the ball rolling on our understanding of evolution, but he got a lot of things wrong, things we've now corrected. He didn't know anything about genetics (thank Mendel for that), he didn't have the fossil record we have today, and he sure as hell didn't have biochemistry. Stop harping on Darwin. It's great to read his work, but you need to understand that it is old and outdated. Familiarize yourself with CURRENT understanding of evolutionary mechanics.

I hope I was helpful.

Posted by: IveSeenTheLight | November 17, 2008 3:44 PM

@#91 Tulse

We have a winner!

Posted by: IveSeenTheLight | November 17, 2008 3:54 PM

@#91

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: Fester | November 17, 2008 3:56 PM

Wh's th nt-ntllctl?
Lbrls hv ltly bn mkng mch f th prprtd nt-ntllctlsm f cnsrvtvs n th lt lctn. N dbt thy'r rght. Bt mst sy fnd t lghbl tht ths chrg wld cm frm lbrls f ll ppl. Th lft n ths cntry hs hd lng nd dsml hstry f mbrcng wd vrty f nt-ntllctl crds.

Strt wth th mst bvs: th lft hs lng bn th wlcmng hm f fshnbl pstmdrn nnsns lk dcnstrctvsm nd mrl nd cltrl rltvsm. ndr ths dctrns thr r sppsd t b dffrnt knds f "lgcs" (ml lgc, fml lgc, &c.) nd nn s mr vld thn th thr. ll f thm r smply clvr msks fr brtl cmpttn fr wlth nd pwr. Ths s prfndly nt-ntllctl strn f psd-thght whch vds th nd t tk ny rgmnts srsly, bcs sch ds cn smply b ccsd f crrptn. Whn Sndr Hrdng clld Nwtn's Prncp "rp mnl," sh dd s frm th lft, nt frm th rght. nd th cltrl rltvsts wh dmnd tht w trt th dsml prdctns f brbrc cltrs s th ntllctl qvlnts f Shkspr nd Hmr--nd trs s "rcst" nyn wh sggsts tht sm cltrs nd thr mrs r bttr thn thrs--r fndmntlly, vn prdly nt-ntllctl.

Ths dlgs msqrd, ncnvncngly, s ntllctl mvmnts, bt thy r smply ttmpts t gnr ds, r t sht thm dwn wth rctnry ppls t pltcl dgms. Thy trt th wrld f thght wth th sm cntmpt s strt thg, xcpt tht thy phrs hs ppl t vlnc n mr clvr trmnlgy. n th nd t s th sm: pwr vr thght, frc vr rsn. Gbbls sd tht whn h hrd th wrd cltr, h rchd fr hs gn, bt mny f th s-clld "rdcl" ntllctls f tdy vd th chllng f thght ltgthr by ntrprtng t n trms f pltcs--nd nt vn vry sphstctd pltcs, bt bs pltcs cntrd ntrly rnd th trbl: rnd rcl nd gndr cnflcts vr lnd nd mny.

"Rdcl chc" s lftst phnmnn, nt cnsrvtv n. t ws, nd s, lbrls wh ccrd strt thgs nd ptty vndls th rspctblty f cdmc hnrs. Th trrrst Bll yrs? r th trrrst ngl Dvs, wnnr f th Lnn Pc Prz f th .S.S.R.? Sh's prsdntl chr t .C. Snt Crz. t ws lbrls wh nt nly gv th nt-ntllctl thg Nrmn Mlr pp cn stts, bt hndd hm th mntl f rspctbl ntllctl. Th Jck bbtt cs ws crsty t thm, nd src f gssp. Whn h stbbd hs wf wth pnknf t dnnr prty, lmst kllng hr n 1960, ws tht th nd f hs rn s lftst ntllctl? Hrdly. Th lft rspcts ts nt-ntllctl thgs.

Vry smlr t thr w fr dlgcl vlnc s th lbrl rspct fr cnsstntly lftst lrs lk Mchl Mr. Mr ws md f, by, nd fr lbrls, nd h rmns clbrty t lbrls dspt th fct tht thr s prbbly n mr rcklssly nt-ntllctl fgr n mrc tdy (wth th pssbl xcptn f th mrnc lbrl drlng Crnll Wst). H hs cntmpt fr nythng pprchng trthfl dscrptn f rlty r rsnbl thry f pltcs r cnmcs. Hs wrk s st f chp thrlls fr ths wth kn-jrk hstlty t th fr mrkt. Yt ths thrlls dn't vn dd p t nythng lk snsbl plt. Hs ls nd dstrtns r wll dcmntd, nd vn trn ff sm thghtfl lbrls. Yt h s stll dmrd by grt mny thrs, wh r mr cmmttd t th prty thn t th bsc fcts. f tht sn't nt-ntllctlsm, dn't knw wht s.

Wht bt th "Bsh ld, ppl dd" mm? N srs prsn cn blv tht th Bsh dmnstrtn cnscsly ld bt th ntllgnc n rq n rdr t trmp p wr t sz rq l. Yt tns f thsnds, f nt hndrds f thsnds f ppl blv ths, nd prdly sy s n th bmprs f thr crs. s ths th ntllctlsm f th Dmcrtc prty?

Mny rnk nd fl lbrls blv whl hst f bsc ntrths, nd d nt bthr thmslvs wth xmnng thr blfs ny frthr thn thr mtnl prjdcs llw thm. Cnsdr th nvrnmntlsts, wh blv n wd vrty f pncky flshds bt th stt f th rth. l Gr md flm rddld wth msldng r hlf-tr clms. Dd th lft crrct hm r rg hm t b mr ntllctlly hnst? N, thy gv hm n scr.

t dsn't gt mch bttr whn y mv t th mr mdrt lbrls, thr. Lbrls blv tht gvrnmnt cn ffcntly llct rsrcs, nd rn, sy, hlth cr systm fr hndrds f mllns f ppl, dspt th bsc flrs f sch systms n thr cntrs. nd thy blv ths, nt bcs thy dsgr wth th dscvrs f cnmsts lk Frdrch Hyk, r hv n nswr t th prblm f rnt-skng, trm whch mst Dmcrts hv prbbly nvr hrd. N, thy blv ths bcs f thr mtnl cmmtmnt t wlth-rdstrbtn, cmmtmnt bsd n mrl prms--tht th wlthy shld py th blls f th pr bcs pvrty s "nfr"--whch thy rrly vn bthr t dfnd. sk why yr rnngs shld b tkn frm y by th stt nd gvn t smn ls, nd y wll rrly gt n ntllctl nswr. 'v crtnly nvr bn gvn n. 'v hrd lt f mtng, nd lt f ccstns f nfrs crprt mnnss, nd lt f hrt-rndng strs bt hw hrd t s t b pr. Bt n ntllctl dfns f rdstrbtv gvrnmnt? Tht's rrty.

Th ldrshp f th mrcn lft ppls nt t ds bt t mtn--nvy, slly, r pnc--t mv prty mmbrs t mbrc mpty prmss f mtrl prsprty thrgh gvrnmnt mnpltn, prmss n cmptnt cnmst cn fl t s thrgh. Th lft s fnd f vlnc nd pwr, nd th rmntcsm nd cngrphy f thgs wh r trnsfrmd nt clbrts mng lftst ntllctls. Lbrls r ths cntry's ldng prcttnrs f rc nd gndr pltcs. Brck bm xplts th pwr f crwds t chnt mpty slgns prmsng tht th lws f cnmcs cn b mgclly sspndd f w jst hv ngh fth ("Ys, w cn!").... nd yt ths s nt th prty f nt-ntllctls nd pplsts?

Tmthy Sndfr

Posted by: bgbaysjr | November 17, 2008 4:00 PM

Richard Wolford (at #95) makes an outstanding point that non-scientists sometimes have difficulty believing: science builds on what came before, and although we may respect the founders of various fields for their creativity, insight, and plain hard work, we do not pretend that they are the Final Word on any subject.

They may be the alpha, but they are not the omega.

So yeah: Darwin is right about a lot of stuff, and wrong about a lot of stuff. So was Newton, and so was Einstein. They were not Infallible Prophets, but then, no one is.

Good luck, D Ray, if you're sincere in your interest to learn more! www.talkorigins.org is a great place to start, but not to finish... (again, "alpha" =/= "omega")

Posted by: Alex | November 17, 2008 4:05 PM

That was one smelly turd of a post.

Posted by: DCN | November 17, 2008 4:07 PM

Copy and paste troll copies and pastes.

Posted by: Chiroptera | November 17, 2008 4:11 PM

Fester, #101:

I'm not sure what this has to do with Dembski leaving uncommondescent.com, but I hope you feel better now.

As for this:

Start with the most obvious: the left has long been the welcoming home of fashionable postmodern nonsense like deconstructivism and moral and cultural relativism.

Have you ever considered the standard creationist argument that "everyone has the same evidence, they just interpret it differently"? As if it is possible to put any interpretation you want on any collection of evidence and it should be considered reasonable? That sounds pretty post-modern to me, and creationists aren't particularly leftist.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 4:12 PM

No serious person can believe that the Bush Administration consciously lied about the intelligence on Iraq in order to trump up a war to seize Iraqi oil. - Fester the Liar

Of course they did. No honest and informed person would deny it. Alan Greenspan is both on record as saying the war was about oil. Scott McClellan is on record that the Bush regime intended to invade Iraq from day 1. The PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defences" makes clear that the neocons wanted US troops in Iraq when it was written, in 2000. The Bush regime were told the reports of uranium imports for Niger were false; they went ahead and presented them as evidence anyway. If Bush and his cronies had really believed Saddam had viable chemical weapons and delivery systems, as they pretended, they would never have dared to build up their forces in Kuwait. The key military objectives were oil installations. A key aim all along has been to push through an "agreement" with the puppet government to allow foreign control of the Iraqi oil industry.

Go peddle your lies elsewhere.

Posted by: ggab | November 17, 2008 4:15 PM

Lesson fester has taught us?
When throwing out your right wingnut manifesto, put it in one giant post. Then you can bail without having to defend your nutjobery.

Posted by: eric | November 17, 2008 4:18 PM

Iveseenthelight #46 said: Without god you can have no good and there is good in the world, not much but there is, so there must be a god.

And the corollary: not much good => not much of a God. Good observation!

Posted by: Tulse | November 17, 2008 4:24 PM

@101: TL;DR.

Posted by: MikeM | November 17, 2008 4:32 PM

I think I'd start "D Ray" at an even more basic level. Try to be as respectful as possible, and recognize that science education is, and has been, less-than adequate for, well, about as long as I've been alive (50+ years).

With this in mind, we cannot assume he has a working knowledge of the scientific method. So, that's where you need to start, "D Ray".

You're about to see a lot of people agree with one of my posts: Intelligent Design does not meet the criteria for a Scientific Theory. Indeed, it's not even a good hypothesis. And there's the absolute core of the problem right there. You need to learn -- really, honestly learn -- about the steps involved with the scientific method. If you approach it that way, you will learn.

Don't even think about The Scientific Theory of Evolution yet. No. Learn the Scientific Method; then learn, really learn, what a hypothesis is, and how to interpret data, and how to form a cogent hypothesis... And you'll be on your way.

Approach it this way, and there's a really high chance you'll be laughing at Dembski, along with all of us, in perhaps a matter of weeks.

Posted by: Watchman | November 17, 2008 4:37 PM

D Ray, it's not you. It's the thousands who have come before you. Don't take it personally.

Posted by: IveSeenTheLight | November 17, 2008 4:38 PM

Things certainly have gotten ugly in here all of a sudden.

Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 4:39 PM

makes an outstanding point that non-scientists sometimes have difficulty believing: science builds on what came before, and although we may respect the founders of various fields for their creativity, insight, and plain hard work, we do not pretend that they are the Final Word on any subject.

Posted by: IveSeenTheLight | November 17, 2008 4:41 PM

@#125 I have wondered that myself. When does it constitute a threat?

Posted by: Alex | November 17, 2008 4:46 PM

Funny. I thought you were Timothy Sandefur. Who the fuck knows who that is? Perhaps you should indicate in the post that the original author was TS. Instead, it looked as if you were signing your name at the bottom.

Posted by: ggab | November 17, 2008 4:49 PM

Janine
When I see "liberal dick suckers" in your post it gives me a whole different feeling.
I think my boy parts tingled a little.

Fester
Who are you callin' an idoit?
What the hell is an idoit?
That earlier post had an awful lot of big words, maybe he didn't realise what he was posting.
Fester, would you like us to read it to you honey?
It's OK. We understand.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 4:52 PM

Fester-the-Liar@120,
Wow, such brilliant arguments! I retire defeated. By the way, though, what is a "lier"? I admit I do lie down to sleep, and for certain other activities, but then so do most people, so I guess we're all "liers" eh, Fester? And what's a "mollie"?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 4:56 PM

Fester-the-Liar@135,

Ah, poor ickle Fester! Did oo's candidate get creamed, den? Well, let me just say:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Posted by: nietzschesbulldog | November 17, 2008 4:57 PM

I told you this train derailment was gonna be fun to watch!

Posted by: Moses | November 17, 2008 4:59 PM

Posted by: ggab | November 17, 2008 4:56 PM

Moses
I could tell you the difference.
When my wife was my girlfriend, she was very liberal.
Now she is much more conservative.

Yeah, I know EXACTLY what you mean. Even if we're different in the details...

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 17, 2008 4:59 PM

Fester @135

A troll who posts a copy'n'paste diatribe into a completely unrelated thread deserves nothing but scorn.

It's not that people "can't or will not answer", it's that you're a semi-literate assclown whose regurgitation and manifest stupidity don't merit anything but dismissive insults.

To whit, you're a dick weevil.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | November 17, 2008 5:12 PM

IveSeenTheLight: good stuff! I LOLLed. I do like a nice dry wit.

Posted by: Goldra | November 17, 2008 5:14 PM

Hi long time lurker here, fascinated by the many witty and thoughtful comments posted.
I wonder if anyone senses that 'intelligent design' could be morphing into 'evolutionary informatics' cos that's where Demski's going. Or am I on the wrong track completely? It just sounds more 'scientific' and academic than ID and could be a way to jettison the baggage that ID has accumulated - The Wedge, Dover etc. Thanks.

Posted by: ggab | November 17, 2008 5:16 PM

Golda
Welcome!!
Never heard of it. Google engaged.

Posted by: ggab | November 17, 2008 5:25 PM

HNIC?
Does that mean what I think it means?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 17, 2008 5:28 PM

Fester has been killfiled. The plagiarism I could live with, especially since it was obvious that the piece he plagiarized was much better written than what he came up with afterwards. The "liberal dick suckers" slur was ably handed by Moses. But the racism told me that Fester had to go to never-never land.

Posted by: hermit | November 17, 2008 5:34 PM

To the dungeon with the festering troll....my guess is he must be the spawn of a Schlafly!

Posted by: Fester | November 17, 2008 5:35 PM

s f cr bt 'kll fls' r "bnnng" r "dngns."

Y fgs cn hv yr lbrl crcl jrk fr th nxt fr yrs.

By th wy t mns Hd Nggr n Chrg.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 17, 2008 5:42 PM

"bleach-drinking fatherfucker"

Posted by: hermit | November 17, 2008 5:44 PM

"Nigger is a powerful word. It scares self-loathing liberals to death."

So you are trying to scare someone? ....do you think it is working?

Posted by: Paul Lundgren | November 17, 2008 5:46 PM

@Nick Gotts:

Nice double-meaning with the "festering" race-hate comment.

Posted by: Loki | November 17, 2008 5:49 PM

Still jacking off to pictures of white male models while picking your nells, I mean nose, "Festeroni"?

Posted by: Chiroptera | November 17, 2008 5:50 PM

Fester, #159: You fags can have your liberal circle jerk for the next four years.

Thanks, but where are you going to be for the next four years?

Posted by: DaveH | November 17, 2008 5:53 PM

@Richard Wolford #95 (and D Ray)

While I fully take your point about Darwin's theoretical output, I would recommend anyone to read "The Voyage of the Beagle ", great travel-/ naturalist-writing.

Posted by: raven | November 17, 2008 6:01 PM

Nigger is a powerful word. It scares self-loathing liberals to death.

So is "Secure Lockup" at the local looney bin. You remember what happened the last time you stopped taking your medication, don't you? It doesn't scare true psychos like yourself though, they are far too gone to figure anything rational out.

Posted by: Moses | November 17, 2008 6:02 PM

Posted by: Fester | November 17, 2008 5:35 PM

As if I care about 'kill files' or "banning" or "dungeons."

You fags can have your liberal circle jerk for the next four years.

It seems that you're volunteering for the position of "pivot man." Good on, ya!

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 17, 2008 6:04 PM

Fester @175,

That the best your puny frontal lobes can do? Yawn.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 17, 2008 6:07 PM

Ric @179,

If you're using Firefox, you can install killfile and get rid of the tedious wanksock yourself.

Posted by: Helio | November 17, 2008 6:12 PM

Right, after many years, Dembski claims to have,

"finally cracked the peer-review barrier in the information sciences with a paper on conservation of information (stay tuned at www.EvoInfo.org for a formal announcement)."

Of course, "information sciences" are not Biological Sciences.....hey what are "information sciences" anyway?

Don't ALL sciences deal with information? this couldn't be another crock from "Dr." Dembski....could it?

Posted by: Ric | November 17, 2008 6:18 PM

Emmett @ 182:

I am using it, and good idea. Thanks.

Posted by: Tulse | November 17, 2008 6:18 PM

And mother stabbers. They're sittin' on the Group W Bench along with the fatherfuckers.

And here I am, just a litterer (although I also do create a nuisance from time to time).

Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008 6:36 PM

Nice one Nick Gotts.

I'm with Janine, is he just calling you gents liberal dick suckers, or do the icky girls get to play too?

Posted by: Loki | November 17, 2008 6:45 PM

They can't ban your ip address.

Some jackass doesn't know how the internet works...

Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 17, 2008 6:49 PM

"Conservation of information" is just more crap in the "No Free Lunch" genre: mathematics which is at best unremarkable and at worst inane applied to bad models of evolution. It has nothing to do with actual biology.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 17, 2008 6:50 PM

Fester 192,

Again, you flatter yourself. You get killfiled because you're tedious, you have nothing to say that's any different from the eleventy billion other squirming cack-maggots that wriggle out of the wingnut cloaca to feed on troll droppings hereabouts.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 6:53 PM

I don't want anything to be different that that of what I believe. - Fester

I think you've been cutting your remedial literacy classes again, Fester! Naughty, naughty!

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 6:55 PM

I was there in 1989-91. - Fester

Was that where you acquired the brain damage?

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 17, 2008 6:56 PM

Who here thinks Fester is actually a bot? There's certainly no human intelligence at work in his posts.

No, he's just a reproductive anomaly whose smarter siblings are crusting up a sock in his daddy's laundry basket.

Posted by: Loki | November 17, 2008 6:59 PM

I was there in 1989-91.

Bullshit.

Posted by: Teleprompter | November 17, 2008 7:03 PM

Rey Fox @ 152: I grew up with Tourettes' Syndrome.

I'd appreciate more sensitivity in the future. I'm really tired of all the ignorant,idiotic comedians who have no idea what the symptoms actually are and have never known anyone with the affliction but still continue to spout their insensitive nonsense. Tourettes' Syndrome is a real problem and people do suffer from it. Thankfully, many people who are afflicted with it in childhood can control it with medication and grow out of it, as I have. However, you have no idea how miserable I was before I was properly diagnosed and had access to the medication. Insecure children can be some of the meanest little snots to those they identify as the "other". Maybe if people who know nothing about Tourettes' stop making fun of it, life will be better for kids who have to deal with it in the future.

Usually, I hate being "politically correct", but this issue is just too painful for me to remain silent.

Posted by: Moses | November 17, 2008 7:06 PM

BTW, I'm still waiting for Fester's cock-sucking lessons. They should be a treat. I've heard that sexually repressed neo-cons are the best cock-suckers. All that obsessing over the "evils of cock-sucking" and their "investigations" into the evils of "cock-sucking pornography" pay mighty cock-sucking dividends.

Posted by: Wowbagger | November 17, 2008 7:10 PM

Is Fester still here? Damn, I love my killfile. Probably as much as he hates himself for getting excited whenever he reads the words 'cock-sucking'.

Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008 7:12 PM

Moses - don't forget the wet suit and dildo.

Posted by: ggab | November 17, 2008 7:13 PM

Fester
Don't ask, don't tell babe.
MLRS? Not impressed.
I got chunks of guys like you in my stoole.

Posted by: Wowbagger | November 17, 2008 7:32 PM

You know the trolls have reached abnormal levels of uselessness when you're hoping Pete Rooke will show up and give us a few off-colour analogies and actually improve the situation.

Posted by: woodstein312 | November 17, 2008 7:34 PM

Well, Obama won and the right-wing racists that live among us just can't handle the idea of a black man being in charge of the country... And that has pretty much made their efforts to debate on every other issue (ID included) all the more vituperative. Thus, more trolls, more bigoted statements.

Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 7:46 PM

"What is it with all these new, nasty trolls lately?"
God's making a full-frontal assault on the site and this is the best he could muster.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 17, 2008 7:51 PM

God's making a full-frontal assault on the site...

Makes them sound like god's genitalia.

Posted by: Dan L. | November 17, 2008 8:04 PM

Fester:

You throw around "nigger" and expect NOT to be called racist? I doubt very many people are actually offended. I hear that word every day. I'm sure most people here just think you're an asshole.

Not scary. Not interesting. Just an asshole.

They just really hate every one not of their political mind set.

Well, I'm sure that's true for some people, but in my experience that's more true for conservatives than for liberals. Even here in MA, most liberals seem to skew to the center, and most are also quite open to dissenting points of view. Conservatives, on the other hand, are not even willing to HEAR the other point of view. It's really unfortunate, because I think tension between various policy goals is necessary for a healthy democracy; unfortunately, I haven't found too many conservatives that can actually make a case for their principles.

You are the case in point. First of all, you seem to have made being "conservative" a big part of your personal identity, and now instead of applying reason to political debates, you just react emotionally. Like a child. And it's obvious, because only children think they can win arguments by saying things like "fag" or "nigger."

Second of all, you don't seem to be able to think for yourself -- the closest thing you've made to an argument here is copy/pasting someone else's (inaccurate and unsupported) screed. Ever since then, you really haven't been able to make a case for why "conservative GOOD" and "lib err ull BAD".

The funny thing is that if you had bothered to be civil and actually present, you know, reasoned arguments based on actual evidence then a lot of people here would probably be willing to read them and respond -- also civilly (almost certainly not everyone here would; there are a few knee-jerk liberals here in my experience). Walton (and possibly I) might even have jumped in on your side.

But no. You're worse than useless. You're like an inside-out-asshole.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 17, 2008 8:17 PM

Teleprompter: I apologize. I will find a less offensive way to describe vulgar free-associative troll posts.

Posted by: raven | November 17, 2008 8:49 PM

One of things I learned from my military experience is that it can seriously unhinge someone who was only mildly unhinged. Like Fester-the-dick-sucker.

Yes, you got it. One of my friends just treated a former marine. He is now a heavily medicated full blown schizophrenic.

He knows he was in a war zone. He knows people were shooting at him and he was shooting back. He does not remember what country he was in or why. Not very old either and unlikely to improve much.

Posted by: Katkinkate | November 17, 2008 9:47 PM

Helio @ 177: "hey what are "information sciences" anyway?"

Sounds like a subject from the Librarian course I almost did.

Posted by: raven | November 17, 2008 11:07 PM

Hopeless loon:

If man was not made in the image of god they why have no other animals "evolved" higher reasoning skills.

They have. You are too stupid to notice that the dogs and cats in your neighborhood are laughing at you because you are a moron.

BTW, if your "god" is as smart as you, you better look a little closer. I don't think gerbils or mice qualify as gods.

Posted by: dave s | November 18, 2008 5:00 AM

Since the question was raised about Darwin's ideas on the origin of life, he was remarkably up to date in that he quite frankly did not know, and felt that there was insufficient knowledge at the time to make anything more than wild guesses.

Darwin did famously comment about current thinking on abiogenesis in a private letter written in 1871: "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo stillmore complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

Which explains why spontaneous generation of life is no longer evident.

However, in 1863 he had written to Hooker: "It will be some time before we see "slime, protoplasm, &c." generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter."

Source: Life and Letters (1887) vol. 3 p. 18

Posted by: Jud | November 18, 2008 7:33 AM

Recently, from the UD site:

new large-scale studies of DNA are causing her and many of her colleagues to rethink the very nature of genes. They no longer conceive of a typical gene as a single chunk of DNA encoding a single protein.

No!! Really!?

The post then goes on to talk about how this astounding discovery is shaking the foundations of evolutionary-biology-as-we-know-it.

I recall DaveScot doing the very same with the discovery of the Tiktaalik fossils. (Oh, you thought the discovery supported evolutionary theory? Clearly you lack the perspicacity of DS.)

So it doesn't appear they need Dembski or DaveScot to continue with the well-worn and yes, crashingly boring trope of Latest Astounding Discovery Proves Evolution A Crock - even when, as with the recent post about "Gee, it's not one gene per protein," there really isn't an astounding discovery at all.

Posted by: SeanD. | November 18, 2008 10:41 AM

I had no idea Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1989...since it actually happened in 1990.

Dumb, stupid and a liar.

Posted by: windy | November 18, 2008 2:49 PM

I had no idea Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1989...since it actually happened in 1990.

Maybe he was in Afghanistan as a Mujahid.

Posted by: Alma | November 24, 2008 5:56 PM

Darwin on the evolution of life:

"It has often been said that all the conditions for the production of a living organism are now present which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would instantly be devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." - Charles Darwin, 1871, quoted by Richard Dickerson (1978). Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life. Scientific American 239 (3): 70 - 86.