Jason Rosenhouse has an exhaustingly exhaustive report on a lecture by Thomas Woodward, in 4 parts (here are parts 1, 2, 3, and 4). Woodward has written a book defending ID, and is going around the country giving testimonials to his faith. As is common with these folk, he also did a little prophesying.
Woodward closed by setting the date for the end of Darwinism's reign as the dominant paradigm at ...wait for it...2025. Later he suggested that it might be within ten years that evolution as we know it suffers a decisive failure. And then he predicted a severe nosedive for evolution in the next six to twelve months as Behe's book soaks into the public consciousness.
I am reminded of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who prophesied the end of the world in 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, and 1975. The millennial catastrophe did not arrive, but also…the Jehovah's Witnesses did not fade away with their failures. I am not anticipating any sudden resolution of the evolution-creation pseudo-controversy in either 2017 or 2025.
- Log in to post comments
Speaking as the house rhetorician, now I know how Orac feels when Egnor (the Creationist Energizer Bunny) starts up again. I mean, you'd think a guy whose discipline is rhetoric (although he doesn't sound like a very hard-core rhetorician, if you ask me) would know something about examining the truth-value of an argument beyond the usual sort of content-agnostic methods...
Bah and feh and grumble, I say.
He's smarter than Dembski anyway. Put that date far enough in the future that most people will forget about it by the time it rolls around.
I don't think that anyone will notice because in 2012, the Earth's crust and/or magnetic field will flip over. I tell you, going from a canadian accent to australian.. or wait, what if we flip places with china: I don't understand chinese!! I won't know if darwinism is alive or dead, or even if Buddha I mean god is in power - halp!!!
Every time i read something about ID i die a little bit inside. You're killing me PZ! Killing me!
Predictions by IDers are meaningless without wagers of single-malt scotch.
Not likely. According to the latest poll, 60 million Americans still think the sun goes around the earth. It's been 400 years since Coperincus and this isn't even a controversial point.
By that reckoning, the creos will still be around in 2425 or 3425. Hard to say what life will be like that far ahead. We may be on our way to the stars, terraforming Mars, or climbing out of another dark age.
This clown Rosenhouse is employing a cheap trick. People have been predicting the demise of Darwin's theory since he proposed it 150 years ago. Since that time, the evidence has just kept piling up and data from related fields such as astronomy, geology, and genetics have all been fully congruent. The cheap trick is well known, Goebbels called it "The Big Lie."
2025 is an irreducibly complex year. I also predict a massive malaria outbreak for non-believers around this time.
http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com
Re comment 6 - I think you meant to refer to Woodward as the clown. Rosenhouse is the guy taking him to task, which is quite non-clownish.
"This clown Rosenhouse "
Not only is he a talented mathematician, blogger, and opponent of creationists, but he also entertains at childrens birthday parties, and bar mitzvas! Is there no end to his talents ?
Hah! And you atheist Darwinist nay-sayers have always claimed that ID has no predictive power!
No it's not! It's divisible by 5. I win! Try again, Darwinist!
It's a given the theory of evolution will change, perhaps even radically, and I reckon whatever comes after evolution will disprove ID even harder, if that's possible. IDiots, be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.
May I ask why Woodward is "another" rhetorician for ID? Who are some others? Fuller?
Yes, I did, my oopsy. Not Rosenhouse.
Actually it is creationism that has been on a steady retreat for the last 150 years. On an almost daily basis, new discoveries just keep making it look more and more ridiculous. Their big task is to invent more lies and hand waving as human knowledge advances. Creo nonsense isn't a viable theory, it is zombied pseudoscience.
Exhaustingly exhaustive? Would you believe I originally intended to just do one blog entry on Woodward's talk. I made the mistake of actually looking up all the quotes he used, and then it was off to the races.
Behe is speaking in Washington this Wednesday. Might have to go check that out!
"It's a given the theory of evolution will change, perhaps even radically"
I predict evolution will evolve feet and kick creation's ass!
Another rhetorician for the DI is John Angus Campbell.
What a clown.
No. PZ, you are wrong.
Campbell's goal is to have Darwin and evolution firmly entrenched in the public school classroom. He does not think ID deserves "equal time" in the science classroom. His strategy for achieving this is to engage with the ID community.
You think his strategy is wrong. For what it is worth, so do I. But he is not an advocate of ID. He thinks that by engaging with them, he can show them to be in error.
An analogy might be to those who try to deal with Holocaust Deniers (a movement with equal claim on the "truth" as creationism). Deborah Lipstadt won't engage with the deniers and only writes on them to unmask them. Michael Shermer will debate the deniers, and does take their arguments seriously mainly because he thinks they are wrong and he can show people why they are wrong. You are like Libstadt: don't engage, don't debate them as equals. Campbell is like Shermer, engage them as equals in order to beat them.
As I recall, the JW formed from the remnants of the Millerites, who prophesied the end of the world in 1843 and 1844. They didn't have the staying power of JW though, they dissolved after the "Great Disappointment" of the 1844 failure. The Seventh-day Adventists are another offshoot of the Millerites.
People who have read "When Prophecy Fails" by Leon Festinger et al. (1956) will know that failed predictions often cause people to strengthen their beliefs rather than abandon them. When evolution still holds ground in 2017, I'm sure Woodward and his ilk will attribute it to the vast atheist conspiracy rather than admit they were wrong.
Well, I make the following prophecy: sometime during this calendar year, a baseball manager will be fired! Or sometime after this year! Ha!
Speaking of which:
http://monkeytrials.blogspot.com/2007/06/introducing-finches.html
"As I recall, the JW formed from the remnants of the Millerites, who prophesied the end of the world in 1843 and 1844. They didn't have the staying power of JW though, they dissolved after the "Great Disappointment" of the 1844 failure."
The JW papal committee has learned some discretion (they lost about half of their then-current members in 1975) but apparently they've also hinted fairly strongly at 2005, and more recently 2034. If you'd like to be nauseated, here's their greatest hits:
http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/index.php/category/watchtow…
One of the things I find incredibly irritating is the whole evolution-as-a-conspiracy idea promoted ad nauseam by creationists. I've heard people who are in no way religious and certainly don't endorse creationism tell me there's no evidence for evolution, or suggest that "no one really knows" how old fossils are. I'm sure if they understood that the source of these rumours were lying creationists they'd discount them immediately, but the current climate of mistrust of institutions seems to provide fertile ground for conspiracy theories.
I work for the regional governmental cancer agency, and can't count on two hands the number of times I've been accused of covering up cures for cancer to keep my job.
Usually, I just point to my car and say "OK. You got me. I told them we could never keep anything this massive from someone as clever as you. I've been bought off by the Great Cancer Conspiracy. That's why I drive an '86 Camry with a bad transmission that bleeds power steering fluid. It's all paid for with blood money."
It's almost as fun as responding to theists who wonder what stops me from robbing and killing people since I don't believe in god with "Good point. What do you weigh, 140? 160? I can take you easy. How much do you have in your wallet?"
"I don't think that anyone will notice because in 2012, the Earth's crust and/or magnetic field will flip over."
No way. My brother-in-law says the world will end in ten months. A Mayan calendar predicts it or something, and he says the New Age will begin then, and the people who are reincarnated unicorns that lived in Atlantis will get to ascend to Heaven and get to the next level while the reptiles that were reincarnated as Republicans will destroy the world or something-or-other.
I dunno, I may be getting some of it mixed up.
Campbell is like Shermer, engage them as equals in order to beat them.
since both creationism and holocaust denial are psychological and not an evidentiary based positions, history suggests Campbell and Shermer's approach will fail.
hence the reason there are still 60 million americans who disbelieve heliocentrism, that we ever landed on the moon, that HIV causes aids, etc., etc.
evidentiary arguments have a VERY small effect on these kinds of psychologies.
hence, also, the recent paper in science discussing how early psychological influences help maintain creationist belief structures into adulthood, as an example.
evidentiary arguments are fine if you have the time to waste, but with few exceptions in and of themselves they are only valuable for onlookers, not the "faithful".
you can do your own informal studies to figure this out for yourself:
go observe threads where the evidence for evolution is discussed with a creationist, and see how much effect it has on them.
moreover, you can readily observe lurkers chiming in from time to time to say they learned something from the evidence presented, even if the target of that evidentiary argument is completely recalcitrant.
The Witnesses had 1994 (or was it '95?) pegged as an end-of-the-world year, too, don't forget. And yet the persist, undaunted. In the early 90s my then-girlfriend - who was in the beginning stages of converting (she struggled with abandoning fornication, thankfully!) - begged me to get right with God, etc etc. "This system" is doomed, she and all her JW friends said. Doomed! Well, here we all are, although she and I were indeed doomed, just weeks after her baptism in fact. I resisted a perverse urge to call her on New Year's Day '95.
I think she's still devout. Sad.
At the time it was in large part Stephen J. Gould's books and my new discovery of the power of science and reason that sustained me in a time when I felt like the only sane person in a world of god-intoxicated morons. I later went on to marry a great non-religious gal. Paleontology, Darwin and David Hume saved my soul!
Well, yeah, Ichthyic, I think you made the point I was trying to make. No one, least of all Campbell or Shermer think they are going to convince their opponents during these exchanges. Campbell, I think, is trying to reach educators and other folks who might be on the fence or genuinely trying to find their way through these issues.
Well, yeah, Ichthyic, I think you made the point I was trying to make.
hmm, well let me add this then:
have you considered it is just as easy to show they are wrong without direct engagement?
have you seen the problems inherent with direct engagement?
these people have no compunction about making shit up on the fly, and making it sound plausible to onlookers.
surely, you've seen the MANY cases where Wells has said something immensely wrong and stupid, having taken only a sentence or two to say it, but it requires pages and pages to explain exactly WHY it is wrong.
have you considered the reasoning behind why the AAAS refused to debate the creationists in Kansas during the Kangaroo Kourt debacle?
there are excellent reasons for why direct engagement with insane people is not necessarily the most productive direction to take.
If you are hoping to show lurkers the value of your arguments, you are assuming that the creobot's arguments are not just as persuasive, given the makeup of your audience.
It's very rare you will have the opportunity to debate a creationist on anything other than their "home turf", so even then, the value of audience observation of your evidentiary arguments are at best minimal.
I would suggest trying to attend the next "debate" you see and see what the Q&A session looks like.
I've commonly seen well reasoned scientists actually LOSE ground in these debates.
It's why I won't personally debate creationists anywhere where there isn't the ability for onlookers to track the history of the commentary in writing.
even then, you can readily see issues if you examine "formal" debates online at places like Dawkins.net.
no, it really isn't a productive mode of attack, and is really best reserved for someone who wishes to sharpen their own wit against creationists.
Campbell is a fellow the Discovery Institute. I've read his book, and attended one of his lectures. He's a stealth creationist, nothing less, nothing more. He is NOT helping to defeat ID; his schtick is to praise Darwin as a master of rhetoric, and advocate the inclusion of intelligent design in the classroom, because he argues that this is a battle of words, and so it is perfectly "fair".
He's a devious little man. Don't be fooled.
btw, debating creationists directly is also rarely a good way to weed out those who actually wish to learn something.
simply making yourself available for people to ask questions, like with a blog, for example, is a far better and more productive way.
making general information available to the public and publicizing it, like the Talk Origins archive, is also effective.
if you are confused about what might be effective, all you have to do is examine the "media complaints" division of the Disco Institute's website, look at what they are whining about consistently, and you'll get a good idea of the things that ARE productive in weaning folks away from idiocy.
You will note in those pages, that the DI NEVER EVER condemns direct debates, but often condemns the Talk Origins site, PZ, Judge Jones....
If he is waiting for Behe's new book to light a fire under ID, he's going to be waiting a long time. You should read the reviews and comments on amazon for his book. The handful of creationists that are trying to defend it are getting stomped. I don't think they really have their hearts in it. They seem to understand that it's a huge flop, they just can't bring themselves to admit it. A few of them have even been saying that Behe "sold out" to evolution because of his convoluted endorsement of common descent.
You should post your review on their PZ. That would make a few heads pop.
Ichthyic: Yes, I've considered all those things. As I indicated above, I don't agree with Campbell's strategy. I think he's mistaken. I don't think engaging people who make shit up, as the creationists and the Holocaust deniers do, is a useful strategy. I've simply pointed out what Campbell is attempting to do. This was in the service of the larger point that Campbell is not a promoter of ID.
PZ: Read closer and more widely of his work. Campbell has dozens of papers on Darwin, historical and rhetorical rather than scientific which is consummate with his training and his background.
He does NOT hold the views that truth does not matter and that everything is "mere words." What he does hold is that truth does not speak for itself, it is carried by humans and therefore how it is presented matters. It was not enough for Darwin to discover the truth, he also needed to present the evidence in ways that his audience understood in order to persuade them that descent with modification was the correct explanation for organic form.
I've also had conversation with Campbell where he has made it quite clear that his goal is to get Darwin into the classroom by using the ID debate as the mechanism. I believe, and I've told him this, that the danger is that they are using him to gain some amount of respectability that they do not deserve. And the equal danger, obviously represented here, that his own work would be tarred by his association with them.
Moreover, most rhetoricians in the small rhetoric of science community think he's wrong in his strategic choice to engage with these people, and allow his name to be used as a "fellow" of the DI. Many rhetoricians, alas not all, refused to join him in that book where their work would appear alongside the DI schlocks.
He is not a "devious little man." He is a good scholar who has made some bad choices about how to achieve his goals. Woodward, on the other hand, I've never heard of before this and truly is an ID hack.
You've been suckered. Darwin is already in the classroom -- his is a game to get ID in there too.
No. Correcting the errors in thinking and misconceptions held by creationists is teaching, much like helping your kids to understand that they can't leap off a roof with an umbrella as a parachute.
Unfortunately, sometimes this also means publicly exposing the neighbourhood bully as a liar when he tries to cinvince the younger kids that they'll float safely to the ground just like Mary Poppins.
Well, once you get to college it's in the classroom. In high school, not so much. That's why so much of the population has no understanding of basic evolution. That is one of the only victories the creationists have managed to attain. They have caused enough of a stink that a lot of high schools simply don't cover evolution in order to avoid dealing with the fake "controversy".
I still agree with PZ though, Campbell is a conman.
From #24 above:
hence, also, the recent paper in science discussing how early psychological influences help maintain creationist belief structures into adulthood, as an example.
Hence the ardent desire for creationists to get their ideas into the classroom as early as possible before science and reason can undo the damage.
From #27 above:
even then, you can readily see issues if you examine "formal" debates online at places like Dawkins.net.
Oh we have some FUN debates there. Look for 'afdave1', he of the "truth4kids" schlock website. Some of his contributions are comedy gold. His latest one is that chimps and humans could have had identical DNA in the past but still expressed significantly different phenotypes. This he said more or less immediately after saying that chimps and humans were totally unrelated because they were separately created "kinds".
If someone made this character up in a fictional novel, the novel would be panned by the critics as requiring too much suspension of disbelief to be credible. But he's for real ... I can hear PZ choking on his coffee from this far away, and I'm on a different continent ...
PS: what tags do you use to embed quotes on this blog? I had to boldface them because my initial choice of tags didn't work ...
Truth4kids sounds like a sock puppet for Forthekids a well known troll that has been banned from a good half dozen blogs. He/she/it displays an alarming lack of consistency with it's postings as well, often directly contradicting itself before it finishes a single post.
Sorry, PZ, I've sat with Campbell and watched him explain his strategy to me and to the DI representatives in the room. He's told them, pretty baldly that he does not think ID belongs in a science curriculum. They don't care, precisely because they want to use him to push for ID. I agree with you that he's wrong in this quest.
Yes, Darwin is in the classroom already. Campbell knows that. Campbell thinks science teaching can be IMPROVED by using philosophical/historical/rhetorical approaches to its teaching. This is nothing terribly controversial, many folks think that. So, he wants to teach evolution, at least in part, through its past, including creationist controversy--by showing it is a public controversy not a scientific one. HE thinks this will improve the teaching of evolution. I don't agree with him, nor, I suspect do you. But this does NOT make him a devious con man, only misguided.
Finally, I wish that you would consider that you are incorrect in your assessment of him. I've read more of his work than you have, I've spent time with him. I've seen him talking with DI folks. You've seen one book he's edited and attended one lecture by him, and, forgive me, seemed to misunderstand what he was saying. Hardly enough evidence to condemn him for dishonesty.
On the other hand, I'm some anonymous poster on your blog, so perhaps there is reason not to trust me. If only I could use Comic Sans Serif! Then you'd believe me!
They do. They have every right to submit their research (if they've got any) to peer-reviewed journals, just like scientists do.
I'm glad you never met someone like that. Thanks for sharing.
As an educator I see the impact of this "pseudo controversy" every year huh. I teach government, one of my methods to teach the checks and balances, and how the judicial branch functions, is to mention the passage of laws that are completely unconsitutional and then go through the steps that complainants must make to have those laws overturned. One of the examples I provide is the Dover school district and its use of ID (OPAP). Every year that case, and the events surrounding it, becomes a debate over whether creationism/ID should or should not be included in the classroom. My response has to be neutral, so I explain by citing the judge's opinions in the cases regarding ID and creationism stating that legally neither one has been found to be scientific so it has no place in the science classroom. The discussion generally includes appeals to fairness (teach both "theories"), appeals to democracy (but most people agree), etc.
There isn't a pseudo controversy here, there is a very real (non-scientific) controversy here.
From #37:
Truth4kids sounds like a sock puppet for Forthekids a well known troll that has been banned from a good half dozen blogs. He/she/it displays an alarming lack of consistency with it's postings as well, often directly contradicting itself before it finishes a single post.
Hmm, interesting. Actually, the truth4kids website consists of a series of animations accompanied by anodyne voice overs. I think PZ has already encountered it.
Oh, your description of the author of this website fits like the proverbial glove by the way. He's positively infamous for his self-contradictory howlers, including some in the same post. There's a 400-plus page thread (now locked sadly as it was a continued source of amusement to many) at RDF, centred upon this individual's attempt to "prove" the "historicity" and "scientific accuracy" of the Genesis flood account. If you want to waste a week and give yourself a hernia laughing, track it down.
For my edification Critical Thinker, would you consider threatening young children with an eternity of suffering a form of intimidation?
'Cause if so, I've met quite a few of those kinds of bullies.
they often do sound similar, but they are completely different people.
AFDave (Dave Hawkins) is the person being referred to from the Dawkins site (he started over on PT, and really took off at ATBC before he went to Dawkins site.
FTK is a woman from Kansas who has been extremely vocal about nothing in particular on the KCFS website, then started her own blog, and now is displaying her rampant denial and projection in many places.
both people have/had their own threads on ATBC, if anyone should care to analyze them to see the similarities in psychology:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SF;f=14
check out the "unreasonable Kansan" thread, and the threads with FTK in the title.
for Dave Hawkins, check out the "Creator God Hypothesis" threads there (you'll have to do a search, as these were ended several months ago).
btw, for clarissa, "blockquote" is the tag you want.
I typically just use italics.
er, make that for:
Calilasseia
not clarissa.
Heck, there's Glenn Morton's The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism with predictions of the soon-to-happen end of evolution dating back to even before Darwin wrote the Origin.
You mean the same atheists journals that you subscribe to. Not likely, anymore than an atheist scientist would have a chance submitting his research from an evangelical church pulpit.
why would they want to?
OTOH, i don't recall ANY journals that state in their bylaws that they are atheist, or only accept publications from atheists. Most likely because they judge papers based on their scientific merits. Now if ID or creationism HAD any scientific merit, you'd see more publications.
could you please point out an atheist scientific journal for me?
I can point out a journal designed (pardon the pun) to publish any findings in the realm of id (ISCID). However, for some strange reason, they haven't published any articles in years now.
strange.
why do you suppose that is, peanut boy?
A good doctor will emphasize the treatment rather than on the sickness. Most Christians emphasize on the treatment (Jesus Saves) rather than on the sickness.
but a good doctor can diagnose a sickness, WITH EVIDENCE, and provide a treatment based on RESEARCH.
based on your analogy, what would your church offer?
exorcisms?
LOL
not only are you horribly mistaken about how science works, you evidently haven't the slightest clue how medicine works, either.
it's all just magic, right?
I do hope you are starting to see the value in calling you stupid. Hell, you yourself are doing an excellent job of providing supporting evidence.
Regarding comment #47, Peanut Gallery, chew on this thought: Science is atheistic by definition. That is, science confines itself to natural phenomena. We're not, as scientists, allowed to invoke the supernatural in our explanations. No Gods allowed.
Therefore, saying 'atheist scientific journals' is redundant. The very use of this phrase marks you as a non-scientist.
Before you despair, however, let me point out that it doesn't say anything about anyone's status as a believer. All sorts of scientists publish in these journals that you deride rather foolishy as 'atheist' (as if that were an insult). Many of these published scientists are privately believers----as am I, for the record. The mistake that many believers make is that they think that their private beliefs should somehow be privileged and put on the table as 'evidence' for the scientific community to consider.
Now, you are of course right when you say that the 'arena of ideas' is bigger than the domain of science, but my goodness, that carries no weight with any scientist. Science doesn't CARE what YOU believe, or what I believe. Science is not interested in our personal, subjective, untestable notions held on faith. Science is interested in EVIDENCE, and arguments based on EVIDENCE. By all means, come back and play more if you've got some of the same.
Assertively...Scott
Critical Thinker,
"Actually a bully is someone who uses physical force or some other means of intimidation to convince people of their position."
If you aren't aware of things such as Cyber-bullies, etc who use no physical threats, you need to catch up with our current world.
Ah declayuh, dahlin, is that ayn eahwohm?
John Angus Campbell, Fellow, Discovery Institute.
Some articles by Mr. Campbell.
I have to say I agree with Dr. Myers, am extremely sceptical of this fellow. See, for instance, his (with Stephen C. Meyer) Teach the Controversy, The Baltimore Sun, March 11, 2005. Excerpts:
[Emphases mine]
All the usual inaccuracies, I'm afraid.
Scott,
I've been reading your comments for several months and up till now I couldn't figure out just how to regard you. As a terminally (that is, finally and happily) backslidden Christian I've had a "dogmatic" understanding of your position, but this was not satisfying since you boldly claim your faith as well as your reason. As a free thinker cogitating my way to greater freedom, I have wondered how your intellect meets your faith. Your response to Peanut Gallery has given my curiosity and my suspicions something substantial to chew on. My reaction is "Hey! I know this guy!"
You have my honest respect for speaking up for science without compromising your faith in a way that strikes me where I live. I tried very hard in my walk of faith to do what you are doing but it was beyond me (another rut in the road I have traveled). And you made it look easy. Cool.
In all, the arguments between acolytes for any set of opposing views are more often elementary than enlightening without a set of commonly agreed upon rules. Few Christians or other sundry devotees can manage this. You understand the rules. I hereby declare you are among the few.
Post long and prosper.
Campbell sounds an awful lot like Michael Balter, for those of you who know who that is.
We spent weeks tearing his arguments for teaching ID to shreds.
his ego won't let him see where he is wrong, or even address criticisms of his "plan".
If anyone is interested, I can point them to the threads where his particular brand of idiocy was dissected.
Fardel's bear said:
Ho, ho, ho, has Campbell go them on the run! That's why Campbell is a fellow at the Discovery Institute (see here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow…)
and why he unquestioningly accepts ID pap and gets wrong some of the most simple parts of evolution theory and other biology in his criticisms of evolution -- and, can you point me to any criticism he's ever made of intelligent design? It ain't in the book he co-edited with Steve Meyer, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (note especially how he adopts the put-down language of the ID crowd, instead of citing as a title a real controversy like, "Biology, Woo-woo and Whether God Personally Picks Cancer Victims," which would be a more accurate statement of the controversy in science.
If Campbell is working against ID, he's doing it secretly, and at this point he's so far underground he doesn't realize he's digging the wrong way.
Campbell is working against ID as effectively as the Vichy government worked against the German occupation.
Double oops. Shoulda read the whole thread, y'all got the goods on Campbell.
Somehow I closed the quotes too soon -- the second paragraph of that post was fardels bear's, also. My minor contribution starts with "Ho, ho, ho . . ."
y minor contribution starts with "Ho, ho, ho . . ."
hey, don't sell yourself short.
Santa's contribution started with just those same words, and look how far he's gone!
;)
To be accused of promoting devil-worship because of the Dutch word for "saint" being an anagram for the name of the Prince of Darkness?
The Imminent Demise of Evolution (via Glen Morton)
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm
No, it's agnostic, not atheistic. It's happy to accept Gods, as long as they don't get up to any naughty business in its eppendorf tubes.
*runs away from ensuing argument, very quickly*
Bob
On the contrary, science would accept gods only if they got up to naughty business. If they don't work miracles or smite sinners or otherwise make their presence empirically detectable, off they go to the dustbin of unnecessary hypotheses.
With regard to the statement:
"I am reminded of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who prophesied the end of the world in 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, and 1975. The millennial catastrophe did not arrive, but also...the Jehovah's Witnesses did not fade away with their failures."
In an attempt to set matters straight, I would recommend consideration of the following material:
"The Churches, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Question of Unfulfilled Prophetic Expectations"
http://www.jehovah.to/exe/general/prophetic.htm
Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
that you think the link provided somehow provides an adequate explanation as to why religious zealots make ridiculous predictions on a frequent basis says volumes.
I'd laugh, if I didn't pity you so much.
But ID does have a place in the classroom. In Creative Writing. As an example of how to do it badly.
I'm amused to note that Peanut Gallery is accusing scientific journals of being atheistic for failing to endorse theism (even though they don't promote atheism) on this thread, whereas on the comments thread to Religion--our maelstrom of ignorance (s)he seems unwilling to accept that any secular charities are atheistic unless they overtly promote atheism.
Isn't inconsistency fun?
Brownian #22:
What is it with these people?! I told one of them how much I made as a postdoc at our local cancer agency and he flat-out refused to believe me, despite all my friends shouting such helpful things as "she doesn't even have a car!" in the background.
My other point was that to cover up a cure, you'd need to know that you have a cure. Which means you'd have to silence everyone involved in the clinical trials - doctors, nurses, patients and their families, administrators, researchers - and not let a single scientist or doctor take credit for something that would make them an immortal hero.
Wanker. He finally left after my big burly fiance came over to help me out and the skinny little conspiracy theorist poked him in the chest. He instantly realised that wasn't a good idea and scarpered. But there's almost an hour of my life I'll never get back.
Speaking of Behe's new book The Edge of Evolution, Boosterz is almost certainly right. It's not going to set the world afire nor is it doing so now. This afternoon, ten days after publication, it stands 667th on Amazon's sellers' list. Ahead of are Dawkins' The God Delusion at #59, Hitchens' God is Not Great at #17, Isaacson's Einstein at #15, and Gore's Assault on Reason at #11. Behe may rise to the mid 300's but then I predict his Edge will sink into oblivion.
Wanker. He finally left after my big burly fiance came over to help me out and the skinny little conspiracy theorist poked him in the chest. He instantly realised that wasn't a good idea and scarpered. But there's almost an hour of my life I'll never get back.
heh. you should have told him he was absolutely right, and since he made it clear that he knew the secret, you were going to have to use your vast wealth to shut him up, permanently.
OTOH, you might have gotten urine on your shoes from him peeing his pants so fast.
Yeah, that would have been fun. It might have even made him move - he currently lives next door to some friends of mine (hence his presence at an otherwise very good party) and he drives them crazy.
Interrobang: Some of the rhetoricians I've encountered seemed to have trouble with the same sort of thing - it was all about the language for them, and none of the content.
fardels bear: John Angus Campbell.
PZ Myers: Indeed - to the point, when I heard him speak as part of an "science studies" class, I had him pegged as just a run of the mill pomo. I was surprised to find out more about him later.
I told JAC after hearing the "Why Was Darwin Believed?" talk, which does show (correctly, IMO) Darwin's at least tacit use of rhetorical technique that in order to answer the question of his talk's title he'd have to investigate more than just rhetoric, and he smiled, and said I was probably right. I expected (in my naivité) that he would ask for more, but he didn't, and now I suspect I know why ...
Yeah, that would have been fun. It might have even made him move - he currently lives next door to some friends of mine (hence his presence at an otherwise very good party) and he drives them crazy.
not too late, actually.
I'm sure you could figure out how to pull off the same strategy at any time, since he's local.
make him think he is being followed, then a surreptitious letter pointing out that the "front" you put up at the bar didn't seem to fool him...
lots of ways to use his paranoia against him.
yeah, I'm a stinker.
:)