IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » Reference » Forum Spotlight
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags trial , evolution , intelligent design , dover id trial

Reply
Old 8th November 2005, 01:31 PM   #441
tsg
Philosopher
 
tsg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,771
Originally Posted by Melendwyr View Post
Yes, but as he's trying to convince people who won't permit the hypothesis to be taught if it requires the Christian God or any other god, he's stated that the IDer can have other-than-divine origins. Aliens, for example.

I believe that was asked during the trial itself. I could be mistaken.
Behe states that the designer could be aliens or time travelers, but no one in the ID movement doesn't believe it's not God. As Rothschild said in his closing argument, "Intelligent Design could not come closer to naming the designer if it was spotted the letters 'G' and 'O'."

What makes it a religious view is that it relies on a supernatural creator, which is the same reason creationism was shot down in Edwards.
__________________
Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them.

In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.
tsg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2005, 01:39 PM   #442
Melendwyr
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,064
Originally Posted by tsg View Post
Behe states that the designer could be aliens or time travelers, but no one in the ID movement doesn't believe it's not God.
I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God?
Melendwyr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2005, 01:56 PM   #443
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
Originally Posted by Melendwyr View Post
I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God?
Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?

The White Crow argument.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2005, 02:00 PM   #444
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Melendwyr View Post
Yes, Behe has said that the Intelligent Designer doesn't need to have been any particular kind of god.
Yes. Like much of the rest of the defense testimony, this is a deliberate attempt to deceive.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2005, 02:01 PM   #445
tsg
Philosopher
 
tsg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,771
Originally Posted by Melendwyr View Post
I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God?
Or not enough. No ID'ers don't believe it isn't not God.
__________________
Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them.

In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.
tsg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2005, 02:24 PM   #446
hammegk
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,413
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?

The White Crow argument.
Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.


Originally Posted by tsg
... it relies on a supernatural creator ...
For objective idealists like myself, if it effects or affects what we perceive as the universe, it cannot be supernatural.
hammegk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2005, 02:30 PM   #447
BillHoyt
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,758
[quote=CFLarsen;1264778]Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?
QUOTE]
They'll rarely, if ever, admit it. But the choices are clear: God or not-god. If it is not-god, then it must be subject to their original contentions about complexity requiring an intelligent designer. The not-god answer is just begging the question.
BillHoyt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2005, 05:47 PM   #448
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by hammegk View Post
Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.

For objective idealists like myself, if it effects or affects what we perceive as the universe, it cannot be supernatural.
This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2005, 09:55 PM   #449
tsg
Philosopher
 
tsg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,771
Unoffical election results as far as I can tell from here.

From what I can find out, the Dover Board of Ed had 4 four-year-term seats open, 3 two-year-term seats and one unexpired two-year-term seat to fill.

Alan Bonsell came in dead last for a four-year seat. All the four-year seats went to Democrats, Bryan Rehm being one of them. Sheila Harkins also came in dead last for a two-year seat. Democrats also won all of those. Only two people ran for the unexpired seats. The Democrat won it.

In fact, all the Democrats won, and all the Republicans lost. Take that for what you will.

These results are unofficial and I might be dead wrong about the number of seats.

ETA: Apparently Bill Buckingham wasn't up for re-election.
__________________
Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them.

In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.
tsg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2005, 11:20 PM   #450
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
Originally Posted by hammegk View Post
Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.
Rrrrright. Not without a condition.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2005, 01:18 AM   #451
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 39,253
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110900114.html
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2005, 01:41 AM   #452
Dragon
Graduate Poster
 
Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
and Wikinews
Quote:
All eight open school board seats were won by Dover CARES coalition candidates. Two candidates who had previously voted as school board members to include intelligent design in the public school science curriculum received the fewest votes in Tuesday's election. One of the newly elected board members is Bryan Rehm, a parent of a Dover school student. Rehm, along with ten other parents, initiated a law suit against the school board for its decision to insert Intelligent Design into the science curriculum.
Dragon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2005, 01:22 PM   #453
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 34,265
I win! Internet, come to Papa!

But I'll be a good winner, so free title changes are still on me.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2005, 01:57 PM   #454
Ducky
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 11,933
As I posted here, my favorite statement about this election was from one of the losers not reelected:

Quote:
School board member David Napierskie, who lost Tuesday, said the vote wasn’t just about ideology.

“Some people felt intelligent design shouldn’t be taught and others were concerned about having tax money spent on the lawsuit,” he said.

You mean the lawsuit started over your ideology?
Ducky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2005, 02:10 PM   #455
BillHoyt
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,758
Originally Posted by fowlsound View Post
As I posted here, my favorite statement about this election was from one of the losers not reelected:




You mean the lawsuit started over your ideology?
Wow! He MUST be joking. No, never mind, I said that about the original school board decision. I hope I don't have to say that about the judge's finding.

Meanwhile, of course, Kansas, taking full advantage of the spotlight being off them, reverses course again, heading straight for the Laughingstock Lounge. I feel for the good, rational people of Kansas, and hope the last one out turns the lights off. The rest don't need the lights on. They can't read anyway.
BillHoyt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2005, 04:53 PM   #456
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?
Well? Am I close?
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2005, 05:40 PM   #457
hammegk
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,413
"Meta-natural"; don't believe I've heard that one before. Could be; I am a bit partial to a somewhat extended version of Bergsonian elan-vital (although Huxley has suggested what some accept as a stinging rejoinder to Bergson's idea ).
hammegk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 01:18 AM   #458
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 39,253
Where does the effective removal of the old school leave the case? If the plaintiffs win, the new board will presumably not want to appeal the decision. Where does this leave the case as a precedent? What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on?

Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 04:21 AM   #459
sphenisc
Philosopher
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,020
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?
I can sign up for that as well.
sphenisc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 04:49 AM   #460
vbloke
Disturbing shirts
 
vbloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 717
there's an interesting article linking ID and eonomics in todays Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastw...564377,00.html
__________________
http://intelligentdesignr.org.uk
Who Is The intelligent designr?

http://www.ukskeptics.com
Skepticism in the UK
vbloke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 04:53 AM   #461
Ed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Where does the effective removal of the old school leave the case? If the plaintiffs win, the new board will presumably not want to appeal the decision. Where does this leave the case as a precedent? What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on?

Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US.
The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on. The difference is, (as cited in the paper yesterday for which I have no reference) that the new board will 1) rescind the stupid ruling that got them in trouble in the first place and 2) not appeal a loss.
Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 04:58 AM   #462
Dragon
Graduate Poster
 
Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by vbloke View Post
there's an interesting article linking ID and eonomics in todays Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastw...564377,00.html
Delicious, especially the last two paragraphs -
Dragon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 06:20 AM   #463
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 39,253
Originally Posted by Ed View Post
The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on. The difference is, (as cited in the paper yesterday for which I have no reference) that the new board will 1) rescind the stupid ruling that got them in trouble in the first place and 2) not appeal a loss.
That's the problem. It won't go up to a higher court. Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 06:33 AM   #464
Ed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
That's the problem. It won't go up to a higher court. Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas?
I guess that it can be cited as case law but there is nothing binding, I think. It depends on how well the judge supports his decision. If he can flay the Board with a detailed analysis of their arguments it will have some influence I am sure. After all, if he can see thru their arguments and make his reasoning clear, then it would be up to another judge to go him one better if they disagree on the outcome.
Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 08:45 AM   #465
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 34,265
Originally Posted by Ed View Post
The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on.
Could the plaintiffs conceivably still drop the suit, even though the final arguments have already been made?

I'm guessing they don't want to drop it given that (I think) they are likely to win. That would mean a win in both the courts and the polls and strengthen the social and legal arguments* against ID in the science classroom.



* as opposed to merely the scientific argument
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 10:58 AM   #466
Spidey13
Pastor of Muppets
 
Spidey13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,457
__________________
"I love you like a fat kid love cake." - 50 Cent
Spidey13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 11:32 AM   #467
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,462
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
That's the problem. It won't go up to a higher court. Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas?
It is in federal court so it would be considered a persuasive authority rather than a mandatory authority. Still, better than nothin I say.

If it DID go to trial in Kansas and they contradicted the Dover ruling, perhaps the Supreme Court would hear a new case directly to put the issue to rest once and for all.
KingMerv00 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 11:47 AM   #468
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 34,265
Originally Posted by KingMerv00 View Post
to put the issue to rest once and for all.
That's optimistic.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 11:48 AM   #469
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,462
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
That's optimistic.
You're wrong. That's insane.

Edit: What the hell was I thinking?
KingMerv00 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 11:53 AM   #470
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 34,265
Behe made it look easy. Says so himself.
Quote:
As far as the "ordeal" goes, despite what the LA Times article makes it seem, it was actually all rather exhilirating. I rather enjoyed myself on the witness stand, because I got to explain in very great detail the argument for intelligent design, and the other side had to sit there and listen.

The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 11:57 AM   #471
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,462
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Could the plaintiffs conceivably still drop the suit, even though the final arguments have already been made?

I'm guessing they don't want to drop it given that (I think) they are likely to win. That would mean a win in both the courts and the polls and strengthen the social and legal arguments* against ID in the science classroom.



* as opposed to merely the scientific argument
I believe you could drop the case, but only in theory. It would be at the discretion of the court and they would be very unlikely to grant a withdrawl at this stage since it wouldn't serve the public interest.

Did I say "very unlikely"? I meant "basically impossible".
KingMerv00 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 11:59 AM   #472
Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
 
Bronze Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,993
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Behe made it look easy. Says so himself.
Funny, considering that the very possibility of speculation into mechanisms destroys his argument.
__________________
Stop Sylvia Browne

Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I

A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel
Bronze Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 12:08 PM   #473
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 39,253
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Behe made it look easy. Says so himself.
Quote:
As far as the "ordeal" goes, despite what the LA Times article makes it seem, it was actually all rather exhilirating. I rather enjoyed myself on the witness stand, because I got to explain in very great detail the argument for intelligent design, and the other side had to sit there and listen.

The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 12:08 PM   #474
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Behe made it look easy. Says so himself.
His comments are unbelievable. Perhaps Behe should read the transcripts. Quite frankly, he came off as an idiot.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 12:10 PM   #475
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,462
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Behe made it look easy. Says so himself.
%&#@!

You know, of all of the IDers I think Behe bothers me the most. Unlike alot of them *cough* HOVIND *cough* the man has a real scientific education yet the scientific method is lost on him.
KingMerv00 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 12:12 PM   #476
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 34,265
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
His comments are unbelievable. Perhaps Behe should read the transcripts. Quite frankly, he came off as an idiot.
What? You expect him to stop cherry-picking now? It'd ruin his career. ...sorta.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 12:30 PM   #477
Melendwyr
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,064
As someone on this forum is fond of saying, the problem with intellectual KO's is that the recipient usually doesn't notice them.

In Behe's mind, all of the stupid things he believes make perfect sense. From that perspective, it's clear he performed brilliantly on the stand. To be able to recognize he was made a fool of, he'd have to be able to recognize that he's spewing nonsense.

This inability to view one's own beliefs objectively is why a lot of scientific progress involves waiting for the oldguard to die off.
Melendwyr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 12:39 PM   #478
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
It'd ruin his career. ...sorta.
Actually, he'd just be doing his job. He's a professional moron.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 01:08 PM   #479
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Actually, he'd just be doing his job. He's a professional moron.
You know, I think that's deeply unfair.

The guy's a biology professor at a Research I university. If you're saying that he's a professional moron, what are you saying about his colleagues?
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2005, 01:25 PM   #480
Melendwyr
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,064
Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
The guy's a biology professor at a Research I university. If you're saying that he's a professional moron, what are you saying about his colleagues?
That they're employed at the same department as a professional moron?
Melendwyr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » Reference » Forum Spotlight

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.