Deinonychus antirrhopus

Hi Steve

"Of course, lets not forget that the Panda's Thumb has linked creationists to the communist famines, and holocaust denial."

Um, can we try to be a bit more articulate?

The Pandas Thumb articles you pointed do not "link" creationists to those events in the same way that, say, creationists like to pretend that science was responsible for the Nazis and the rise of communism.

Rather, the Pandas Thumb articles you pointed do merely show that the way that the ID peddlers spread their propaganda and create their "controversy" is strikingly similar to the way that Holocaust deniers and other nutty fringe elements promote their garbage in our society.

Of course, certain folks get very uptight when such comparisons are made because they subscribe to the belief that, for some inexplicable reason, anytime a belief is associated with the Christian religion, we are all supposed to bend over backwards to avoid offending those poor persecuted Christians. Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo!

Christians can get away with just about anything short of blowing a doctor's brains out in his home and even then you'll see self-identifying "Christians" doing whatever they can to protect their martyrs.

But a Professor dares to tell the truth about a bunch of lying scumbag fanatics who are trying to change the definition of science so they can promote their religion in public schools? GOD FORBID!!! That behavior is "vile and repugnant" or so we are told. That Professor should be ashamed, or so we are told.

On the contrary, it is our scientifically illiterate and fanatic-coddling country that should be ashamed. So says me. Will you see a pundit on the Sunday talk show circuit speaking on my behalf or defending Professor Mirecki? Of course not. So much for those poor persecuted Christians. We could all use some of that persecution!

You want to see a "hissy fit" Steve? Read a typical piece of propaganda written by Bruce Chapman or one of the other pathological liars at the Discovery Institute.

Steve

"It seems to me there is a tendency for smuggness and supreriority on the part of many Left/Liberal professors/scientists who tend to excoriate anybody who doesn't agree with them, this is bad in that it means science has many if not of its "eggs" in one basket, the Democrats basket."

Hahahahah.

That's funny.

It's bad for Republicans, not Democrats. And to the extent the Republicans are relying on religious fanatics to "guide them" in their leadership, we will all be screwed.

But it's not clear to me that Republicans care. As long as it keeps them in power, they'll play patty-cake with anti-science fundamentalists such as the mentally dormant members of the Dobsonite and Johnsonite Christian cults.

Let's all pretend that global warming isn't happening for a few more years. It's just a crazy plot dreamed up by leftist scientists.

Remember that script, Steve?

Fyi, let's try to keep it real and not delete comments here or ban folks with different opinions from posting. That's so Dembski-esque.

It's bad for Republicans, not Democrats.

Uhhh, I wasn't saying it was bad for Democrats or Republicans, but that it was bad for science. Being on the losing side is not usually a good thing. Having at least some people on the winning side might be a good thing. This is why corporations will donate to both candidates in an election so as to cover both bases. It is called risk management.

The Pandas Thumb articles you pointed do not "link" creationists to those events in the same way that, say, creationists like to pretend that science was responsible for the Nazis and the rise of communism.

Really? Saying that Creationist and Holocaust deniers are in lock step means their similar. Gotcha.

The point is that both sides have engaged in rather inflamatory rhetoric, and pretending one's own side is innocent of that behavior is just stupid. Are you stupid Susan?

By the way Susan, as an ardent opponent of intelligent design I'll kindly ask you STFD and STFU about this topic. Your unneccessarily insulting rhetoric isn't going to help things much. Its real hard to talk to people when you keep calling them lying scumbags.

And as a new reader to my blog Susan, I guess you are not familiar with my comment policy. I delete virtually nothing save spam comments, and band virtually nobody. I like to leave people's stupid drivel up so that there is a record of their nonsene that I can later point too.

I'm a little more skeptical of Mirecki than you are, Steve. So I agree that Hurd's comments are hysterical.

Susan, as a strong opponent of ID, having allies like you could lead me to despair.

Steve

"Really? Saying that Creationist and Holocaust deniers are in lock step means their similar. Gotcha."

Gotcha? Geez, what schoolyard is this?

Creationists and Holocaust deniers are similar in striking and, frankly, incontrovertible ways. That's what I was saying and that's what those articles are saying.

My point was that your use of the phrase "linked" suggested that the PT articles were arguing that creationists and holocaust deniers were part of the same "movement," i.e., they were funded by the same entity or had many overlapping members.

That's not the case.

Of course, Phil JOhnson is a notorious HIV denier, so in that sense the ID peddlers and the HIV deniers are "linked", I guess.

"Its real hard to talk to people when you keep calling them lying scumbags."

Are there professional ID peddlers here that enjoy reading your blog? I'd love to talk to them. Of course, at the end of the day they inevitably end up contradicting themselves, dissembling, and willfully misrepresenting facts, but it's still fun.

Steve

"I like to leave people's stupid drivel up so that there is a record of their nonsene that I can later point too."

Classic!

Robin

"Susan, as a strong opponent of ID, having allies like you could lead me to despair."

Let me get this straight. Steve can call Gary Hurd an idiot and that's a good thing.

But if I characterize, say, Bill Dembski or one of other Discovery Institute shills as a liar of the lowest order, that will "lead you to despair"?

That's ... uh ... interesting.

So what's the "strategy" for dealing with the, uh, well meaning but merely, uh, uninformed, uh, "scientists," at the Discovery Institute and the scientifically illiterate Bible-clutching masses to whom they preach?

Do we hand out copies of "The Double Helix" and a bag of Tootise Rolls and "pray" that they "see the light"?

Great idea, Susan, we'll oppose the ID/Creationist crowd by being a looney, hysterical and even as dishonest as they are.

Great plan.

Count me out.

Robin

"Great idea, Susan, we'll oppose the ID/Creationist crowd by being a looney, hysterical and even as dishonest as they are."

Excuse me, Robin? I suggested nothing of the sort. I'm particularly puzzled by the reference to "dishonesty."

Are you suggesting that the Discovery Institute does not employ people who regularly tell lies?

I assume you're not suggesting that I have been dishonest, Robin. That would be a strange claim on your part, particularly in the absence of, say, an example provided by you to support such a claim.

But go ahead and answer my question re the Discovery Institute. I'm curious as to where you're coming from and whether, in fact, you have a proposal for convincing scientifically illiterate God-panicked folks that the Discovery Institute is peddling 100% pure baloney to them.

Creationists and Holocaust deniers are similar in striking and, frankly, incontrovertible ways. That's what I was saying and that's what those articles are saying.

Wait, I thought you said that saying they were the same wasn't what the PT posts were doing, now you are claiming otherwise.

Of course, Phil JOhnson is a notorious HIV denier, so in that sense the ID peddlers and the HIV deniers are "linked", I guess.

Thanks, I forgot about that one. Another rather dubious comparison. Granted it maybe completely true for Johnson, but using that to tar the movement is a type of ad hominem attack and not a tactic I want to use.

Are there professional ID peddlers here that enjoy reading your blog? I'd love to talk to them. Of course, at the end of the day they inevitably end up contradicting themselves, dissembling, and willfully misrepresenting facts, but it's still fun.

Professional? I don't know, I don't make it a habit of cyber stalking my commenters. I have had at least one defender of ID show up in the comments. However, I don't write my posts just for the commenters. I also think about people who read and then either move on, or keep reading but don't comment. While I can be harsh at times on the ID concepts I do try not to be too harsh on those who believe them (save for some of the professional peddlers such as Dembski). You know that tired cliche about flies, vinegar, and honey.

Let me get this straight. Steve can call Gary Hurd an idiot and that's a good thing.

I didn't call him an idiot. Hysterical, ding-dong and engaging in nonsensical conspiracy theories...yes.

But if I characterize, say, Bill Dembski or one of other Discovery Institute shills as a liar of the lowest order, that will "lead you to despair"?

That's ... uh ... interesting.

Uhhh, no. Call Dembski whatever names you want. He has set himself up as a spokesman for ID and has produced writings where the term liar is...generous. However, when you talk about "lying scumbags" at least take the time to differeniate between Dembski and those who believe ID in the general public. ID is designed (intelligently?) to mislead those without considerable training in fields like biology, mathematics, etc. Calling these people lying scumbags isn't really productive or fair.

...the scientifically illiterate Bible-clutching masses to whom they preach?

Uhhhmmm your distaste for religion is coming through right here. You maight as well say "Moron" there, it will save you time. However, anybody that is part of the Bible-clutching masses is going to stop listening to anything you have to say. In short, you will have lost the argument. And lest you don't see the point...these people also vote.

Do we hand out copies of "The Double Helix" and a bag of Tootise Rolls and "pray" that they "see the light"?

No, but I would suggest cutting out the condescenion. It would be a good first step.

Are you suggesting that the Discovery Institute does not employ people who regularly tell lies?

Having known Robin for a number of years, and read his comments in this thread, the answer is obviously no. What Robin is saying is that we don't want to adopt the DI's tactics. Further, we don't want to treat the people ID appeals to as stupid ignorami who shouldn't have the right to vote, reproduce or make anyother large scale decisions.

I'm curious as to where you're coming from and whether, in fact, you have a proposal for convincing scientifically illiterate God-panicked folks that the Discovery Institute is peddling 100% pure baloney to them.

I'm going to hazard a guess you are liberal Susan. And I'm also going to point out that as such your side has been losing in the past 3 elections and hasn't held majorities in either house of Congress for quite sometime. As such I suggest that insulting those "scientifically illiterate God-panicked folks" isn't much of a winning strategy.

"Wait, I thought you said that saying they were the same wasn't what the PT posts were doing, now you are claiming otherwise."

Hee hee. Funny game, Steve. Why don't you (1) read what you wrote and (2) read what I wrote and (3) stop pretending that you don't understand what I am saying.

Hint: it's about the use of the term, "linked."

Good luck, Steve! I know you can do it. How do I know? Because you seem to able to read English.

"using that to tar the movement is a type of ad hominem attack and not a tactic I want to use."

It's not ad hominem attack, Steve. It's a fact-based comparison that helps people understand why the Discovery Institute tells the peculiar lies they are inclined to tell, i.e., they do so because the lies serve their narrow interests and feed into stereotypes held by the intended audience.

In any event, go ahead and pat yourself on the back if you think that noting such similarities is beneath you. I'm not impressed. If you have evidence that pointing out how Holocaust deniers, ID peddlers, UFOlogists, and other types use rhetoric in strikingly similar ways is counterproductive to educating people, then please share it with us. Seriously. I'd be interested in seeing that evidence.

"I didn't call him an idiot"

You suggested that he lacked the intelligence to shut up and listen. That's pretty close to an "idiot" in my book. But, hey, maybe that's a good way to persuade Gary that you're right. You tell me.

"However, when you talk about "lying scumbags" at least take the time to differeniate between Dembski and those who believe ID in the general public."

Let's scroll up (again) and see what I said, shall we? I wrote: "a Professor dares to tell the truth about a bunch of lying scumbag fanatics who are trying to change the definition of science so they can promote their religion in public schools?"

It's pretty clear to me that I wasn't talking about the general public. The general public doesn't want to change the definition of science so it includes astrology, witchcraft, and every kind of New Age garbage under the sun.

But the Discovery Institute does.

You know that. So what's the problem?

"No, but I would suggest cutting out the condescenion."

Oh, I sense an IP address ban in the works! The condescension is a one way street, huh? Very, er, Dembski-esque.

"anybody that is part of the Bible-clutching masses is going to stop listening to anything you have to say."

Really? That's not my experience. My experience is that they listen very closely to what I say. The harder they clutch, the more they tend to pay attention when the word "Bible-clutching" is used.

"Uhhhmmm your distaste for religion is coming through right here. You maight as well say "Moron" there"

There is big difference between "moron" and "scientifically illiterate." Surely you don't deny that vast numbers of people in this country are scientifically illiterate! I mean, vast numbers are illiterate, period! It goes without saying they couldn't tell you difference between a nucleic acid and a protein and a chromosome.

"Further, we don't want to treat the people ID appeals to as stupid ignorami who shouldn't have the right to vote, reproduce or make anyother large scale decisions."

That's nice. Of course, I never suggested that either. I even think that such people should be allowed to get abortions legally.

" I suggest that insulting those "scientifically illiterate God-panicked folks" isn't much of a winning strategy."

Yeah, so what's your stategy, Steve? We can't lie to them because that's the Discovery Institute tactic. We can't explain the science to them because they don't have the basic education to understand the science. And we can't simply point out that the Discovery Institute are obviously lying sickos like Holocaust deniers and other propaganda pushers because (let me make sure that I understand this) that would be an "ad hominem argument."

So what's your strategy?

Let me guess: start pumping a lot more money into public education with an increased emphasis on basic reading comprehension, including the illiterate or barely literate parents of low-income children with the resources to keep their children reading as much as possible, so that when the kids get into middle school and high school they can actually read a decent science textbook and understand what is written there.

Is that your strategy?

Susan,

You any relation to Deb Frisch?

It's pretty clear to me that I wasn't talking about the general public.

I'm sorry, but it wasn't. You can backfill and backpeddal all you want though.

Oh, I sense an IP address ban in the works! The condescension is a one way street, huh? Very, er, Dembski-esque.

Not towards me you dimwit, but in general. Do you want people to read what you write or to simply right you off as a raving loon?

And can't you read? I said I virtually never ban anybody. There was one (temporary) exception. I suppose if you try hard enough you could become the second, but you'll have to work much harder than you have been.

That's nice. Of course, I never suggested that either. I even think that such people should be allowed to get abortions legally.

Your general disdain for people in general strikes me as suggesting precisely what I wrote previously.

Yeah, so what's your stategy, Steve? We can't lie to them because that's the Discovery Institute tactic.

So...are you now advocating lying as Robin indicated?

We can't explain the science to them because they don't have the basic education to understand the science. And we can't simply point out that the Discovery Institute are obviously lying sickos like Holocaust deniers and other propaganda pushers because (let me make sure that I understand this) that would be an "ad hominem argument."

Again, so you want to be a lying sicko like the DI? Is that what you are saying?

Let me guess: start pumping a lot more money into public education with an increased emphasis on basic reading comprehension, including the illiterate or barely literate parents of low-income children with the resources to keep their children reading as much as possible, so that when the kids get into middle school and high school they can actually read a decent science textbook and understand what is written there.

Is that your strategy?

Pumping money? No, I don't think much of that answer. At least in such a simplistic form. There are plenty of school districts that have lots of money pumped into them that produce under-educated kids. But having high school graduates that can read a decent science textbook would be a good result.

As for myself I have a very low regard for the DI and their methods. So low, I don't relish the idea of aping them. But based on your comments in your last post you seem to think this is a good idea. Frankly, I think it will do more damage than good.

I sometimes despair over the argument here, also; but from a somewhat different angle, I think. Why is that the evolution / ID argument often boils down to semantics and he said / she said?

I get it. Something can be a comparison without being identical. Muhamad Ali and Vitaly Klitchko: both boxers (SIMILAR), not both caucasian (DIS-SIMILAR). Why does this become a point of arguement? If we're going to discuss both men, shouldn't we eventually compare them as humans? Why is the argument never about base-line facts and ultimate truths?

Of course, I think this is because IDC proponents can't muster many hard facts to support their case, but where are we as a country when we don't care about those things? This is where the battle needs to be fought--what's factually correct. Isn't that what humans search for? Truth? Does voting Republican change the way the world works? Does voting Democratic? No. Our votes only change how we interact with what is put in front of us.

Please, let's make the argument about the real issue and not Clintonian "What does 'IS' mean" stuff. Maybe then we'll all be smarter for it.

"I'm sorry, but it wasn't. You can backfill and backpeddal all you want though."

Hhahahaha. Why don't I just do what you do, Steve? "I'm right and you're wrong. Gotcha!" Hee hee. Fun game, Steve. At least, it's fun for li'l schoolboys (or so I gather).

I really am struck by your inability to address the issues, however. Instead, it seems as if you would rather expose your lackluster "talents" as a mindreader.

For instance, I wrote " We can't lie to them because that's the Discovery Institute tactic." And I've been very clear that the Discovery Institute's blatant lies are the key to understanding the nature of their ID propaganda.

But in response to my statement, you ask "are you now advocating lying?"

Uh, no Steve, I'm not advocating lying.

I'm advocating the opposite, in fact, and that's clear from my comments.

No, you're the one who appears to be suggesting that the whole truth not be told out of an imagined fear that Joe Dingleberry is going to flee the scene if I don't kiss the Jesus-embossed air freshener hanging off the rear view mirror of his pickup.

Blipey's comment gets right to the crux of the issue.

Why does the argument boil down to "he said, she said"? Because that is the way the Discovery Institute has framed the issue and that is the way our media is eating it up and spitting it back out.

Why does the Discovery Institute frame the issue that way? Simple. Because in a society populated by scientifically illiterate and frightened people, creating confusion and doubt is easy. And creating confusion and doubt is all the Discovery Institute really needs to do.

Karl Rove is the master of this strategy in other political contests. When the facts aren't on his side, he merely makes up his own and peddles them to journalists. Suddenly, we have a "controversy." And if the journalists don't figure out the truth and report it, how is the illiterate and rock stupid public supposed to figure it out?

Eventually they might figure it out but preferably not before the election.

This is elementary stuff if you've been paying attention to recent historical developments around the world.

"the illiterate and rock stupid public"

That's just appalling.

Mark

"That's just appalling."

Yeah, sometimes reality doesn't live up to our fantasies.

Don't worry, Mark -- most of the pig ignorant folks in this country either don't know or don't care. They're happy in their ignorance. They even have a little script to recite about the "elites" which makes them feel better about themselves.

Remember how many people thought Saddam was behind 9-11 even when there was zilcho evidence to suggest that was the case? That's the population I'm talking about.

Then throw in the folks who think the sun revolves around the earth and the folks who think that you can communicate with your dead grandma, and/or tell the future with Tarot cards and/or predict the success of a marriage based on the alignment of stars when the engaged individuals were born.

Top it off with the Vince Foster, Kennedy, and John "Baby Killer" Kerry conspiracy theorists and you start to get the picture.

It is appalling. I agree. What's more appalling is the way that politicians love to take advantage of the relatively low intelligence of the American public. Most politicians, you see, don't fall for the garbage that consumes the lives of the average American. Of course, the wives of the politicians aren't always so enlightened ...

"the illiterate and rock stupid public"

it certainly is appalling. While hurling accusations around, I'm perfectly willing to accept that some people are illiterate and rock stupid. But I'm also smart enough to name those people and state my reasoning specifically.

Name calling serves no purpose and advances an argument no further than senseless forays into fringe issues. If we are to have coherent argument on an issue, than we (both sides) need to advance specific arguments and leave rhetoric behind.

Of course, giving specifics means that we have to be ready to defend with specifics. Makes it tough on all of us, doesn't it? For example, I'll say that the DI's claims of peer reviewed material are shaky. Dembski claims that his Cambridge Press book (The Design Inference) was peer reviewed. It certainly was--by philosophers--and published as a philosophy book. Therefore, my specific question would be what relevance does this have toward claiming the book advances biological or even scientific knowledge? To make the claim that the scientific community has peer reviewed his work and found it acceptable is obfuscation, at best. In a decent argument, the DI would address this specific concern, and we would continue from there.

If you would like to help the cause, Susan, I suggest you play by the rules. Not their rules, not our rules. Just the rules that make sense.

I of course don't often expect coherent argument from the ID people, but that doesn't mean those of us who are ID opponents should resort to the same tactics.

Back to my original post in this thread. We need to educate the public not that they are stupid (which is an obviously vague generality), but that it matters to have facts behind you. Eventually, if it is shown that the ID people answer questions 1 through 5 with answer A, and then the next set of questions with answer A. And then when questioned again about yet a new set of difficulties with their theory they--surprise--trot out answer A again, they will start to look dumb. Yes, even to the general public.

blipey

"I'm perfectly willing to accept that some people are illiterate and rock stupid."

Great.

"But I'm also smart enough to name those people and state my reasoning specifically."

Why is that smart a thing to do, Blipey? You just admitted that such people exist. They exist in vast numbers. So do unrepetent racists, misogynists and anti-gay bigots. Right?

That's the world we live in.

"If we are to have coherent argument on an issue, than we (both sides) need to advance specific arguments and leave rhetoric behind."

I agree. Let's start with the facts: there are a lot of scientifically illiterate and, well, just plain illiterate people in the United States. You know, people who get most of their education from TV shows like "COPS" and who believe the things they hear and see in advertisements.

Those are fundamental facts about our society. The Discovery Institute is aware of these facts. That is why the Discovery Institute promotes -- suprise! -- videos which present their scientifically meritless "theories" and anti-science propaganda. It's a wise move by the Discovery Institute.

"If you would like to help the cause, Susan, I suggest you play by the rules."

I suggest you show me where I am not playing by the "rules" Blipey. I'm not the one who suggested that Gary Hurd was so stupid that he couldn't shut up and listen. I'm not the one who misrepresented what the Panda's Thumb articles said about Holocaust deniers and creationists.

I addressed those strange claims by pointing to facts which have not been controverted. Instead, the person making those claims responded by asking me if I was stupid!

So please, blipey, spread your lessons around a bit, okay?

YOu also wrote this

"when questioned again about yet a new set of difficulties with their theory they--surprise--trot out answer A again, they will start to look dumb. Yes, even to the general public."

I agree, in theory. Of course someone would have to report the answers to those questions and note that the questions were answered in a ridiculous illogical fashion. That would have to happen repeatedly.

If, instead, the reporter merely writes "Dr. Blah Blah, a scientist at the Discovery Institute, disagrees," then the "general public" will not get the picture.

But let me tell you something: the general public pays attention when someone says, "Hey general public, you are being taken for a ride by people who lie and smear the same scientists who help save your kids by developing new treatments for cancer and microbial diseases. Don't be a sucker!"

People do listen to that. Especially when it's repeated on a daily basis. They don't need to understand the science. They just need to be told what the truth is.

Think about the smoking warnings on cigarettes. Do you think most Americans believe that smoking causes cancer?

You bet they do.

Do they know how cigarettes cause cancer?

Of course not.

blipey

"Name calling serves no purpose and advances an argument no further than senseless forays into fringe issues. "

Just to clarify: when I say that the Discovery Institute and its propagandists are liars, that is merely a statement of a conclusion based on evidence. And it goes without saying that this is not a "fringe issue." It is the issue.

If it weren't for the Discovery Institute and its affiliates promoting "ID" as a "scientific alternative" to evolution for presentation to schoolkids, Mirecki wouldn't have come up with his idea for a class, his emails wouldn't have been released, he wouldn't have gotten assaulted, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Creationism as science, you'll recall, was snuffed out by Edwards v. Aguillar. Now "ID" will follow.

Journalists will be presented with a dilemna: what story will they tell? Will they tell the story of the lying Discovery Institute and how it was brought down and its credibility destroyed?

Or will it tell the story of how a judge in Pennsylvania failed to understand "the public's" unease with the "materialist" implications of "Darwinistic" science and ruled in favor of the "liberal" ACLU?

If you know the answer to that question, then you know which valley the sheep will be grazing in next year.

As for me, I have little trust in our nation's journalists to do report the plain truth. The issue is: which makes a better story.

For me, slick lying propagandists funded by a notorious religious fanatic and bigot with Tourette's Disease who engage in a campaign to smear scientists and change the definition to science to include astrology -- that's a good story. But you have to tell it right. That is, you have to tell the truth about certain religious people.

It's not unprecedented. Remember Jim Bakker? And Jimmy Swaggart?

Of course, those were different times.

Steve, answer the question:

Does the general public want to change the definition of science so it includes astrology, witchcraft, and every kind of New Age garbage under the sun?

You seem to be confused about the answer to that question (I think the answer is obvious).

But let's clarify before proceeding.

Thanks.

That was a childish response. You know what I said and you know what I meant. Go to your room for a time out. Come out when you grow up.

Wow.

I have to say that if one's choice is between ID types who are almost certainly wrong, and the Susan's of the world whose contempt for all and sundry shines through, it really is a tough choice.

I may disagree w/ the ID folks, but from the tone of the debate expressed here, I think I'd rather associate with them than the likes of those who apparently have more vitriol and bile than common sense and brains.

Steve: The weirdos you attract to comment here always remind me of why I don't have comments.

Susan: To the extent that it's worth trying to talk you down, I'm going to put this very plainly.

There are good ways and bad ways to attempt getting people to listen to you, calling them stupid, ignorant, illiterate liars is rarely one of them. Are Dembski, the DI, and Behe all liars? Yup. Categorically, that's an unquestionable fact. However, they're smart, tactical liars with some pretty decent technical knowledge, and very good PR. Most people do lack deep scientific understanding, hell, I'm college educated and I find a lot of the posts at Gene Expression confusing. Probably because molecular biology isn't exactly what they teach you in the Economics department.

Not all religious people are idiots, in fact most of them aren't, and most of them recognize that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. Hell, most realize that they're completely distinct realms. Even the last Pope thought this. However, that doesn't mean that ID won't have a certain appeal to those sorts of folks without a lot of technical science knowledge. And, as a belief, ID is, frankly, not all that intolerable...but it's theology and doesn't belong in a science class.

That's the battle/war that needs to be won, and calling a bunch of Methodist midwesterners rock stupid scientific illiterates won't make them any more likely to agree with us. "ID isn't science, and shouldn't be taught in science classes because..." is a line of reasoning most folks can understand when it's properly articulated. Getting your panties in a knot about Steve's post, or at others who agree with your basic point but disagree with your methods, will get you written off as a loon rather than taken seriously. That doesn't help

You gotta be kidding me about that photo of Mireki. Those perfectly symetric "bruises" under his eyes are the smudges that white people put under their eyes to reduce glare from the sun. As to the bruise on his arm I've had worse from getting hit by a racketball. It may have even stung for a second although you usually don't even notice how you got bruises that inconsequential if there was anything at distracting happening at the time. This required hospitalization? Spare me...

Hey Susie, with friends like you the Gary Hurds and Paul Mirekis of the world don't need enemies!

Thanks! Keep up the good work!

DaveScot,

Do you think that Mirecki is faking? Or do you think that he really was assaulted, and that since it was a relatively mild assault, it's OK? Afterall, he had it coming, right?

((with friends like you the Gary Hurds and Paul Mirekis of the world don't need enemies!))

But they have them, Dave, and those enemies can become physcially violent, as we have seen.

Steve:

One comment. There is a First Watch, which opens for breakfast at 6:00 a.m., at 2540 S Iowa, Lawrence, towards the south edge of town. It's a very popular place to have breakfast. It's either 2 or 3 miles from the site of the alleged beating; and its location is consistent with Mirecki's story that he drove out into the country to clear his head, and was returning for breakfast.

Susan,

In definition to your question about the general public and the definition of science, I'd say the answer is: Yes and no.

Probably because molecular biology isn't exactly what they teach you in the Economics department.

Right. When it comes to biology I'm pretty ignorant, I admit it. However, I do know enough biology, more than enough mathematics and probability thoery, and philosophy of science to know that guys like Dembski are full of crap. But getting upset that large segments of the population don't know all this to spot the crap, isn't necessarily their fault. This is where Susan falls down. Her approach is so nasty and off-putting she is actually, IMO, a liability to the anti-Creationist cause, not an asset.

Timothy is right Susan and you are wasting your time and everybody elses here. I'm skeptical of Mirecki's story. Tough shit for you. However, I am a very, very strong opponent of ID (do a search of the archives here and at Outside the Beltway). This is one of those times when you should agree to disagree.

Gerard,

Thanks for the hat tip on the restaruant. I had to rely on Yahoo and didn't see anything in that area. I'm still skeptical, but less so now as there are additional facts supporting Mirecki's claims.

My take is that if humanity is mostly stupid, and if you cannot understand why the stupid people act the way they do, then you too are stupid. It's particularly fruitless to attempt to change someone's beliefs by starting with the premise that they're stupid. If you weren't stupid, you'd agree with me. ;-)

But I guess stupidity is something that only happens to other people.

Steve and I have been debating the ID and Creationists for many years. And as much as I despise supposed allies like Susan, I'm not going to stop debating them now.

The difference is that my efforts are aimed at convincing people who need convincing, not hiding in little left-wing echo chambers making insulting comments about the proles.