• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dover Penn ID trial

Yes, but he's not exactly doing his job as a researcher anymore, is he? His profession changed when he abandoned science and reason. The man who made those statements on a witness stand is a clown, not a scientist.
 
delphi_ote said:
Yes, but he's not exactly doing his job as a researcher anymore, is he? His profession changed when he abandoned science and reason. The man who made those statements on a witness stand is a clown, not a scientist.
Click to expand...
Ah, the joy of tenure!

Behe is a perfect example of why tenure should be removed. University faculty are still vulnerable to retaliation from the administration in a thousand other ways, so tenure doesn't make academics immune to persecution, and it makes it virtually impossible to get rid of utter fools.
 
In related news. NPR just ran a story on "Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom". Mostly centered around Sternberg publication of an intelligent design article...http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508
Sternberg was the editor of an obscure scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, where he is also a research associate. Last year, he published in the journal a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer, a proponent of intelligent design, an idea which Sternberg himself believes is fatally flawed.

"Why publish it?" Sternberg says. "Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That's what I thought, and I was dead wrong."

At first he heard rumblings of discontent but thought it would blow over. Sternberg says his colleagues and supervisors at the Smithsonian were furious. He says -- and an independent report backs him up -- that colleagues accused him of fraud, saying they did not believe the Meyer article was really peer reviewed. It was.
Click to expand...
 
Mercutio said:
In related news <snip>
"Why publish it?" Sternberg says. "Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That's what I thought, and I was dead wrong."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Are evolutionary biologists really thinking about ID? In any other way than "it's religion, not science"? "Reasoned discourse" with ID supporters??

Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, says her group did consult with Smithsonian officials and the museum's concerns were valid.

"Clearly people were annoyed, they were frustrated, they were blowing off steam," Scott says. "Some probably did speak intemperately. Their concern was that somehow the Smithsonian would be associated with supporting the creationist cause by being associated with this journal that published a creationist paper."

Anyway, she says -- echoing the comments of a Smithsonian official -- Sternberg did not really suffer.

"He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair."
Click to expand...
Is that a reasonable summation, or has he really got a legitimate complaint?
 
bighairygoat said:
Are evolutionary biologists really thinking about ID? In any other way than "it's religion, not science"? "Reasoned discourse" with ID supporters??


Is that a reasonable summation, or has he really got a legitimate complaint?
Click to expand...


He should have known better than to publish that crap if he has two PhD's in biology.
 
Televangelist Robertson warns town of God's wrath

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them on Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
...
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city,"
...
"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there,"
...
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1300761
Click to expand...

This man should be put away in a room with white walls where he can just sit a spew all this hateful garbage to himself. Give him a nice straight jacket too.

Edit to add: I thought the whole thing in Dover was about science, not religion. Is Robertson suggesting that there was a religious motivation behind the 8 people voted out?
 
Last edited:
thatguywhojuggles said:
This man should be put away in a room with white walls where he can just sit a spew all this hateful garbage to himself. Give him a nice straight jacket too.

Edit to add: I thought the whole thing in Dover was about science, not religion. Is Robertson suggesting that there was a religious motivation behind the 8 people voted out?
Click to expand...


I seriously hope he gets cancer.

That's hateful and I yelled at other people for saying that, but that jackass really has it coming.
 
I'd prefer Robertson be struck by lightning on a clear day. I think I'll see if I can recruit a mad scientist to make it happen, since there doesn't seem to be an omnibenevolent being intent on electroshocking that nutbar into sanity. Or ashes.
 
fowlsound said:
That's hateful and I yelled at other people for saying that, but that jackass really has it coming.
Click to expand...
I think it's well past time to acknowledge that this anti-hate movement that's become so popular in the last few decades is dead wrong. Hate has a purpose and a function, and to claim that any and all manifestations of hatred are evil is just plain silly.

Hate is not the problem. Unreasonably determining what to hate is.
 
Melendwyr said:
I think it's well past time to acknowledge that this anti-hate movement that's become so popular in the last few decades is dead wrong. Hate has a purpose and a function, and to claim that any and all manifestations of hatred are evil is just plain silly.

Hate is not the problem. Unreasonably determining what to hate is.
Click to expand...


In that case, I reasonably hate the following:

Fred Phelps
Pat Robertson
Kevin Trudeau
Psychics/Mediums/frauds
Cancer

And I unreasonably hate the following:

Kevin Federline, who can't spell his name properly.
Jell-o
Dr. Suess
mushrooms
wombat shaving
penis envy
Ford Taurus' made in the 1990's
reality TV
spandex
infomercials
ebonics


Looks like I have some work to do on rectifying my unreasonable hate.
 
fowlsound said:
In that case, I reasonably hate the following:

Fred Phelps
Pat Robertson
Kevin Trudeau
Psychics/Mediums/frauds
Cancer
Click to expand...
And just where am I on that list?! When a guy works this hard, he expects a little credit!

I now unreasonably hate the following:
fowlsound

:D
 
Mojo said:
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.
Click to expand...

The new school board is supposedly on record saying they will not appeal a ruling against the old school board. The old board members have no power.

Even if the plaintiffs lose, the newly elected board members will most likely reverse Pandas vote.

Where does this leave the case as a precedent? What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on?
Click to expand...

It would be persuasive only. Other district courts wouldn't be bound but would be encouraged to follow precedent.

Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US.
Click to expand...

Normally you can't go directly to the SCOTUS. It is especially weird if you just won your case.
 
thatguywhojuggles said:
Edit to add: I thought the whole thing in Dover was about science, not religion. Is Robertson suggesting that there was a religious motivation behind the 8 people voted out?
Click to expand...

It was about teaching religion in a public school. There's nothing in the Constitution preventing a Board of Education from teaching bad science. There is against teaching religion.
 
BillHoyt said:
Exactly. I think that comment is quite interesting and very suggestive of a creationist agenda. At the very least, it is suggestive of a clueless journal editor.
Click to expand...

Not clueless, no. He has a creationist agenda, plain as day. You'll find his name (along with several other familiar names) on this list:

http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php

He most certainly appears to have abused his position:

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004/09/sternberg-replies.html

His duplicity and persecution routine make me ill.
 
Last edited:
I found this article this morning bushwatch.net/uhler.htm (still to new to post proper links.

Who politicized the Kansas Board of Education and the recently ousted board members at Dover Area High School in Pennsylvania? Conservative zealots; some of whom have even admitted to not understanding intelligent design—and who certainly do not understand what constitutes genuine science.
Click to expand...

The site is very left wing, I would change conservative to religious, with that change it does still make it's point.
 
bushwatch.net?

That sounds positively like a porn site.

........

Yep. Political porn. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom