Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If protected by the courts, I think they would be safe.

What protection do the courts normally give to an employee who fails to meet the requirements of the job as set out by their employer?

Because it wasn't relevant. The point of my response was that there is a diversity of belief among those labelled "creationists", and even among people who are affiliated with the DI.

As for education, I understand the DI wants to get creationism into the classroom. They think it will further their cause. They've been wrong before.

Yeah, a document about using ID as a strategy to allow religion back into schools was not relevant to a discussion about what would happen if ID were allowed into schools. I see that now.

I, personally, think their strategy might work if and only if not only is it injected in the classroom, but it is given special protection, so that a teacher cannot say, "Then there's the creationists. Here's what they say, and here's why it's nonsense." I think that is what most, but not all, biology teachers would end up saying, if allowed to do so.

And yet we already know from the evidence of the school board in Dover that at least some teachers will most definitely NOT be allowed to say that, because that school board were quite clear that the purpose was promoting religion, not science. So we all know that it WILL be given special protection - pretending otherwise is pointless.

 

[pgwenthold]

But Behe did object.

Has Behe distanced himself from the DI in any way? Has he come out and said, "Of Pandas and People is not a proper description of ID"?

I don't get major heartburn about calling Behe a creationist, but I do think that it's important to understand how his position is different from a YEC,

Has Behe disavowed OPaP?

I haven't heard, but then again, I haven't looked closely.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yeah, a document about using ID as a strategy to allow religion back into schools was not relevant to a discussion about what would happen if ID were allowed into schools. I see that now.

Sorry. Got two replies confused.

Yes, the wedge document reference was relevant.

I've been down this road before, so I know where it will go, but I'll just lay out briefly what I think.

1. There should be an established curriculum that requires the teaching of evolution, which is the only position accepted by the scientific community.

2. Teachers should be free to discuss topics related to evolution, including creationism, as they see fit, so long as they fulfill the requirements of 1.

3. Where there is dispute about the appropriateness of teacher actions (i.e. whether a teacher's discussion of creationism infringes on the ability to teach the core curriculum) the local administrators should be the primary authority, leaving the courts out of things as much as possible.

4. On the other hand, if the teacher feels the administration's actions prevent him from fulfilling the requirement in 1, (for example, if the teacher is forced to teach creationism) court intervention is appropriate.

 

[Meadmaker]

Has Behe distanced himself from the DI in any way? Has he come out and said, "Of Pandas and People is not a proper description of ID"?

Yes. During the Dover trial, and elsewhere.

 

[plumjam]

Yep. (I wonder who Richard Genter is. Whoever he is, sorry, Rich.)

Richard Genter is my milkman, he has surprisingly good arguments against Darwinism.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yes. During the Dover trial, and elsewhere.

Here is Behe's testimony on OPaP at the trial

Q.What is your understanding of how this book will
be used at Dover High School?
A.I understand that there is a short statement that
is read to students that says that the book Of Pandas
and People is available in the school library for
students to access.
Q.Do you see that as a good thing?
A.Yes,I do.
Q.Why?
A.Because the book Of Pandas and People brings a
different viewpoint,a different perspective to the same
data that is viewed oftentimes through a Darwinian
perspective,and it can show students that viewing data
from different directions oftentimes can affect how we
judge the strength of data,how we judge the problems
associated with a particular viewpoint and so on.
Q.Now this book was published in 1993,correct?
A.Yes.
Q.And you're aware that Dr.Miller has criticized
several sections in this book?
A.Yes,I heard him.
Q.Do you intend to address his claims in your
testimony today?
A.Yes,I intend to,yes.
Q.Of the sections that he addressed,are they still
scientifically valid?
A.Yes,they are.
Q.Now would you recommend this book as a primary
text for biology class?
A.No,I wouldn't recommend it as a primary text.
It's not intended as a primary text.
Q.Any other reasons?
A.Well,yes.It was written in 1993.And so
science advances pretty quickly,and so it's not
appropriate for use as a primary text because of that.
Q.Has intelligent design advanced since 1993?
A.Yes,it certainly has.
Q.Would you recommend that it be used in the manner
that Dover High School is using it?
A.Yes,I think that's a fine way to use it.
Q.And I believe for the reasons you stated
previously in your testimony?
A.Yes,that's right,because it gives students a
different perspective on data,allows them to separate
data from theory,allows them to view problems from
different perspectives,and some people who think one
theory is correct will oftentimes view problems as less
severe than people who view the data from a different
perspective.

Q.And,sir,do you have an opinion as to whether
providing students with the opportunity to review the
book Of Pandas and People promotes good science
education?
A.Yes,I do.
Q.What is that opinion?
A.Yes,it does.

Here's the kicker

Q "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin
of life that differs from Darwin s view.The reference book
Of Pandas and People is available for students who might be
interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent
design actually involves."
Do you have any problem with that paragraph?
A That sounds like --sounds fine as well.

"The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students would might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves." Behe agrees.

That is "distancing ID from OPaP"?

Now where in there is he distancing ID from Of Pandas and People? If he didn't think OPaP was an ID book, wouldn't he bring out an objection that OPaP is more about creationism, and since he isn't advocating creationism, OPaP is not appropriate?

I asked you where he disavowed OPaP. You claimed at the Dover trial. As everyone can see, you are wrong. I take it you are making things up.

 

[Jimbo07]

Richard Genter is my milkman, he has surprisingly good arguments against Darwinism.

I'm reminded of Dilbert's garbage man.

 

[Meadmaker]

120 12 Q. Matt, could you pull up pages 99 to 100 and
13 highlight our favorite passage? That was the
14 passage we spent some time on yesterday, "
15 5intelligent design means that various forms of
16 life began abruptly through an intelligent
17 agency, with their distinctive features already
18 intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with
19 feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." You said a
20 few things about this passage. One is you don't
21 like it so much.
22 A. I certainly would have written it
23 differently.
121 24 Q. You don't think it's an accurate
25 representation of intelligent design?
A. I think intelligent design is described
2 better elsewhere in the book.




Q. This passage of the draft manuscript reads,
"Sudden emergence holds that various forms of
life began with their distinctive feature
already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds
with feathers and wings, animals with fur and
mammary glands. Sudden emergence is the face
value interpretation of the fossil record. It
interprets the structural differences separating
the major types of organisms in the fossil
record as a generally true reflection of
biological diversity and natural history."
First of all, the use of the word "true" in
science is somewhat problematic I think you
have told us?
A. I don't think I have ever mentioned
anything on that topic.
Q. And if we could look to the top part of
this, sudden emergence through up to the mammary
glands, I'm going to ask Matt to pull up a
comparison we made between Pandas and this
document, and what we see is intelligent design
2 means has been removed and we've got, "sudden
3 emergence holds," taken out the words
4 intelligent agency, and it's not just fish and
5 birds that came out already intact but also
6 mammals. But it's a pretty similar statement,
7 isn't it, Professor Behe?
8 A. The writing is similar. I think this is an
9 improvement to tell you the truth, because now
10 it doesn't say intelligent design means that.
11 Intelligent design does not mean that.
140 12 Q. Sudden emergence means that?
13 A. Yes. That's a separate idea. It is not
14 intelligent design.

 

[JJM]

Desperately grasping at straws.

We know there is a difference between endorsing a text, overall, and quibbling about specific passages. Behe helped produce this text- and testified it is good for students to read it.

Get with the program.

 

[Meadmaker]

We know there is a difference between endorsing a text, overall, and quibbling about specific passages. Behe helped produce this text- and testified it is good for students to read it.

Get with the program.

I didn't want to give the impression that Behe disavowed the book, just the description of "intelligent design" contained in the book. I was specifically responding to the question: "Has he come out and said, 'Of Pandas and People is not a proper description of ID'"?

 

[mijopaalmc]

We know there is a difference between endorsing a text, overall, and quibbling about specific passages. Behe helped produce this text- and testified it is good for students to read it.

Get with the program.

It is really interesting that when an evolutionary biologist explicitly says that evolution is "non-random" and then proceeds to described in terms of probability (which is axiomatically random), most people nod in agreement that evolution is indeed "non-random". However, when Behe explicitly say that "sudden emergence" as discussed in Of People and Pandas is not Intelligent Design, those same people vociferously disagree and insist that Intelligent Design is creationism even though one of the founders of the movement explicitly denies that it is.

Does anyone else see the inconsistency in accepting the explicit statement from one expert and rejecting an explicit statement from another?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It is really interesting that when an evolutionary biologist explicitly says that evolution is "non-random" and then proceeds to described in terms of probability (which is axiomatically random), most people nod in agreement that evolution is indeed "non-random". However, when Behe explicitly say that "sudden emergence" as discussed in Of People and Pandas is not Intelligent Design, those same people vociferously disagree and insist that Intelligent Design is creationism even though one of the founders of the movement explicitly denies that it is.

Does anyone else see the inconsistency in accepting the explicit statement from one expert and rejecting an explicit statement from another?

Does anyone else see the inconsistency between stating that sudden emergence is not ID and using this to justify a claim that ID is not creationism?

 

[JJM]

I didn't want to give the impression that Behe disavowed the book, just the description of "intelligent design" contained in the book. I was specifically responding to the question: "Has he come out and said, 'Of Pandas and People is not a proper description of ID'"?

Per your previous citation of Behe's testimony:

A. I think intelligent design is described
2 better elsewhere in the book.

He has not said OPaP is not a proper description of ID. Hoist by your own petard.

 

[pgwenthold]

I didn't want to give the impression that Behe disavowed the book, just the description of "intelligent design" contained in the book. I was specifically responding to the question: "Has he come out and said, 'Of Pandas and People is not a proper description of ID'"?

See this comment again

Q "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin
of life that differs from Darwin s view.The reference book
Of Pandas and People is available for students who might be
interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent
design actually involves."
Do you have any problem with that paragraph?
A That sounds like --sounds fine as well.

Behe agrees that OPaP is a book that students can use to gain an understanding of ID. So, by your logic, he is saying that a good way to learn about ID is to go to a book that is not a proper description of ID?

 

[pgwenthold]

Per your previous citation of Behe's testimony:
He has not said OPaP is not a proper description of ID. Hoist by your own petard.

To be fair, his comment about it being better in other parts of the text was referring to his own contribution. Regardless, notice that he doesn't come out and say, "That creationist stuff really isn't ID." He just says it's "not as good of a description of ID" as his section.

"not as good of a good description" =/= "is not"

He seems to have no qualms having his work associated with the creationists.

 

[articulett]

If protected by the courts, I think they would be safe.

Think again. The courts have a major woo infiltration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrPLupGdKKQ


Why don't we put stickers in bibles saying that god is only a "hypothesis"-- and a poor one at that.

And lets tell the kids in physics that the the gaps in understanding quantum mechanics infers magic.

And we can give the kids a debate so they can choose whether to believe in astrology or astronomy.

If the bible wasn't given special consideration due to this inane notion that "faith is good"-- the religious right would ban it because of the violence, incest, rape baby-killing, and reference to witches.

Kids can't really "decide" when they've been told that a certain belief is required for salvation and that doubting it (biting from the tree of knowledge) can cause eternal suffering for themselves (and their descendants.)

Hmph.

 

[Meadmaker]

He seems to have no qualms having his work associated with the creationists.

Certainly that's true. If you divide the world into US and THEM, he's one of THEM, and it doesn't bother him.

It's just a case of understanding that there is some variation among the goddidit crowd. Behe believes in common descent, but I think that it's a case where what he thinks is really, really, important is that God gets the credit, and the details about common descent versus creation ex nihilo are really minor details. At least, that's how I read his work.

 

[articulett]

I didn't want to give the impression that Behe disavowed the book, just the description of "intelligent design" contained in the book. I was specifically responding to the question: "Has he come out and said, 'Of Pandas and People is not a proper description of ID'"?

Well, to most of us it looks like you are playing semantic games just like Behe--using words to infer things without really "lying" while accusing scientists of lying and Behe of being honest.

Can we tell the kiddies that multiple creation stories are in the library-- wiccan, Scientology, Mormonism-- so then they can read all the stories and see which of those they should choose from... or would should we just let them know about the only theory supported with vast amounts of evidence.

If I discuss creationism in my class, I tell the kids that people have been making up creation stories for eons-- but scientists have to go with the facts that are the same for everybody... there's no evidence to think one religion's creation story is more likely to be true than any others.

 

[articulett]

Does anyone else see the inconsistency between stating that sudden emergence is not ID and using this to justify a claim that ID is not creationism?

Mijo is a total creationist who denies being a creationist. He is as clear as Behe.

That's why I have him on ignore.

 

[articulett]

Per your previous citation of Behe's testimony:
He has not said OPaP is not a proper description of ID. Hoist by your own petard.

They always are. But the incompetents never realize they are the incompetent ones.

It's the semantic game of self delusion. They would be so much more likable if they just admitted their errors.