Those not in favor of good science education, raise your hand.

200 Responses to Those not in favor of good science education, raise your hand.

1. firemancarl says:

   December 20, 2007 at 7:45 pm

   Thought you should know that the Chairman of Volusia County School Board agrees that ID and YEC needs to be placed in religion/philosophy classes and not in science. She also feels that we dont teach enough about evolution.

2. Pingback: Florida Citizens for Science » Blog Archive » Has it hit you where you live yet?

3. Jinx McHue says:

   January 1, 2008 at 1:05 am

   Hey, does this sound like someone who should be added to the list?

   “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”

   I think so. Doesn’t sound any different to some of the other people on the list. Here’s his name: Charles Darwin.
4. Ralph Kramden says:

   January 1, 2008 at 7:31 am

   Jinx:

   The question was decided 100 years ago. Nowadays, the only people on the other side are brain-dead religious fundamentalists, who prefer their dogma to the facts.
5. Don Smith says:

   January 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

   Jinx:

   No scientist would argue with that statement. The problem of the religious side is that the facts do not support them. And here’s a big clue for you: If they did have facts they wouldn’t need faith.

6. Pingback: Who Watches the Witless « Podblack Blog

7. Pingback: Florida Citizens for Science » Blog Archive » You made an impression. Congratulations!

8. Lee Bowman says:

   January 4, 2008 at 1:55 pm

   One thing to keep in mind, is that ‘Young Earth Creationism’ is a religious belief, where Intelligent Design is not. ID makes no claims of a dogmatic religious nature, but is based on evidence of design alone.

   The scientific community, being heavily vested in the central (neo)Darwinian premise of descent by modification, and *solely* by selection of random mutations over that time period, must, of necessity. oppose any competing hypotheses. That, of course, is in direct opposition to free and open inquiry, and is the real ‘science stopper’.

   The evidence of “change over time” is verifiable; the method of change (speciation) is not. Exaptation (cooption of function) has thus far failed as purported partial means to that end, as have other hypotheses. But if intervention has occurred, did the designer (or multiple designers over time) sign a work order or log their efforts? No, the evidence of that enterprise is the beauty, complexity, and synergy of mutually beneficial systems of life that exist in the world. Those who insist on attributing it all to chance are deluded. But if not, then why the impassioned opposition to open inquiry?
9. S. Scott says:

   January 4, 2008 at 6:29 pm

   Lee Bowman Says:

   January 4th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
   One thing to keep in mind, is that ‘Young Earth Creationism’ is a religious belief, where Intelligent Design is not. ID makes no claims of a dogmatic religious nature, but is based on evidence of design alone.

   Hmmm… Have you read the Wedge Document?
10. Delaware Dave says:

    January 4, 2008 at 6:34 pm

    Another thing to keep in mind: ID is not a theory. It’s not even a hypothesis. It’s simply an argument from incredulity.

    What would a universe that was NOT designed look like? How would it be different than a designed world? Why?

    Regarding open inquiry, do we need to debate whether an imbalance of bodily humours or germs cause disease? How about whether mental illness is caused by demonic possession or physical/chemical dysfunctions? No, because these debates were settled years ago. Just like the debate around creation/design and evolution.
11. S. Scott says:

    January 4, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    I thought I would expand on my last post – an excerpt from the DI’s Wedge Doc. …

    GOALS
    Governing Goals

    To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
    To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

    For the whole thing – go to …
    http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
12. Lee Bowman says:

    January 4, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    Yes I have. It was an internal document meant to oppose materialism as a dominant philosophical position in science and in academia. It was authored by (possibly Phillip Johnson), or someone with strong theistic beliefs. But I differ with the NCSE (Barbara Forrest et al) that its sole purpose was to interject dogmatic religious beliefs into science itself. One, that would flagrantly violate church and state, and two, it makes no sense. Science is empirically based and always will be.

    They state today that their position is purely scientific. Even if not, their position doesn’t dictate the validity or non viability of the ID proposition. We need to judge the proposition by the available evidence, and to encourage additional research be done.
13. Lee Bowman says:

    January 4, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    “Another thing to keep in mind: ID is not a theory. It’s not even a hypothesis. It’s simply an argument from incredulity.”

    I disagree. The design inference has many aspects which I won’t enumerate here. Complexity and synergy of systems exist. Further, random mutations have not been shown to be viable as producing complexity. The time worn phrase “reams of data” refer to much research, but no proof of its validity. The fossil record exists, but backs incremental design as much as random happenstance, similar to an auto salvage yard.

    “Regarding open inquiry, do we need to debate whether an imbalance of bodily humours or germs cause disease? How about whether mental illness is caused by demonic possession … ”

    These causations have been demonstrated. Macroevolution has not. The usual comparison is between evolution and gravity, another non sequitur.
14. S. Scott says:

    January 4, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Lee Bowman Says:

    January 4th, 2008 at 9:15 pm They state today that their position is purely scientific. Even if not, their position doesn’t dictate the validity or non viability of the ID proposition. We need to judge the proposition by the available evidence, and to encourage additional research be done.
    …

    I’ve read the “KvD” case – Have you? Here you go – a link to the admission by Behe that there is NO peer reviewed scientific data. …

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html

    Here’s an excerpt you can read the rest at your leisure, though I doubt you will. This is from Day 12 – AM session.

    Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

    A. No, I argued for it in my book.

    Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

    A. That’s correct.

    Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

    A. That is correct, yes.

    Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin’s Black Box, you didn’t report any new data or original research?

    A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

    …
    …
    …I assume you will now continue to live with your head in the sand. Many more people smarter than I have said this before but I believe it is worth repeating … As soon as the I.D. movement can provide some actual TESTABLE evidence, they will no longer need a political movement to propel it into biology text books.
15. Lee Bowman says:

    January 5, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    “I’ve read the “KvD” case – Have you? ”

    Every word of it, and I’ve argued that Judge Jones, while partially correct regarding the school board’s actions, was not qualified, nor was that court authorized to rule on the scientific merit of ID. The charges were filed against Buckingham et al, and although he invoked the term ‘Intelligent Design’, he did not officially represent the ID community. Further, his testimony revealed that as a Creationist (YEC), he did not embrace, nor even fully understand, the ID premise.

    Go here for one of my criticisms of KvD: http://tinyurl.com/23ppzq

    As far as Mike Behe’s testimony, he was cajoled by heavy handed jurist tactics and ‘theatrics’ (the stack of non-cited documents used merely for ‘show’). Go here for a rebut: http://www.discovery.org/a/2879

    So in conclusion, my head’s not in the sand, but I feel that that fits many of the so called “science backers”, who back the *political* side of science ‘carte blanche’ and without question are postured that way. As an engineer and science/ technology supporter, I view the refusal to even consider that the evolutionary process was designed (and subsequently directed), is the real “science stopper”.
16. S.Scott says:

    January 5, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    I will go to the links you provided, but right now I’m watching the Game. But let me just ask you this first – you said — “I’ve argued that Judge Jones, while partially correct regarding the school board’s actions, was not qualified, nor was that court authorized to rule on the scientific merit of ID. ” — Who is supposed to RULE, if not a court??
17. S.Scott says:

    January 5, 2008 at 10:57 pm

    One more thing … Why didn’t they appeal – hmmmmn??
18. Lee Bowman says:

    January 6, 2008 at 12:33 am

    “… Who is supposed to RULE, if not a court?? … ”

    Whether a constitutional violation, yes. Whether valid science, no. Peer review has thus far failed to allow ID in, but there’s less chance now, due to the ruling. I feel that the ID portion of the ruling may be nullified (not reversed), by another court.

    ” … Why didn’t they appeal – hmmmmm?? …”

    Good question. New board members appointed, and they elected not to. As well, the ruling against the school board’s actions would likely lose in appeal. Also, the expense involved would not be approved by the school district. Further, they couldn’t have cared less regarding the ‘ID ruling’.

    Here’s the tricky part. The lawsuit was against the school board. They lost, and elected not to appeal. The second part of the ruling (regarding ID) while impacting ID directly, was not appeal able by anyone representing ID, since they were not named originally as ‘defendants’ in the lawsuit. Yet they *became* defendants in a sense. Go figure …

    It was a sham ruling (the 2nd part), and yet the incompetent defense team agreed to let the judge render a decision regarding ID itself, which was not viably represented by the school board. They were young earth creationists in actuality, had religious motives, and were *not* true ID proponents.
19. JJ says:

    January 6, 2008 at 12:37 am

    ID is religion. That was proven conclusively in Dover. If the trial had been a football game, after the plantiffs presented their evidence, halftime, the score would have been 42 – 0. The defendents did challenge any of the evidence presented by the scientists. The defendents had nothing, and Behe was not pressured to say astrology would be science under his definition of science. Saying Judge Jones was not qualified to rule on the merit of science is just myth made up by the Discovery Institute. He is more than qualifed to make a decision based on evidence. He told both sides before the trial; bring your me best scientific evidence. One side had evidence, the other did not. If ID is science, please point out where any research has been done, or is being done, since the name “creation science” was changed to ID. Lee, you probably are a good engineer, but you are not an evolutionary biologist. All the material you parrot is propaganda straight from the discovery institute. Why didn’t the discovery institute back the school district at the trial?
20. S.Scott says:

    January 6, 2008 at 1:15 am

    Also, the defense team didn’t “let “Judge Jones rule on ID- they asked him too.
21. S.Scott says:

    January 6, 2008 at 1:53 am

    Judge Jones — ” He said: “[W]e will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.” (p. 63)

    The judge ruled that IDC was not a science but a religion.
22. S.Scott says:

    January 6, 2008 at 2:00 am

    SCIENCE NEWS – Michael Behe, who had advocated broadening the definition of science so that IDC would be included under it, conceded under cross-examination that such a broadened definition would result in astrology too being considered a science.
23. Lee Bowman says:

    January 6, 2008 at 2:12 am

    “ID is religion.”

    The fact that *some* ID adherents are religious doesn’t make the concept religious. Design, especially over eons, does not necessarily connote a deity. The *source(s)* of the evolutionary alterations (the ‘designer[s]’), is/are secondary considerations to the concept. ID hypothesizes design from ‘design inferences’, of which there are many.

    “That was proven conclusively in Dover.”

    Nothing is *proven* in a court of law. The decision was not surprising, however. Jones acted on the evidence presented him, and to rule otherwise would have probably ended his career. Instead, he gained fame, acclaim, paid speaking engagements, and honorary degree(s). The clout is on the evolution side, but that doesn’t validate random mutations as the source of all biologic complexity and synergy.

    As an engineer, I know design when I see it. DNA/ RNA coding, sequencing and transcription, the various genomic propagation mechanisms, and the various reproductive organs and mechanisms of embryogenesis (egg or uterus) could simply *not* evolve by accident.

    The vertebrate eye (and all of the others) is far too complex to evolve naturalistically. Further, the proposition of incremental enhanced survival advantages for incremental alterations of structure is absurd to the highest degree. Do your own research, and start here: http://tinyurl.com/3ddbst

    In sum, NDE has nearly universal scientific and academic support, but that doesn’t make it correct. Evolution is a process, but an introduction of design into the process to produce novelty has occurred. I propose it to be a form of genetic engineering, which we ourselves can do today. Whether God, surrogates, or others, intervention in the replication process has occurred over time, and to investigate that premise is science to the highest degree. To deny it, to prohibit its inclusion within science, and to even *legislate* against it is academic fascism, and the antithesis of true science.
24. S.Scott says:

    January 6, 2008 at 2:30 am

    From TALK REASON – In fact, Judge Jones really had no choice but to rule on whether or not ID was science. The plaintiffs asked him to rule on exactly this, and so did the defense. The Thomas More Legal Center’s chief counsel for the defense, Richard Thompson, acknowledged that like the attorneys for the plaintiffs, the defense had asked the judge to rule on the question of whether ID was science. They staked their whole case on the notion that ID was legitimate science, and that therefore teaching it had a legitimate secular purpose and secular effect, and this outweighed any religious goals that individual board members might have had. ID advocates can’t complain now, after the fact, that the judge exceeded his charge. He did exactly what both sides asked him to do. If the ID supporters didn’t take that brief more seriously, they should have.
25. Lee Bowman says:

    January 6, 2008 at 2:30 am

    Responding to S. Scott (2 posts), you are correct. The defense team blew it, and Jones responded accordingly. Like a sporting event, the side that makes the mistakes loses.

    Behe was tricked into agreeing that Astrology could be included within an expanded science definition. Had he considered the question a moment longer, he might have replied, “Perhaps, but *only* if there was supporting evidence for it”.

    Another example of trickery was the stack of literature purported to support evolution of the immune system, but with no citations from that literature provided. The audience laughed and the judge smiled. Simply theatrics. Why do you suppose that lawyers are so well paid? 🙂

    But again, regardless of jurist trickery employed to make a witness look bad, the veracity of Intelligent Design as a consideration lies within the evidence of design, and not of a courtroom victory.
26. S.Scott says:

    January 6, 2008 at 2:40 am

    I can see that you are spiritual – and that is fine. I have no problem with that – the only thing I really have a problem with is attempting to teach something that is “untestable” in a biology class. Besides – Don’t you think it would be more appropriate in a Philosophy class? At least until the time something is visible in a petrie dish?
27. Lee Bowman says:

    January 6, 2008 at 4:47 am

    “I have no problem with that – the only thing I really have a problem with is attempting to teach something that is “untestable” in a biology class.”

    Now we’re back to what this forum is all about — teaching standards.

    What I propose is to teach evolution as it has been observed, rather than Darwin’s version. He proposed natural selection of random mutations as the means of speciation. Morphologic or genetic similarities between species do not prove this means. A ‘common designer’ proposal fits just as well. No God talk, just the evidence of design.

    In the primary grades (the issue here), I propose teaching as fact that which can be empirically verified or falsified, and to give examples of microevolution (bacterial resistance, and other minor adaptive alterations that give a survival advantage, such as darkened skin color, sickle cell adaptation to malaria, Galapos finches’ beaks, etc).

    Rather than “teach” ID, state it as an alternative hypothesis to RM-NS. Then, go on to other topics. Remember, these are primary grades. High school is a little trickier, although given the Internet, by HS they will already be familiar with the two theories. Main thing is not to be militant regarding either. It may well be their generation that settles the issue.

    [off topic] Regarding spirit, don’t rule it out SS, unless you really, *really* believe that you are simply your DNA. Taint so. 🙂
28. S. Scott says:

    January 6, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    …sigh…” A ‘common designer’ proposal fits just as well. No God talk, just the evidence of design. ” …sigh again
    No evidence!!!
29. S. Scott says:

    January 6, 2008 at 12:36 pm

    P.S. – I never said I didn’t believe in God 🙂
30. S. Scott says:

    January 6, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    You can’t prove God – that’s why it’s called faith. AND!! If you say you have “Proof” of a designer (follow me here) Who is that designer? – You say it’s NOT GOD! (That would be religion, and we both agree that religion can’t be taught in the public schools) That doesn’t sound very good -does it? And if it IS God – are you saying that you can prove God??
31. Lee Bowman says:

    January 6, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Earth appears to be a biologic workshop, with multiple designers over eons of time. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a central authority. We delegate work, the central authority at GM delegates the design and construction work to ‘surrogates’ to produce cars. Cars, bicycles and airplanes are ‘vehicles’ to allow expanded travel capabilities. Similarly, biologic forms are vehicles for the spirit to partake in earthly activities.

    We talk about fossil finds proving evolution, but are perplexed over the lack of intermediates. By analogy, the auto salvage yard is the fossil record of our constructs, and of course, *no* intermediates between jumps in style/ design. Common descent or common designer(s)?

    For more philosophical thoughts regarding life on Earth, Google this:

    “theme park earth” “lee bowman”
32. S.Scott says:

    January 6, 2008 at 6:18 pm

    sigh… religion…. not allowed…you just said philosophy. Do you realize that? My point exactly. It’s NOT SCIENCE
33. Ryan Young says:

    January 7, 2008 at 4:12 am

    Look. Simply put. “Theory” in science holds different meaning than it does in civilian conversation. “Theory” in civilian language can simply mean “a possible explanation”. In science however, its not simply an explanation. It’s a description that makes accurate predictions about the natural world and has withstood multiple chances for it to fail. Evolution has withstood hundreds of hypothesis that said if A is true evolution is false. One such was mentioned in the Dover trail, pertaining to the human and primate genome. The human genome had one fewer chromosome than the supposed descendant of man. The hypothesis went that if a chromosome in the human genome could not be found to be a fusion of two primate chromosomes, then evolution would be false. But it failed the opportunity to refute evolution, because such a chromosome was found, chromosome number two. Evolution has withstood this type of refutable hypothesis for the last two hundred years. ID has not. It has not withstood one documented case where such a case was applied. In order for it to be a theory, we must have a testable case where it may fail.

    Until it finds such a case, it will never be a theory, and scientists will not allow it into the curriculum.
34. Ryan Young says:

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 am

    But, let me go on the record for saying there’s nothing wrong with searching for new alternative theories. Scientist enjoy having their own theories shown to be right or wrong. They just want truth. Scientists are happy to accomadate new theories, so long as the new theory plays by the rules of the scientific method. ID simply does not.
35. Sulis says:

    January 7, 2008 at 5:41 am

    Brandon, I suggest a slight modification to refuting the “just a theory” crowd. Explaining that what the word theory means in Science as opposed as opposed to common usage does not make much headway against those who have no understanding of linguistics and view Science as an isolated fringe group.

    Try, “Theory, as used in Science *and Mathematics*, means…” (Other academic disciplines use the term theory as well, and in none of them does it mean a half-baked whim or lie.) Don’t let them divide and conquer with petty, isolating semantics.

    Keep up the good fight!
36. Lee Bowman says:

    January 7, 2008 at 5:42 am

    “sigh… religion…. not allowed… ”

    Let me clarify something. My philosophical view is not part or parcel of ID, which is concise, and has no philosophical component. Also, the scenario I put forth is purely speculative, and is not a faith based belief, but rather a philosophical scenario that makes more sense than the omni- (A,B,C, etc) position of a single monotheistic, hominid oriented creator, the Calvinist viewpoint of predestination, Biblical inerrancy etc. (Hominids came last, right?)

    While somewhat logical from a purpose driven (what was actually accomplished), motive (why biologic life anyway?), mechanistic (how accomplished by surrogates) (and more) viewpoint, I’m not firmly vested in it, nor does ID postulate it. My adherence to ID, and what should be the scientific purview of ID, is based on the various design inferences. There can be no philosophical or religious components.

    So why even mention what I mentioned?…

    Dawkins, Hitchens and all the rest propose arguments based on what they consider to be illogic of Biblical tenets. They also like to jump on evil, suffering, disease organisms, and ‘poor design’ (alleged design shortcomings are largely fallacious, and easily refuted).

    If earth be a theme park, and entrance into the realm be repeatable, bad outcomes would likely be classified as challenges (like sporting events), and re-doable. Also, entities on the other side acting as ‘guides’ on occasion would have an enjoyable, fulfilling enterprise to overcome boredom. So the philosophical point here is to refute the straw men attacks of portraying the purported ‘creator’ of being incompetent. It’s logical to consider earthly existence to be challenging, and possibly a ‘growth’ enterprise.

    But back to ID vs. Ev.

    Similarities between phyla point to species descent, but as I have stated many times, do not establish random mutations as the source of novelty, or of that progression. Common designer(s) fit perfectly.

    Same with the chromosome similarity mentioned by Ryan. A mutational fusion event, which has been hypothesized as the cause, obviously occurred in an earlier species. The genetic engineering, which I propose eventually produced hominids would not need to start the genome over, but would simply continue the genome with modifications. The fusion would stay.

    There is a parallel with printed circuit and microprocessor designs that have evolved via complex software algorithms (no human designer could manually lay out a 6 layer mother board, or today’s processors with millions of active devices on them) in an entire lifetime. The software used in the design/ layout process would roughly correspond to an evolutionary mechanism in biology. There can exist multiple errors on these devices if properly isolated from the active circuitry. Same with DNA coding.

    Regarding evolution passing muster and ID not, in actuality, much of the research, while intended to address evolution as hypothesized, actually fits the common designer paradigm. Once again, the RM-NS mechanism has not been demonstrated with regard to speciation, or complex organ development (such as vertebrate/ invertebrate/ insect eyes and their data processing system). A mosquito is more complex than a B1 Bomber and was plainly designed (drat!). And sorry drosophilas, unless your genome is properly ‘tweaked’, you’ll continue to be fruit flys. ;-(
37. Ryan Young says:

    January 7, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    Seeing it happen, although the preferable evidence, isn’t necessary for the development of a theory, if you can test the theory for kinks. Evolution has warded of possible failure points for the last two hundred years. So, I’ll touch on what you seem to have some quarrel with. Speciation and complex organ development, such as the eye, the immunity system or the brain do have quite a few text books explaining how under evolution the process took place. These in themselves are sub-theories stemming from evolution and they have withstood their own testing. For example, the evolutionary model for the brain allows us to put an age on structures being coded for in the brain. As we move toward the pre-frontal cortex the structures are newer and as we move towards the limbic system and on the the thalamus, pons, and medulla structure begin to get older. Declaritive memory moves towards a more primitive procedural memory, and then procedural memory gives way to brain systems with autonomous function, breathing and heartbeat. For evolution to run into problems, all it would take is for one animal to have a cortex but no medulla, or a medulla, a pons and a hypothalamus, but no thalamus. That would totally violate evolution and we would have to point to a part-swapping designer. We have documented the brain systems in hundreds of organisms and not one specie in the animal kingdom violates this scenario. Hundreds of scenarios for organ development and evolutionary pathways have been laid out and they have almost all gone relatively unchecked by possible failure points. Now, to be fair, I will point out that for some organs or specie evolutionary pathways have more than one scenario postulated and it would take a failing of both for evolution to have problems. But currently, our scenarios stand verified by the construct of nature.
38. Ryan Young says:

    January 7, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    BY AND BY

    when I used words like “newer” or “older” I meant the the age of the genetic sequences that code for the structure.

    im sorry, i should have clarified that in my last paragraph.
39. Ryan Young says:

    January 7, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    “alleged design shortcomings are largely fallacious, and easily refuted”

    actually, they are not easily refuted. 99.9% of species on this planet have gone extinct due to design problems. their genetic code did not properly create an organism that can survive in the environment they inhabited.

    we can also find design flaws in creatures today. granted with these flaws the environment isn’t putting pressure on the animals to fix the flaws, the flaws still are observable. for example, humans loose a vast majority of their energy through heat transfer. Our warm-blooded design makes us consume an incredible amount of food. Some would argue that warm-blooded systems are necessary for maintaining our nervous system, but it is not. Animals such as fish have heat generating organs to warm their CNS. in fact, could a human not be coded for that has a heated nervous system, but remains cold-blooded?

    Or what about the mechanisms by which genetic code is duplicated? Or what about the mechanisms by which genetic code is crossed-over? Such rudimentry systems produce horrible mutations sometimes. In fact, when a child’s chromosome data is being put together by the parent, often times genetic code does a cross-over right in the middle of a gene that is essential to building his body. In fact, in embryonic development one out of every four children dies due to cross-over errors. Nature LITERALLY ABORTS ONE-QUARTER of human children in the womb. The cross-over errors that make it through embryonic and fetal development sometimes produce children who are horribly disfigured and in many cases have no chance of living a normal life. Would you call that an intelligent design? Would a designer make a system that performs its own abortions?
40. onein6billion says:

    January 7, 2008 at 7:14 pm

    “As an engineer, I know design when I see it.”

    Well I don’t. So how would you prove to me that some designer(s) did something, sometime, somewhere, for some inscrutable purpose. It’s just “too complex”?

    “Further, the proposition of incremental enhanced survival advantages for incremental alterations of structure is absurd to the highest degree.”

    Your opinion has no evidence to support it. It’s a “negative” statement. “Evolution can’t accomplish this.” “Why the eye refutes evolution” You carefully observed all of the “transitional forms” and you picked which transition(s) as the one(s) that require a designer? And when those “gaps” are filled, you’ll be left with what?
41. Nikkie says:

    January 7, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    Lee Bowman Says: January 6th, 2008 at 2:12 am
    “As an engineer, I know design when I see it. DNA/ RNA coding, sequencing and transcription, the various genomic propagation mechanisms, and the various reproductive organs and mechanisms of embryogenesis (egg or uterus) could simply *not* evolve by accident.
    The vertebrate eye (and all of the others) is far too complex to evolve naturalistically. Further, the proposition of incremental enhanced survival advantages for incremental alterations of structure is absurd to the highest degree. Do your own research, and start here: http://tinyurl.com/3ddbst”

    Lee
    I found it very disappointing that you alluded to “DNA/ RNA coding, sequencing and transcription, the various genomic propagation mechanisms, and the various reproductive organs and mechanisms of embryogenesis (egg or uterus)” and then proceeded to link a web page which quotes the most commonly used miss-representative selective quote mine from Charles Darwin as a way to try and support an argument that the complexity of the eye could not have evolved.

    First of all, let me reproduce Darwin’s complete quote from his Origin of the Species regarding his contemplation of eye complexity:

    Your reference link quotes Darwin from Origin of the Species:
    ““To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

    As other creationist quotes from this paragraph do, the quote on your link omits the following paragraph continuation….

    Darwin continues:
    “Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

    Perhaps I should tell you that this omission has been pointed out so many times now, that only the most desperate ill informed creationists still use the truncated staement.

    Walter Gehring is one of the world’s foremost genetic molecular biologists. No less than six Nobel scientists have worked their way through his labs. He is also one of the top scientists who are credited with the discovery of the homebox DNA binding element found to be highly conserved across all species in the developmental master genes, the Homeobox genes:

    http://www.hhmi.org/genesweshare/b120.html

    Walter Gehring and his colleagues also discovered the Pax6 gene as the master gene responsible for the development of all eye types and highly conserved across all species regardless of the eye type they possess.

    I think you should read the Q & A with Walter Gehring at the following link…
    .
    Walter Gehring: Master Control Genes and the Evolution of the Eye

    “Q: Can you describe what that original common ancestor of all eyes might have been like?
    A: “This was already postulated by Darwin, and it’s remarkable how correct he was, in retrospect. What he says is that the prototypic eye probably would consist of two cells only: a photo-receptor cell — which he called a nerve, which is absolutely correct; it’s a nerve cell which is photosensitive, which has rhodopsin — and a pigment cell. The function of the pigment cell is to shield the light from one side. This gives the owner of this eye a big advantage, because they can see which direction the light comes from. So this is already a direction discriminating eye.

    And then, he thinks, from this prototype, then selection could set in and make all of these wonderful eye types — the eye of an eagle, or of a squid, or of a Drosophila, a fruit fly. Interestingly enough, a considerable time later a Japanese group found a flat worm which has exactly this minimal prototypic eye, which is only consisting of a single photoreceptor and single pigment cell. And these animals, of course much to my satisfaction, they also have a Pax-6 gene.”

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html

    Pretty good evidence for a common molecular ancestor, against the irreducible complexity of the eye, but rather for a common molecular ancestor wouldn’t you say?

    As to your postulating that common descent reflects a common designer….
    Lee Bowman Says:
    January 6th, 2008 at 4:47 am
    Common descent or common designer(s)?

    Lee Bowman Says:
    January 7th, 2008 at 5:42 am
    “Similarities between phyla point to species descent, but as I have stated many times, do not establish random mutations as the source of novelty, or of that progression. Common designer(s) fit perfectly.”

    Not impossible from an origin of life perspective (which is not dealt with by evolutionary theory), however Francis Collins, who himself believes in theistic evolution and is also the director of the Human Genome Project, provides strong evidence for evolution ( in his book The Language of God) and also against a designer who routinely interferes in the progression of the diversity of life on this planet.

    Review of Francis Collins (2006) The language of God
    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm
42. S.Scott says:

    January 7, 2008 at 10:13 pm

    I wonder where Lee is?? You see I made good on my promise to Lee to check the links that he provided. (wasn’t that good of me?) – The thing is, I went a little bit deeper and guess what I found?! Lee Bowman is a major contributor to “Uncommon Descent” a blog -I’m guessing – run by the DI. http://www.uncommondescent.com/about .
    Demski is at the top of the list and Lee is #4 down. My mother always taught me to follow the $$ and “Lo and Behold!” she was right!! I now consider everything that Lee has to say as monetarily motivated and a lie.
    Before you go defending yourself Lee, now that I know who you are – how could I possibly believe you when you say “It was an internal document meant to oppose materialism as a dominant philosophical position in science and in academia. It was authored by (possibly Phillip Johnson), or someone with strong theistic beliefs.”
    You know darn well who authored it – give me a break.
43. JJ says:

    January 7, 2008 at 10:45 pm

    Stacy

    Lee might be able to tell you about Bill’s adventures in Oklahoma. Dembski went to speak at a church in Norman, probably thought irt was a safe venue. The audience was loaded with questions from Oklahoma University Science professors, not a pretty sight for Dembski. On PT I will give you the blog of a 24 year old grad student who humilated Dembski, she also did the same to Behe, regarding his book. During his talk, Dembski showed a video produced by Harvard, in which he removed the credits, put in his own audio, without their permission.

    We can ask Lee these same quesations, he won’t do any better at answering. Yes, he knows exactly where the wedge document came from, just lies like all the other creos about it. Johnson wrote it.
44. Lee Bowman says:

    January 7, 2008 at 10:52 pm

    Ryan wrote,

    “Seeing it happen, although the preferable evidence, isn’t necessary for the development of a theory, if you can test the theory for kinks. Evolution has warded of possible failure points for the last two hundred years.”

    Neither theory is empirically testable, although short gestational insects and computer simulations have been used, and may yield verifiable results. Over that time period, much research has been done, some results support naturalistic evolution, some don’t. There will always be disagreement over interpretation of some of the data, though, the prime one being that the fossil record backs a naturalistic process.

    One (of many) examples of ‘poor design’ (actually a misguided evolutionary happenstance) is the purported ‘verted retina’ of mammals, as opposed to the ‘correct one’ in squids. Cooling of receptors, UV protection and strain relief have been brought as justification, and recently, fiber optic ducts (Müller cells) have been shown as the means of passing light to the retina with minimal distortion. The current evidence is that an inverted retinal nerve attachment is necessary (or at least desirable) for land creatures.

    “For evolution to run into problems, all it would take is for one animal to have a cortex but no medulla, or a medulla, a pons and a hypothalamus, but no thalamus. That would totally violate evolution and we would have to point to a part-swapping designer.”

    In principle, components are added as needed. A designer would design the necessary support systems incrementally. If the above example were due to a “part-swapping designer’s error”, the error would be evident, and be either corrected or the species would simply fail to evolve. The stages of brain development you gave are no different conceptually than stages of microprocessor design. Additional complexity is invoked as needed. Both invoke evolution of design, but ‘guided’ evolution.

    Good examples, but they don’t negate a guided process in my view. Also, the guidance may have been sporadic, subject to failure at times, done over vast time periods, and by more than a single designer or team of designers. I view earth as a kind of biologic workshop, and the need for omnipotence in biologic design as plainly not in evidence.

    That said, the argument of sub optimality in design becomes a non argument against design. Our digestive process differs from a rabbit and a cow, but so what? All three work. The rabbit couldn’t care less about having to eat its cecotrophes.

    Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson loves to argue bad design, and cites the esophagus, the placement of the sex organs, the spine, the eye, and so on as bad design. Getting food into the wind pipe happens primarily with humans, who love to talk while eating, and having watched Neil, I’d put money that he’s aspirated food on many occasions. Blaming design, and by extension the evolutionary process is bogus in most cases. While a particular biologic design might be shown to be sub optimal, you *could* rule out omnipotence as a designer quality, or simply show that the designer(s) felt it was good enough. That logic, by the way, is why fundamentalist Christians do *not* accept ID, except as a ‘wedge’ device. Ken Ham has stated that they merely tolerate the concept, but don’t accept it as truth.
45. Lee Bowman says:

    January 7, 2008 at 10:53 pm

    Ryan also wrote,

    “alleged design shortcomings are largely fallacious, and easily refuted”

    “actually, they are not easily refuted. 99.9% of species on this planet have gone extinct due to design problems.”

    That may be, but again, no design is perfect. Also, the environment changes, which is why adaptation is an apparent ‘designed in’ process to adapt to gradual changes. Extinction has happened a lot, but again, over vast time periods.

    Your arguments regarding warm blooded design is being sub optimal has been made by many others. I could also argue that the automobile engine is a *horrible* contraption. Inefficient, wasteful of fuel and polluting. But it was designed …

    The question of miscarriages being due to poor design is not valid IMO. A complex process like replication is subject to errors, sometimes due to the environment, poor diet, drugs use and a questionable lifestyle. When a fetus aborts, it does so for good reason. My next-door neighbor aborted twice some years back, and was extremely despondent over it. We all felt bad for her. Today, she has three daughters, one a musician and one going for an advanced degree.

    You could argue that a spontaneous abort is a designed in function to prevent a bad outcome from occurring. Too bad it doesn’t always work that way. If anything, a spontaneous abortion happens too infrequently.

    “Would a designer make a system that performs its own abortions?”

    I say yes.
46. Lee Bowman says:

    January 7, 2008 at 10:55 pm

    “As an engineer, I know design when I see it.”

    “Well I don’t,” wrote onein6billion. “So how would you prove to me that some designer(s) did something, sometime, somewhere, for some inscrutable purpose. It’s just “too complex”?

    You could say that. If each genetic modification (and Darwin proposed “incremental” changes) provides no survival advantage, it will *not* be passed on. Complexity requires many of those changes. There is no ‘look ahead function’ in evolution, no plan for anything. Thus, the enhanced survival of *each* modification, and the further fact that most mutations are deleterious, makes the theory not only doubtful, buy actually fanciful. It’s a pipe dream.

    “Your opinion has no evidence to support it. It’s a “negative” statement.”
    That’s right, but In a desperate attempt to validate it, exaptation has been proposed, but despite all of Ken Millers lectures on it, it happens only rarely. It would have to occur with nearly each and every mutational alteration for it to work as theorized. Further, the fact that the Type III secretory syringe has some of the same proteins as a cellular flagellum device does not necessarily make it an ‘intermediate’ to the flagellum. That my friend is more conjecture than verifiable fact.

    “Evolution can’t accomplish this.” “Why the eye refutes evolution” You carefully observed all of the “transitional forms” and you picked which transition(s) as the one(s) that require a designer? And when those “gaps” are filled, you’ll be left with what?”

    Be my guest and fill those gaps. An eye is an excellent example of highly complex and synergistic systems working together to allow you to drive a car and text message at the same time. With me, I also am able to ogle the cuties along the route. It bothers me a little, however, that there were Cambrian period eyes more complex than mine. Got an answer for that one? 🙂
47. Lee Bowman says:

    January 7, 2008 at 10:56 pm

    Nikkie wrote:

    “I found it very disappointing that you …. proceeded to link a web page which quotes the most commonly used miss-representative selective quote mine from Charles Darwin as a way to try and support an argument that the complexity of the eye could not have evolved.”

    That’s a commonly used trick, quote mining Darwin but leaving off his qualifier of, “ … as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

    I don’t employ that literary trick, but quote mining ‘short’, to alter meaning is used by many, including many well know writers and journalists. My point in that link was a backing of my “incremental enhanced survival advantages” debunking, or as Dawkins would wrongly argue, “‘Vision that is 5 per cent as good as yours or mine is very much worth having in comparison with no vision at all. So is 1 per cent vision better than total blindness. And 6 percent is better than 5, 7 better than 6, and so on up the gradual continuous series.” [Blind Watchmaker] . The point being that a partially constructed eye would not necessarily work at all. It’s of course debatable, and a modeling of the intermediates would be needed to validate the argument. That has not been done.

    I’ve also seen where ‘Origin of Species’, second edition on, where he mentions “breathed by the Creator into a few forms … “, and where that quote is left out of citations. I credit Thomas Huxley for its subsequent deletion from O of S. See: http://tinyurl.com/yv4bd7

    Francis Collins (and Ken Miller), both say they believe in a god, but that He did it ‘top down’, by pre loading the DNA to unfold over time. I say that that’s simply a way to accept God without being hammered as being a fundie religionist.
48. Lee Bowman says:

    January 7, 2008 at 11:01 pm

    S. Scott wrote,

    I wonder where Lee is?? You see I made good on my promise to Lee to check the links that he provided. (wasn’t that good of me?)

    I’m right here! What think you regarding those links to other blogs? Problem is, I spend too much time blogging …

    By the way you people, sure I support UD and have authored there, but I’m not associated with DI. My purpose is to promulgate discussion, and to lower the bar to having a position, not of *faith*, necessarily, but of greater academic freedom. We’re not alone in the Cosmos, and if I could sit down and have a beer with ya, I’d tell you how I know.

    Regards,
    and later, Guys
49. Nikkiee says:

    January 8, 2008 at 4:48 am

    “I say that that’s simply a way to accept God without being hammered as being a fundie religionist.”

    What has either of those scientists religious views on God got to do with their science?

    How about the scientific evidences they present for and against evolution? Or do you only accept scientific evidence of those who hold the same religious world view as your own?

    Molecular Biology is one of my current areas of study and I have studied Hox genes, both as part of my course, as well as out of a strong facsination in them, so I’ll come back to your ID “irreducible complexity of the eye” arguments (I’ve come across most of them in the past year) when I get some more spare time.
    Cheers
50. Nikkiee says:

    January 8, 2008 at 4:52 am

    *Nikkiee wanders off very disappointed in Lee Bowman’s failure to even comment on the information in her link to Walter Gehring’s discussion of eye evolution*
    🙁
51. Nikkiee says:

    January 8, 2008 at 5:06 am

    Woah…reverse..
    I just re=read the end of Lee’s post which says “Francis Collins (and Ken Miller), both say they believe in a god, but that He did it ‘top down’, by pre loading the DNA to unfold over time.”

    Lee could you leave me a reference link (s) to such statements by Miller or Collins? I have never come across any “pre-loading DNA to unfold over time” statements or inferences by either of them?

    Thanks
52. Nikkiee says:

    January 8, 2008 at 5:10 am

    Arrrgh!
    Nikkiee Says: January 8th, 2008 at 4:48 am

    “How about the scientific evidences they present for and against evolution?”

    That should have read “”How about the scientific evidences they present, both for evolution and against ID?”
53. S.Scott says:

    January 8, 2008 at 10:26 am

    J.J. said: On PT I will give you the blog of a 24 year old grad student who humilated Dembski, she also did the same to Behe, regarding his book. During his talk, Dembski showed a video produced by Harvard, in which he removed the credits, put in his own audio, without their permission.
    …I’ve heard about the Harvard video – I think Ken Miller mentioned it in a lecture – I’m looking forward to reading the blog.
    Nikkiee – you are my hero! LOL!
54. Ravilyn Sanders says:

    January 8, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Lee Bowman seems to be a Hindu, with the concept of SuperGod who delegates major functions of Creation (Brahma), Protection (Vishnu) and Destruction (Shiva) and then various other delegations down the line almost like various government departments.

    Further he seems to be happy with the idea of incompetent designer too, if you show me a design that is sub optimal, it shows the Designer flunked his qualifying examn was never promoted from Designer second class to Designer first class.

    He still arguing with Darwin’s 150 year old book, ignoring all the evidence added in the last century and half.

    Further he lies when he says he is not associated with DI.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/about shows his associates. Look
    up the people running DI and come to your own conclusions.

    Anyway, All the contortions and concessions Lee Bowman is making shows how much disagreement exists in the Big Tent of Intelligent Design.
    A young earth faction. An old earth faction. Literal Bible faction. Theistic
    evolution faction. God tweaked laws of physics to produce big bang to produce milkyway to produce sun to produce earth to produce life to have free will to worship him faction…. Compared to this, the arguments among
    the scientists between punctuated equilibria seems like a trifle.
55. D. Cox says:

    January 8, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Lee Bowman says:

    “To deny [ID], to prohibit its inclusion within science, and to even *legislate* against it is academic fascism, and the antithesis of true science.”

    1. To deny ID is not academic fascism. The denial of ID by the majority of the scientific community comes as a result of its failure to pruduce anything useful in scientific arenas.

    To accept ID (in it’s current form) as science while not allowing astrology or geocentrism to be considered science would be academic fascism. Until ID can produce the results required by other scientific disciplines, it will remain on the sideline, supported only by those few who choose to call it science.

    2. To prohibit ID’s inclusion within science is not academic fascism either. As stated in (1), as soon as it begins to behave like science, it will be considered science. That will require more than just statements and foot-stomping – it requires results.

    3. No one has legislated against ID. No one has said that ID is illegal. No one is preventing the DI from continuing it’s work in the field. The ruling said that ID cannot be taught as science in public school. The ruling also gave the reason – because ID is not science. I don’t think that you can fault Judge Jones for his ruling. If it were physically possible to to hold court proceedings and let the entire scientific community preside, you would end up with the same result – the conclusion that ID is not science. Of course you would have a vanishingly small dissent from the consensus, but that would be the case no matter what.

    We will hold to the proposition that the scientific method is valid, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that we will not consider as science that which does not present itself as science. These things are not the antithesis of science; they are the very essence of science.

    If you want ID to have the status that you want, then go out and do what is required to gain that status. No one is saying that ID can not be science. But I say, If you want it to be considered science, then make it science – and that means making conclusions based on the evidence (all of it), and accepting those conclusions (whatever they may be), and convincing others that your conclusion is correct. The best way to convince others is through research, experimentation, and publishing.
56. S.Scott says:

    January 8, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    Case closed – in Lee’s own words:
    Posted by Lee Bowman at 2/7/07 6:21 a.m.

    To add to the first paragraph above, Judge Jones stated: “ … ID is not science.”

    “According to the strict rules of verifiability and falsifiability maybe not. “
57. Lee Bowman says:

    January 8, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    Nikkiee wrote,

    “I say that that’s simply a way to accept God without being hammered as being a fundie religionist.”

    “What has either of those scientists religious views on God got to do with their science?”

    also, “… could you leave me a reference link (s) to such statements … “

    Both have had to reconcile their Christian religion with their work, and with any conflict with NDE, not an easy task. According to my reads, both, while fully accepting of evolution, regard it as a ‘put in place’ development system.

    Collins’ ‘The Language of God’, and Miller’s ‘Finding Darwin’s God’ allude to that. By the way, I used the term “top-down” to summarize that position, i.e. set up the Universe, put life’s ingredients in place, and employ evolution to produce life over time. Since many consider evolution to be a ‘bottom-up’ process, let me qualify my semantical reference here: Top-down from in an authorizing sense, but bottom-up in an evolutionary mechanistic or causative sense.

    Some quotes by Collins are provided in his interview with Terry Gross, and which I mentioned in this post on UD:

    http://tinyurl.com/2alseo

    Regarding Kenneth Miller, he states on Pg 243 of the paper back edition, “A God who presides over an evolutionary process is not an impotent, passive observer. Rather, He is one whose genius fashioned a fruitful world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of matter itself.”

    Reconciling science with evolution has been termed theistic evolution, and it makes more sense to me than naturalistic evolution. Problem is, it’s a philosophical middle ground that many scientists disavow (there is no god), and fundamentalist Biblical Literalists as well (evolution demeans God, and contradicts Genesis). This guy delves into the subject, quoting Miller’s book:

    http://tinyurl.com/27aay5

    My position is ‘guided’ theistic evolution, and possibly by multiple ‘designers’.
58. Lee Bowman says:

    January 8, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    “Nikkiee wanders off very disappointed in Lee Bowman’s failure to even comment on the information in her link to Walter Gehring’s discussion of eye evolution*
    :(”

    Due to time constraints, that may take a little time. I’ll get to it tho …
59. Lee Bowman says:

    January 8, 2008 at 4:41 pm

    “Lee Bowman seems to be a Hindu … “

    “Further he seems to be happy with the idea of incompetent designer … “

    My views are based solely on my own observations. I do, however, find smatterings of logical truthisms in many religious teachings (including Hinduism), but also errors due to man’s flawed perceptions, as well as the difficulty in conveying a (possibly) revealed truth that is far outside of our materialist experiences.

    “He still arguing with Darwin’s 150 year old book, ignoring all the evidence added in the last century and half.”

    He was right about some things.

    “Further he lies when he says he is not associated with DI.”

    The UD blog was formed by William Dembski (not sure the year). While a fellow with the Science and Fellowship division of DI, there is no direct sponsorship or association of DI or S & C with the UD blog, as far as I know. I was invited as an author at UD in July of 2006.

    You’re right about the ‘Big Tent’, but some have packed their sleeping bags and left. To allow the design/ designer(s) concept within science requires concessions that some are not willing to make. The design premise, as postulated by most adherents today, focuses on various design inferences, rather than on any religious tenets, and is therefore valid science.
60. Lee Bowman says:

    January 8, 2008 at 5:10 pm

    “To deny [ID], to prohibit its inclusion within science, and to even *legislate* against it is academic fascism, and the antithesis of true science.”

    It’s the heavy-handed means by which it’s generally excluded. The hypothesis of design is no more difficult to validate then random mutations with a selective advantage over time. While both are difficult to validate or falsify, both are worthy of investigation. ID is currently not allowed in, and that is fascism. Rather than an exercise of allowing only “good science”, it’s plainly a means of protecting sanctity, NDE.

    You say, “Do what is required to gain that status [by doing] research, experimentation, and publishing.”

    That is our intention.
61. Lee Bowman says:

    January 8, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    Scott wrote,

    “Case closed – in Lee’s own words:
    Posted by Lee Bowman at 2/7/07 6:21 a.m.
    To add to the first paragraph above, Judge Jones stated: “ … ID is not science.”
    “According to the strict rules of verifiability and falsifiability maybe not. “

    – – – – – – – – – –

    Uh oh, a ‘quote mine’. If you’re going to quote me, let me finish the thought.

    “According to the strict rules of verifiability and falsifiability maybe not. Neither is macroevolution, except possibly by computer simulations, such as Avida, Buggs, Tierra and other newer ones.”

    It’s been said by others, that if you interpret science’s rules too strictly, you will eliminate many other valid scientific theories as well.

    The above piece is from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, covering rants from 2/6 to 2/11/07.
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=302567
62. Lee Bowman says:

    January 8, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    Hey Nikkie,

    I responded a while ago to your questions regarding Francis Collins and Ken Miller, but it’s awaiting moderation, probably due to two included links.

    Regards,
    Lee
63. S.Scott says:

    January 8, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    Lee – What is your agenda? Be honest!! The only part of your comment that was pertinent to the conversation was quoted. I didn’t realize we were talking about Macroevolution, but since YOU bring it up – you seem to be distorting the definition of Macroevolution. Here’s some evidence for you. Click this link – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
    You fill up newspaper comment sections all over the country. You admitted that ID does not meet scientific standards and boundaries, correct? So why should I allow you to pollute MY CHILD’S science education with pseudoscience? Why are you trying to get people to believe your garbage? Be honest! You don’t even live in Florida! Be honest!
    Now go away until you have some evidence of ID. I’m protecting my child! That’s MY AGENDA!!!!! You’ve been caught – admit it!
64. J.Warner says:

    January 8, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    Lee Bowman Says: January 8th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
    “ID is currently not allowed in, and that is fascism.”

    Fascism? You would you call the pressure from ID sales pushers on Christine Castillo Comer, the science education director of the Texas Education Agency (TEA), who forced her resignation?

    CREATIONISM IN THE CLASSROOM

    http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20080101evolution.cfm
65. Lee Bowman says:

    January 8, 2008 at 9:44 pm

    Scott,

    Respectfully, I’ve been sent that link probably 100 times (and I’ve read 29+ several times). Although I respect the technical level presented, I strongly disagree with its conclusions. Briefly, the first group of examples are all supportive of common descent, although with differing evidences provided, but as I’ve stated, they do not establish random mutations as causative. Further, 5.2, 5.3 and others are examples of ‘micro evolution’ rather than ‘macro’. This blog is not the place to go into extensive detail on those ‘evidences’, so I’ll leave it at that for now.

    J.Warner,

    Agreed, the Christine Comer case is another case of administrative fascism, although in this case the shoe happens to be on the other foot. I’m sure you’ll agree, however, that most of these kinds of incidents are the other way around.

    I think we’re all on the same side with regard to education, and the furtherance of science. I feel that the answer lies on some middle ground. The extremists on both sides need to be placated, so let’s work toward that. That said, I have no other agenda.

    Peace
66. S.Scott says:

    January 8, 2008 at 10:17 pm

    Lee you said: – “Although I respect the technical level presented, I strongly disagree with its conclusions.” – My husband said he “Strongly disagrees with having to go to work tomorrow and my son said he strongly disagrees with having to go to school tomorrow” – but it’s still a fact that they have to go.
67. Nikkiee says:

    January 9, 2008 at 3:24 am

    Lee Bowman Says:
    January 8th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    “Hey Nikkie,
    I responded a while ago to your questions regarding Francis Collins and Ken Miller, but it’s awaiting moderation, probably due to two included links.”

    No problem Lee. I’ll keep checking back 🙂
    I have another question for you. By what mechanisms does Intelligent Design propose the Intelligent Designer designed that which appears to have been designed?
68. WNash says:

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 am

    Many of the cdesign proponentsist so called arguments against the theory of evolution, apart from the elusive “irreducible complexity” IDea, are based on theory of evolution straw man arguments presented by creationist Jonathon Wells in his book, Icons of Evolution.
    A well laid out overview to these, as well as an expose of the invalidity and fallacious nature of Wells’s arguments can be found on the NCSE website at this address:-

    “Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong”
    http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/index.htm

    You’ll see Wells’ “Icons” canards regurgitated over and over by ill informed creationists,the majority of whom usually have only a vague idea of what Wells was on about, let alone any idea of the tenets of evolutionary theory.
69. Ravilyn Sanders says:

    January 9, 2008 at 7:52 am

    # Lee Bowman Says:
    January 8th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
    “I was invited as an author at UD in July of 2006.

    You’re right about the ‘Big Tent’, but some have packed their sleeping bags and left. To allow the design/ designer(s) concept within science requires concessions that some are not willing to make. The design premise, as postulated by most adherents today, focuses on various design inferences, rather than on any religious tenets, and is therefore valid science.”

    Mr Bowman, why use passive voice? Don’t want to reveal it was Dembski
    who invited you?

    I am intrigued by the phrase “as postulated by most adherents today”. Do you define most to mean a very small minority?

    All evidence shows that most adherents pushing ID are bible thumping, unabashed young earth creationists and other Christians.
    In fact in the propaganda speeches and publicity materials and resources, ID pushers are careful not to say, “the Designer could be Hindu, Buddhist, or a Pagan deity”. They are very careful to give the impression that “I say Designer, you assume Jesus/Yaweh” with a wink and a nod.

    So the best you can say about ID is, “I don’t know/care who/what the Designer is. I can infer design and I infer design in living things.”
    So do you infer design in snow flakes? In crystal lattices? In the
    orbits of planets? Stalactites and stalagmites? How do you decide
    which are designed and which are not?

    Thanks for conceding that your theories are consistent with Brahma or Buddha being the designer. I will spread the good news to the world. 1 billion Indians and 1 billion Chinese will be thrilled by your endorsement.
70. Ravilyn Sanders says:

    January 9, 2008 at 8:48 am

    Lee Bowman Says:
    January 8th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

    “Agreed, the Christine Comer case is another case of administrative fascism, although in this case the shoe happens to be on the other foot. I’m sure you’ll agree, however, that most of these kinds of incidents are the other way around.”

    Ha! another creative use of the word most! And the cheek adding “I am you’ll agree…”!!

    But thanks for conceding Comer ouster was quite high handed. Some 700 “scientists” have signed a statement that is purported by the Dishonesty Institute to be critical of evolution. Name how many of them have been hounded off their jobs?
71. ck1 says:

    January 9, 2008 at 9:10 am

    Lee Bowman said:

    “You say, “Do what is required to gain that status [by doing] research, experimentation, and publishing.”

    That is our intention. ”

    Your phrasing confirms that none of what describes what scientists do (research, experimentation, and publishing) has yet been done by ID proponents.

    And yet you seek inclusion in the science classroom for something that does not meet minimum definitions of what constitutes science? And you accuse your opponents of fascism when those standards are not waived in your favor?
72. Ravilyn Sanders says:

    January 9, 2008 at 9:12 am

    Lee Bowman Says:
    January 8th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
    ” Although I respect the technical level presented, I strongly disagree with its conclusions.”

    Again and again ID cdesign proponentsts take issue some aspect of the MET “this cant explain that”. When it is explained, they cop out saying, “I still refuse to accept it.” They go “I can’t even imagine how eye/flagellum/xxx could have evolved.” When we explain how it could have evolved, then they
    change the goal post from “imagining how it could have” to “evidence of how exactly it did to exacting minute details”.

    Anyway, why don’t you point out some real observation in real life that
    is BETTER explained by design than by evolution. Take a simple example.
    Humans (and primates) can’t make their own Vitamin C. Almost all other
    mammals can make their own. Answer why from design perspective.

    Explain the speciation that is going in right now, right in front of our eyes. The Ring Species are populations that gradually change from one species to another as we move through their habitat from one end to another. Every intermediate stage breeds with its neighbors. But the ends don’t.
    If the middle portion dies or goes extinct, we will have two disjoint, non-breeding species.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6818/full/409333a0.html

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

    Don’t go about nitpicking evolution. Forget evolution. Explain it from the Intelligent Design perspective. Explain how the ID perspective gives us
    any fresh insight into this phenomenon.

    No matter how many faults you find with evolution, it does not add one
    iota of positive evidence to ID.
73. Ravilyn Sanders says:

    January 9, 2008 at 9:25 am

    The speciation of salamanders going on right now in California:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

    It the population of salamanders in the north end of San Joaquin Valley goes extinct, you will have two completely separate species on either side of the valley to the south.

    I tell the kids, “The scientists are studying the DNA of these salamanders, comparing the genomes. They will eventually trace the significant differences in macroscopic properties of these salamanders to the microscopic differences in the DNA. Show the sequence of mutations that led to the speciation”. They get intrigued by the puzzles, interested in science, inspired by the possibilities.

    What serious, interesting, intriguing, inspiring research is being done by
    the Cdesign proponentsts? “I can’t imagine”, “This cant explain that”, “That can explain this”, “We are all so dumb” “Let us praise the Lord” Amen?
74. S.Scott says:

    January 9, 2008 at 9:33 am

    Thanks for the link! That’s very, very interesting!
75. D. Cox says:

    January 9, 2008 at 10:07 am

    –You say, “Do what is required to gain that status [by doing] research, experimentation, and publishing.”

    That is our intention.–

    It just seems like the approach is a little backwards. The publishing is coming first, without any meaningful research or experimentation. Perhaps that is why it is not “allowed in”. Furthermore, the publishing that has been done has been peer reviewed, albeit after publication, and the peer response is not good, to put it lightly. Convincing the critics is not easy, but even the most headstrong critic has to bow to reason eventually. I think that is what is most frustrating about ID – it is based more on a philosophy than on observations, calculations, and experimentation. A critic is not going to concede the point without good reason, and the reasoning is just not there. That is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of the scientific community at large. The arguments are not convincing.

    The arguments for NDE on the other hand are convincing, not just to me, but to the scientific community. The countless publications by people actually doing the research and sending their conclusions out into the world continue to attest to the soundness of reason on which NDE is based.

    While both NDE and ID may both be worthy of investigation, I’m not really sure why ID *should* be allowed in. Dowsing is worthy of investigation, but it is not allowed in either. NDE distinguishes itself by results, and is therefore allowed in. How does ID distinguish itself to make it worthy of inclusion? I would venture a guess that there has been more experimentation in the field of dowsing than in ID. It seems like what you’re saying is that ID is excluded without reason. If that were the case, I would agree with you. However, I think there is no reason yet to include ID. So I don’t think that it’s fascism, I just think that there is no reason to include it.
76. Ravilyn Sanders says:

    January 9, 2008 at 10:42 am

    My posting with three links are still waiting moderation. Meantime,
    want to know why they are called ring species?

    Check it out:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

    This is speciation happening as we are watching. Here the speciation happens because of geographic separation. This type would be called sympatric speciation.
77. Ravilyn Sanders says:

    January 9, 2008 at 11:35 am

    Bowman,
    It is not enough to simply nitpick and see unexplained, unexplainable or unacceptably-explained observations as some kind of huge deficiency of the theory of evolution. The standard for comparison is not some unknown ideal explanation. The standard for comparison is the alternative. Compared to ID, evolution explains more observations, more facts and makes striking predictions and is borne out in experience. The explanatory power of ID is sorely lacking.

    You seem to nitpick “random mutation alone is not enough …” This is the current theme of Michael “Astrology-is-science-too” Behe. I posted
    examples of sympatric speciation, in action as we see today and
    challenged you (and other IDers) to explain it from Design Perspective.

    Now I will post another link to speciation in action without geographic
    isolation. This time by sexual selection.

    The organism is the fish mbuna cichlids of Lake Malawi in Africa. They come in blue or green colors. Normally the blue males mate only with blue
    females and green males with green females. But in the lab, when they
    cant see the color diff, they do interbreed and produce strikingly varied
    color patterns. The green and blue populations will eventually become
    two distinct species. Ref:
    http://www.hull.ac.uk/cichlids/papers/genner_turner_mbuna.pdf

    Look at the painstaking work done by these biologists. Can you see
    a lifetime of dedication here? Tell me how many creation scientists
    actually do field work. Do you know what percentage of Disingenuous Institute’s budget is spent on propaganda and what is spent of research in biology?

    The nerve they have, peddling their snake oil as science and demanding equal access to the hearts and soul of our next generation!
78. Ravilyn Sanders says:

    January 9, 2008 at 11:42 am

    I just wrote:
    “The nerve they have, peddling their snake oil as science and demanding equal access to the hearts and soul of our next generation!”

    I meant hearts and minds, but had actually written hearts and soul.
    Freudian slip???? 🙂
79. Lee Bowman says:

    January 9, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    Nikkiee wrote,

    “I have another question for you. By what mechanisms does Intelligent Design propose the Intelligent Designer designed that which appears to have been designed?”

    Disclaimer: The philosophical posits I’ll make are not part of ID, but are merely presented as possibilities, and in refutation of the arguments for ‘sub optimal design’,’evilness’,’suffering’,’mortality issues’,’motive of a designer or designers, and why life is challenging. Not difficult issues, really.

    I feel it’s a kind of ‘gene tweaking’, or some kind of genetic engineering, either thought out ahead of time, or cut and try. That’s why there are gene similarities and vestigial organs. This is a central issue in defense of evolution, but the arguments for ‘natural means only’ are debatable.

    We see vestigial parts in cars sometimes, since the designer chose to leave them there. Microprocessors have circuit paths no longer used, and the software that modified them may have elected to leave them in, either for possible future use, or because of being more trouble to remove than keep.

    The fused chromosomes that Kenneth Miller says is evidence of human chimp lineage are correct. The premise of random mutations being the *sole* mechanism of change is debatable. Fish leaving the water is even more problematic, although possible by random mutational selection. But it could have been an experimental enterprise by designers, who were cutting their teeth on new biologic forms.

    The designers I postulate are spirit beings. Rather than super natural, they are simply constructs of a different substance, a kind of energy with ‘form’. In fact, I believe that we are similar, if not the same. If so, then earth is a ‘theme park’, and we are the players, and merely inhabit biologic forms.
80. Lee Bowman says:

    January 10, 2008 at 12:51 am

    D. Cox wrote,

    >“It just seems like the approach is a little backwards. The publishing is coming first, without any meaningful research or experimentation.”

    >“I’m not really sure why ID *should* be allowed in.”

    The pubs for evolution are of two primary types. The research papers, and the popular press pubs, which may contain some of the research data as well. With ID, it’s primarily the popular press pubs. Philosophical arguments are found on both sides, and are largely conjectural, my postulates included.

    Research for ID is difficult to provide, since few researchers are willing, and absolutely *no* scientific journals will publish their work. Even if they agreed to, no researchers would risk their careers to give any papers a peer review passport.

    But many miss the point that much of the research already done supports ID as much as, or more than, NDE. So there is some research being done for ID, although not designated as such. Data can be interpreted in more than one way, just ask GW, who might admit to it over a beer or two (after he steps down).

    But more publishing may come when more supporting data is done. I have some ideas regarding research to further validate purported ‘design inferences’, but I won’t discuss them here.
81. Lee Bowman says:

    January 10, 2008 at 1:59 am

    >”You seem to nitpick “random mutation alone is not enough …”

    >”Compared to ID, evolution explains more observations, more facts and makes striking predictions and is borne out in experience.”

    Reading the abstract and scanning the paper, it appears that the primary interest in the cichlid fish is in analyzing how they coexist, chose mates, dietary and habitat partitioning, and how these may factor on their “explosive speciation” and “rapid adaptive radiation.”

    Speciation in this case primarily involves morphological changes in snout and mouth positioning, largely related to eating habits, and then selected for in their reproduction. The differing morphologic features for different species are listed in table 3.

    While I agree with natural selection works at this level, I feel that it is a ‘designed in’ function, to allow self-adaptive anatomic changes to accommodate environmental changes. I don’t feel that substantiation of this types of function validate more radical speciation, like scales to feathers, for example. In other words, rather than radical and highly innovative mutational alterations occurring, and sequentially selected over time to create a complex new structure (feathered wings), I feel that they are limited to selection from the available gene pool simply to adapt as needed for survival. When they cannot adapt, they go instinct. This also allows for diversity in appearance, so they (we) don’t all look alike.

    My interpretation of the data is that I see a clever, ‘designed in function’ to enhance survival, to avoid having to go back to the drawing board on a regular basis. Which gives me an idea for something we could design. A car with an engine that automatically goes into an ‘economy mode’ of operation when it notices a higher price at the pump, but leaves it momentarily if somebody wants to drag race, of course!

    Or for diversity, how about a car that changes its trim package and color shading while parked, to help combat ‘owner boredom’. It would need to be set not to activate at the mall, however, or you might never locate it.

    One more. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could evolve a glandular sweat system that would secrete a more volatile substance for enhanced body cooling, to cope with the onset of global warming. Maybe ethanol based. But I guess that’s just the engineer in me …

    And guess what – I’m also from the ‘rust belt’.
82. Lee Bowman says:

    January 10, 2008 at 2:03 am

    [Ravilyn] just wrote:

    “The nerve they have, peddling their snake oil as science and demanding equal access to the hearts and soul of our next generation!”

    I meant hearts and minds, but had actually written hearts and soul.
    Freudian slip????

    Perhaps, but I see them as co-equals.
83. Ravilyn Sanders says:

    January 10, 2008 at 7:30 am

    Lee Bowman Says:
    January 10th, 2008 at 1:59 am ” My interpretation of the data is that I see a clever, ‘designed in function’ to enhance survival, to avoid having to go back to the drawing board on a regular basis.”

    Before we get into the “designed in function”, let us see all the questions you have been dodging, just for the record:

    1. Who “invited” you to blog at UD? (My accusation was that you are playing word games to downplay his close association with DI).

    2. Do you use the word “most” to mean a microscopic minority? (IDers who agree there could multiple designers and the designer could be incompetent, and Comers ouster was high handed fascism, do not represent “most” of IDers.)

    3.So do you infer design in snow flakes? In crystal lattices? In the
    orbits of planets? Stalactites and stalagmites? How do you decide
    which are designed and which are not?

    4. No matter how many faults you find with evolution, it does not add one
    iota of positive evidence to ID.

    5.What serious, interesting, intriguing, inspiring research is being done by
    the Cdesign proponentsts?

    6. Tell me how many creation scientists
    actually do field work. Do you know what percentage of Disingenuous Institute’s budget is spent on propaganda and what is spent of research in biology?

    You ignore all these questions, pick just one about the evolution of the cichlids of Lake Malawi and claim that all these designs were already packed in before, to avoid having to go back to the drawing board. This is so elastic and stretchable, you should patent it as a competitor to spandex. Tomorrow if the fish grow legs and walk out of the lake, you could still claim that too was pre-designed and packed to avoid having to go back to the drawing board. And if on the day after the fish with legs grow wings and fly away, again that too would have been pre-designed to avoid having to go back to the drawing board. How far back was the drawing board anyway? This spandex tent is a serious challenger to the theory of evolution? Good enough to be taught in high schools? You got a long way to go buddy Bowman.

    This is exactly the changing the goalposts IDers do all the time. Behe would harangue, “I can’t imagine how the eye could have evolved, how blood clotting could have evolved, …”. Then we go explaining exactly how
    it could evolve. Now suddenly, “… thus it could have evolved” is not enough. “Show me the fossil. Show me in excruciating detail how exactly it did.”

    Your big argument was “random mutation” is not enough to produce morphological changes. Showed you the color, pattern and snout changes traced to mutations that seem to happen repeatedly and spontaneously more than once in the cichlids. Now the goal post is, a species with one subpopulation with wings and another with fins.

    Bowman, please try to answer the basic challenge. Find one significant observation today, that is better explained by design hypothesis than by evolution. All you IDers do is to nitpick the explanations, while carefully not providing any prediction, explanation based on your pet fantasy.
84. S.Scott says:

    January 10, 2008 at 9:20 am

    Ravilyn Sanders .. Thank you 🙂

    Lee Bowman said …Or for diversity, how about a car that changes its trim package and color shading while parked, to help combat ‘owner boredom’. It would need to be set not to activate at the mall, however, or you might never locate it. …

    Nissan already did it – http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/chameleon/nissan-developing-color-changing-paint-320806.php
85. Lee Bowman says:

    January 10, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    “Nissan already did it -”

    Interesting. I had that idea back in the ’90s. I also thought about patenting a laser lawnmower design, to cut down on pollution and noise. I waited a few years on the patent, but a German firm subsequently filed one (several). They now sell a unit for cutting golf courses for 25k a pop. I see it as also viable for harvesting wheat et al.

    Why do companies steal my ideas? Grrrrr ….

    I know why. I sit on ’em too long. Anyway, it’s certainly ID at our level. Nissan should call that model the Chameleon.
86. Ravilyn Sanders says:

    January 10, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    So it looks like Lee Bowman has no answers. He had conceded that there could be multiple designers. Designer could be incompetent. Look like he might concede designer being malicious. Supports panspermia. That is far from bible thumping young earth literalist Christianity. Probably picked by Dumbski (not a spelling mistake) as the token non Christian to pretend that ID is not religious.

    And only thing he is able to say is, “I am an engineer and I know design when I see one, and I declare life is designed”. So this design spotter was asked, “Are snowflakes designed? How about orbits of planets? Or stalagmites and stalactites? or crystal lattices?” and he does not have an answer.
87. onein6billion says:

    January 10, 2008 at 10:54 pm

    A certain Lee bloviated:

    “You could say that. If each genetic modification (and Darwin proposed “incremental” changes) provides no survival advantage, it will *not* be passed on.”

    ROTFLOL

    You really don’t know anything about evolution, do you?
88. Nikkiee says:

    January 11, 2008 at 2:09 am

    Lee Bowman Says:
    January 8th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    “Hey Nikkie,
    I responded a while ago to your questions regarding Francis Collins and Ken Miller, but it’s awaiting moderation, probably due to two included links.”

    Could you repost them please Lee? Have you read the Francis Collins review yet? It’s relevant to your answer to my question as to design mechanisms.

    “The philosophical posits I’ll make are not part of ID, but are merely presented as possibilities, and in refutation of the arguments for ‘sub optimal design’,’evilness’,’suffering’,’mortality issues’,’motive of a designer or designers, and why life is challenging.”

    So are you aware of what the official ID hypothesis is? I’ve been having a lot of trouble finding a copy of it?
89. Nikkiee says:

    January 11, 2008 at 2:15 am

    Lee
    “I feel it’s a kind of ‘gene tweaking’, or some kind of genetic engineering, either thought out ahead of time, or cut and try. That’s why there are gene similarities and vestigial organs. This is a central issue in defense of evolution, but the arguments for ‘natural means only’ are debatable.”

    Please read the Collin’s review, it deals directly with these topics.
    Thanks
90. floundericious says:

    January 11, 2008 at 10:04 am

    Wow…

    Lee:

    Your arguments are “angels on the head of a pin.”

    I just got done reading a sequence of notes and, from what I can see, your argument is that the developmental changes from one specie to the next are guided by an intelligent force that’s not observable in any way. This is akin to pre-newtonian thinking, where angels held buildings up or made boats float. You’ve simply substituted natural processes with “look, LOOK, you can see the designer or, perhaps, designerS working right now!”

    When you run out of rhetoric and argumentation to fuel your own stand, you turn to blanket attacks on evolution: “structures in the eye are far too complex to have evolved…but my magical, invisible, unobservable, untestable designer makes sense to me because I’ve contrived it to fit my view of the world”

    Boy oh boy….the internets, gotta love them.
91. S.Scott says:

    January 11, 2008 at 10:41 am

    Ravilyn Sanders Says:

    January 10th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
    So it looks like Lee Bowman has no answers.
    Yes – he seems to have dodged your questions, hasn’t he? 🙂
92. Lee Bowman says:

    January 11, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    “So it looks like Lee Bowman has no answers.”

    ‘Looks’ can be deceiving.

    “Yes [Ravi], he seems to have dodged your questions, hasn’t he?” 🙂

    Well OK, if you insist …

    1. Bill Dembski invited me, as he does others from time to time.

    2. Pointless question

    3. Snowflakes? You didn’t really pose a question, but I’ll assume you meant the following:

    It’s been said by some that due to the improbability of any particular snowflake pattern forming, the same rationale can be applied to DNA coding. IOW, both form naturalistically, so random design of complexity is not just possible, it’strue!

    That, however is a specious analog. DNA stores the instructions to build a functioning biologic system. Snowflakes are crystalline structures that contain syntactic information to form a hexagonal structure. There’s no analogy there, or with comparing snowflakes (or fractals) with anything that is designed. Or am I missing the point you were trying to make?

    In sum, a snowflake appears complex, but is not, in the true sense of the word. A DNA sequence displays *specified* complexity, and is coded for information.

    4. Not a question.

    5. All research can be defined as ‘serious’, or it’s not research. I know of some research being done, but not yet completed or at a point of doing a paper on it.

    6. Two questions in one? (see below)

    a) Enough field work’s been done at this point to cite those finds as needed. Field work today seems to focus more on searching for intermediates, in a desperate attempt to find transitional forms. That’s not the focus of ID work.

    b) ” Do you know what percentage of Disingenuous [sic] Institute’s budget is spent on propaganda and what is spent of research in biology?”

    I’m not familiar with their current budget. Why don’t you ask them, if you’re that concerned? While you’re at it, ask the NCSE how much they spend on propagandizing. Speaking engagements at atheist conventions would fall under that category.

    By the way, I’ll answer any questions that have even a skosh of merit (or relevance to the topic of the thread). If it’s tripe, it’ll get filed as such.
93. Lee Bowman says:

    January 11, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    From Nikkiee,

    “Please read the Collin’s review, it deals directly with these topics … “
    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm

    Gert Korthof is one objective guy. A lot of interesting stuff comes out of the Netherlands. He gets into areas that could be termed philosophical, as well.

    ”Collins implicitly makes animals morally inferior because only humans received the Moral Law (from God). Animals did not receive the Moral Law. Otherwise, humans would not be unique in that respect. This is an inescapable logical conclusion from Collins view of the origin of the Moral Law. Moreover, I think it is a fundamental dogma of the Christian religion that humans are morally superior to animals … “

    I may differ a little here, as I feel that morality is ingrained, rather than taught. I read somewhere that chimps display altruism, by assisting other ones in various situations that they mentioned.

    I also looked at his web site, and will read more when I get a chance. He cites Gould a lot, and although vested in evolutionary thought, seems to be objective in considering not only alternate hypotheses, but delving deeper into perplexing questions of stasis, where evolutionary change has ceased. In his writings, he jumps around a lot.
94. Nikkiee says:

    January 11, 2008 at 11:22 pm

    Lee Bowman Says:
    January 9th, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    “I feel it’s a kind of ‘gene tweaking’, or some kind of genetic engineering, either thought out ahead of time, or cut and try. That’s why there are gene similarities and vestigial organs. This is a central issue in defense of evolution, but the arguments for ‘natural means only’ are debatable.”

    Nikkiee Says:
    January 11th, 2008 at 2:15 am
    “Please read the Collin’s review, it deals directly with these topics.
    Thanks”

    Lee Bowman Says:
    January 11th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
    “I may differ a little here, as I feel that morality is ingrained, rather than taught. I read somewhere that chimps display altruism, by assisting other ones in various situations that they mentioned.”

    Erm…Lee, what on earth have Collin’s views on morality got to do with the evidence for evolution presented in his book? You know that which I asked for your comment on? Did you skip that part of the review perhaps? Trying to change the subject perhaps?
95. hoary puccoon says:

    January 13, 2008 at 8:28 am

    Floridians out there who have honest concerns about whether evolution should be taught as one theory among many should take a long look at this thread.

    Lee Bowman says, “a snowflake appears complex, but is not, in the true sense of the word. A DNA sequence displays *specified* complexity, and is coded for information.” How could a teacher possibly deal with that? A snowflake “appears” complex, but isn’t?? Would you want to try explaining that to a room of 14 year olds?

    The bottom line is, the Discovery Institute is demanding that research which, as Lee Bowman explains, is “not yet completed or at a point of doing a paper on it” be presented as a serious challenge to years of work in major scientific journals like Science and Nature, as well as many special-topic journals dealing with evolution, plus all the applied work in fields like agriculture and medicine which must, of necessity, deal with the fact of evolution.

    Demanding Intelligent Design be taught as well as evolution is like demanding that the hill in my backyard be taught in geography classes on mountains, along with the Rockies, the Andes, and the Alps.
96. Bob says:

    January 13, 2008 at 10:13 am

    Why hasn’t the Flying Spaghetti Monster been given his due as the Designer?
    I think that it IS the FSM. How can we choose among the hypothetical multiple Designers? Is there one or are there many Designers? Will one of you tell me how ID proposes to choose; is there a logic to this, the MOST important question?
97. bob says:

    January 13, 2008 at 10:20 am

    Hurricane Ivan is evidence of a Designer. It is so beautiful, so organized, so powerful. Random winds and haphazard atmospheric conditions could not have produced such a thing. Actually, after observing this photo, I have become even more convinced in ID. It couldn’t just all be random.
    Check it out for yourselves, and fall to your knees.

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080113.html
98. Patricia Kamhi says:

    January 13, 2008 at 10:42 am

    I taught special education learning disability students, Charleston, South Carolina. Our science teachers taught evolution science theory to tenth graders. Each teacher had a week of meetings with parents explaining why evolution was being taught and many follow up meetings with certain parents and the principal. It created a emotional and time drain on our science department. It was the end of the 70’s. Is this an indication that Florida is allowing an issue that has been legally proven in Federal courts to consume finances and time. I think it is time for people to presume that the BoE members who push their religious views should be challenge publicly by legal demonstrations in front of their residences since E-mails and correspondence does not seem to stop them from forcing their personal religious views on the population of Florida.
99. Lee Bowman says:

    January 13, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    Nikkie wrote,

    “ … what on earth have Collin’s views on morality got to do with the evidence for evolution presented in his book?”

    It’s one point he has raised in his book, and was mentioned by the reviewer, but there are obviously many other points concerning his views on evolution, and the reviewer’s take on them. Rather than ‘gene tweaking’, Collins poses a more detached view centered solely on naturalistic evolution. He mentions flawed design as evidences of that as well. I’ll try to give a more detailed assessment later on, although I’m not sure if this thread is the place for it.
100. Lee Bowman says:

     January 13, 2008 at 1:40 pm

     hoary puccoon wrote,

     “Lee Bowman says that, “a snowflake appears complex, but is not, in the true sense of the word. A DNA sequence displays *specified* complexity, and is coded for information.” How could a teacher possibly deal with that?”

     Do you understand the meaning of “complex” as it applies to biologic systems? The snowflake and other crystal generation (and fractals) have been given as examples of complexity that is nature driven, as far back as David Hume, and I would assume Roman empire era philosophers as well, and used as evidence that biologic systems are therefore also purely naturalistic. There is no analogy there, and that should be obvious to any thinking person.

     I only mention it is response to Ravilyn Sanders’ bringing it up on 1/10 at 10:16. He inferred a correspondence between snowflakes and biologic systems, and I simply disagreed. Whether or not a teacher should have to deal with it is another matter.

     “The bottom line is, the Discovery Institute is demanding that research which, as Lee Bowman explains, is “not yet completed or at a point of doing a paper on it” be presented as a serious challenge to years of work in major scientific journals … “

     I never said that there was no work completed or in progress. Rather, I stated:

     “I know of some research being done, but not yet completed or at a point of doing a paper on it.”

     I was referring to some particular studies that I myself am aware of, and not as a summary statement of work in the field, in general. But there has been work done, as well as alternate conclusions presented regarding various studies, and there is enough evidence of design in biologic systems to substantiate a hypothetical position in that regard.

     As is evident to anyone looking at the facts, the dearth of research up to this point is as a result of suppression of any studies being done by (for example) NAS. Read their stated position from one of their publications:

     http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=25

     They, in essence, prohibit any scientific investigations of ID, by lumping it with ‘scientific creationism’. Not only is funding prohibited, but publication of any studies done, as well.

     “Demanding Intelligent Design be taught as well as evolution is like demanding that the hill in my backyard be taught in geography classes on mountains, along with the Rockies, the Andes, and the Alps.”

     DI, in public statements at their site, and from statements cited here by various school boards as well, aren’t asking that it be taught, but rather simply mentioned as an alternate hypothesis. Extending inquiry = a science stopper? Rather, it’s the other way around.
101. Ravilyn Sanders says:

     January 13, 2008 at 5:27 pm

     Before we get into snowflakes, let us just record what Lee Bowman has ignored and refused to comment on:

     a. Ignored the charge his theory is a spandex tent. If the fish in that African lake grow wings or legs or limbs as yet unimagined by us appear, one could still argue it is just a pre-packaged design appearing like a cuckoo in the swiss clock. How far back is the drawing board anyway?

     b. People in ID camp who concede the designer could be someone other than the Christian God are a microscopic minority. Not most of IDers as claimed by Lee Bowman.

     c. Finding holes in theory A does not prove theory B. May be some theory C is correct. No matter how many holes he imagines in MET, even if they
     are real, does not prove ID.

     d. He still has not produced one single scientific observation that is explained BETTER by design perspective than evolution perspective.

     Leaving all the big questions aside, he picks on snowflakes. And like Nixon’s secret plan to win Vietnam, he has secret research not yet published.

     Coming to snowflakes, these water molecules clump together and form complex snow flakes. How does he *prove* that there is no specific
     information coded in the water molecules by some SnowGod to build
     snow flakes in His image? An Atlantic hurricane has a well defined structure
     with alternating spiral bands of clouds and coordinated movement of
     air molecules several hundred miles apart. May be there is some specific
     information coded in the O2, N2, CO2, H2O molecules in air, coded up
     to build a hurricane when the time is right. Is there or is there not
     specific information in these molecules to build complex macro structures?

     BTW, he uses another standard creationist trick of slipping in,

     “Field work today seems to focus more on searching for intermediates, in a desperate attempt to find transitional forms. That’s not the focus of ID work.”

     Fossil hunting is just one kind of field work. The bulk of it is routine observation, specimen collection, lab experiments etc. Lee himself
     mentions experiments on altruism among chimpanzees. Further there
     is no despo attempt to find transition forms in fossils. I myself mentioned
     three examples of transitional forms right in this thread (the gulls, the salamanders and the fish), all living, breathing, eating, sleeping and yes ****ing (one place where the profanity actually fits the context) transitional forms.

     And his so sweet and punch line:
     Extending inquiry = a science stopper? Rather, it’s the other way around.

     Well, why stop with MET then? Why can’t we demand astrology to be mentioned in astronomy classes? Alchemy to be at least mentioned in chemistry classes? The theory of ether in Physics?
102. firemancarl says:

     January 13, 2008 at 9:44 pm

     So, because Behe, Dembski, and Bowman don’t understand and canna wrap their collective noggins around REAL science, god and jebus did it!?

     You ought to be careful, i would hate for Abbie Smith to make you guys go boo-hooing all the lay back to the DI crying “it’s not fair!” I am continually amazed that a graduate research student can bring the supposed “heavy hitters” of ID to their proverbial knees.

     It must really blow when you’ve been shamed like that.

     Gosh Lee, I would have thought you’d be able to tell the difference between science and religious dogma. That is the SOLE reason ID is not going to be taught and why Dover got dragged through the mud.

     I have yet to see and any definitive data compiled by the backers of ID to prove their case. There is no way to test a designer, and there is no way to gather the evidence.

     What pray tell is the hypothysis of ID? And what testable mediums can be used to prove it?

     There are none and you know it.

     To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, if you have this great new breakthrough in science why not show it to the world and be hailed as the new newton or Einstein ? You can’t, we know you can’t and you’re all frauds.
103. Nikkiee says:

     January 14, 2008 at 2:51 am

     Lee Bowman Says:
     January 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
     “but there are obviously many other points concerning his views on evolution, and the reviewer’s take on them.”

     Lee, “his views on evolution” is an interesting way to refer to the evidence for common descent presented by the director of the human genome project. The reviewer simply points out and recites the evidence Collins’s presents in his book for common descent.

     “I’ll try to give a more detailed assessment later on, although I’m not sure if this thread is the place for it.”

     Amusing comment in light of all your previous posts 🙂

     I’ll finish up and leave you with of few quotes from that review….

     “The lessons of the Human Genome” (ch5), paragraph “Surprises from the first reading of the genome” (page 124-141).

     His first example starts easy with a simple and straightforward question: What is the likelihood of finding a similar DNA sequence in the genome of other organisms, starting with a human DNA sequence? (page 127).

     A human gene can be found with 100% certainty in a Chimpanzee and with 99% probability in a dog or a mouse. This is predicted and explained by common descent (in outline). More than that. Common descent not only predicts that human genes can be found with different probabilities in other species, but more specific that the likelihood should be smaller for insects and worms.

     Genes are easy. But what about DNA between genes? The second column of table 1 shows that human DNA which does not code for proteins has a far lower likelihood to be found in other animals. DNA between human genes can still be found with 98% likelihood in chimpanzees, but the likelihood drops significantly to only 52% in the dog. Why should this be so? DNA between genes is non-functional, so-called junk-DNA. Neutral mutations (=mutations that do not affect function) will accumulate steadily over time.

     This example is presented by Collins as “even more compelling evidence for a common ancestor”.
     So if the reader wants to understand the best evidence for common descent, he must understand this one.

     His evidence has two aspects: how it supports common descent and how it makes independent origin an unreasonable alternative explanation. This example is not about true genes and not about truly random DNA, but about damaged copies of genes (jumping genes).

     “Jumping genes produce several copies that are inserted at random places in chromosomes. In the past and in the present.
     The order of genes along a chromosome is often the same in humans and mice. This has been known for some time. This is true also for some jumping genes (Ancient Repetitive Elements). They are often found in similar chromosome locations in human and mouse. More remarkable, damaged copies also occur in the same place in human and mouse. This is new.

     Collins: “Finding a precisely truncated ARE [damaged copy] in the same place in both human and mouse genomes is compelling evidence that this insertion event must have occurred in an ancestor that was common to both the human and the mouse.” (p.135).

     Collins: “Unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed these decapitated AREs (1) in these precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable. This kind of recent genome data thus presents an overwhelming challenge to those who hold to the idea that all species were created ex nihilo.” (p.136-137).

     Reviewer: “again there are a hundred other biological-technical objections to special creationism and independent origin, and some are 150 years old.

     Please note: Collins carefully avoids claiming that special creationism is wrong, but he hopes that the reader will see that special creationism as an explanation for tAREs is highly unreasonable.”

     http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm
104. Nikkiee says:

     January 14, 2008 at 3:14 am

     How do the cdesignproponentsists come out on the The Crackpot Index?

     The Crackpot Index
     http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

     Also, if alternative creation stories are to be taught in science class, we Pastafarians of the first Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster request that the FSM creation theory, as detailed in the Gospel of our Noodley One, be included in the alternatives.
     Thank You
     RAmen
105. Stuart Weinstein says:

     January 14, 2008 at 4:25 am

     Lee Bowman writes:

     “Do you understand the meaning of “complex” as it applies to biologic systems? The snowflake and other crystal generation (and fractals) have been given as examples of complexity that is nature driven, as far back as David Hume, and I would assume Roman empire era philosophers as well, and used as evidence that biologic systems are therefore also purely naturalistic. There is no analogy there, and that should be obvious to any thinking person.”

     Ok Lee, which is more complex? A dog or a kangaroo?

     Can you measure complexity of biological system?

     Show us how you do it.

     Show all maths.

     Thanks.
106. Lee Bowman says:

     January 14, 2008 at 6:47 am

     Hey Nikkie,
     “I’ll try to give a more detailed assessment later on, although I’m not sure if this thread is the place for it.”

     “Amusing comment in light of all your previous posts :-)”

     “I’ll finish up and leave you with of few quotes from that review …. “

     I’m not avoiding commenting, but rather than comment on a review, I may just actually read Collins’ book first. In general, I disagree with him on most points (but not regarding genetics). He, like Kenneth Miller, has a tough row to hoe, at least publicly.

     Thanks for your comments, more later.

     And now …

     Regarding the ‘crackpot index’, cle-ver. Someone might want to compile a similar list giving points for other taking the default position.

     But for right now, I’ll have to admit that I used to love pasta, but am losing my taste for it. Seems almost sacrilegious to chomp those noodles anymore. And as for the meatballs, uh … their placement reminds me too much of mammalian anatomy. Lost my taste for them, also.

     Joking aside, Bobby Henderson has become a folk hero, and everyone (Richard Dawkins included) thinks it to be a clever ploy, one that makes a point regarding the banality of organized religion, and one that will frustrate the religionists and help to defeat their ‘crusades’.

     Wired magazines recent onslaught didn’t impress me, however. While there are some religious kooks out there, I would have to say that most adherents, and primarily those who went (Francis C), or continued (Ken M) that route by way of their own will, rather than jumping through religious hoops may actually get more than a ‘by rote’, pedantic experience out of it.

     Nonetheless, I made a brief comment here: I linked to comment #12, but mine is comment #15.
     http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/mixed_messages_from_the_nas.php#comment-700080
107. firemancarl says:

     January 14, 2008 at 8:14 am

     Lee,

     I still think the (un)ID camp is getting abiogenisis confused with evolution. Heck, in Lee Strobles “case for a creator” he gets evolution confused cosmology.

     Why is it so hard to believe, and science is working on it, that we came from primitive life forms and evolved but you have not problem believing that we were made from clay?
108. Ravilyn Sanders says:

     January 14, 2008 at 9:28 am

     Firemancarl,

     Just look at what all Lee Bowman has conceded in this thread, there could be multiple designers, the designer could be incompetent, the designer is consistent with Hindu and Buddhist theology. He has not denied the designer could be malicious. And on top of this he supports panspermia .
     See the url he is promoting http://westlabmultimedia.com/

     He is not your typical ID rube. He is two levels up the food chain.
     The rubes form the base of the food chain. The ID pushers feed on
     them. Lee Bowman feeds on the ID pushers like Dembski. I don’t
     know whether the relationship is parasitic or symbiotic 😉

     My guess is Dembski wants a fig leaf to pretend ID has a base outside
     the fundie Christians. This panspermia promoter provides it and in return
     gets access to the rubes to sell his own brand of pseudoscience.
109. Bud Goble says:

     January 14, 2008 at 9:58 am

     In reference to the concern of whether to teach evolution or creation in our schools, I would like to mention that in the beginning we are ignorant; in the end we expect to be educated. Unfortunately for many, the end will come before they have completed their education. Moreover, education will never begin for many because, in order to be properly educated, the truth must be taught. Consequently, when the few, who complete the schools of higher learning, become our preachers, teachers and leaders, we are at their mercy. We believe that what they have been taught, and in turn teach, is factually accurate, i.e., the truth. However, we discover, and many times too late, evidence that they have been taught myths, legends and allegories, instead of the facts as they actually occurred. For this reason we must immediately challenge all questionable historical teachings and when error is found verify, document and teach facts not beliefs. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us all to continue to update our teaching, preaching and leading knowledge so that the truth can be told. Newton D. Baker, lawyer, political leader and US secretary of war during World War 1 is quoted as saying. “The man who graduates today and stops learning tomorrow is uneducated the day after.” This quote alone should be incentive enough for us to keep religious teachings out of our public education system. We must remember that there is a difference between studying what has been written and learning the truth.

     ——————————————————————————–
     Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
110. firemancarl says:

     January 14, 2008 at 10:39 am

     Ravilyn,

     I suppose the big “wow” in Bowmans case is he supports panspermia. From what I have read and understand, it’ s a theory that does not get much thought these days.

     it seems obvious that #1 the (un)ID camp doesn’t know what it wants to be when it grows up and #2 Bowman was sent here to try to make all nice as you indicated. These ploys are getting rather old and nauseating.

     Have you also noticed that Behe and Dembski are no longer included on the lists of cdesign proponentists that the DI uses to say “See look! We have got a couplle of people who believe! Praise Jebus!

     WHy is that?

     People like Bowman et al. after realizing they cannot make a GIRL( Abbie Smith)
     cower, come here to try to make us do the same. fat chance.
111. Krubozumo Nyankoye says:

     January 14, 2008 at 10:40 pm

     First of all everyone with a vested interest in this issue should ask their friends to review this thread and form their own conclusions.

     Second, I am not a Floridian but I have sympathy for the commenters here whose children will be educated (or not) according to the state standards. I offer my views only in their support, I represent no institution.

     I am a scientist but my field is in no wise related to biology, however, I respect my biology colleagues because I know their work undergoes the same scrutiny as mine. I don’t consider myself qualified to evaluate or “interpret” their work. If by some bizarre accident I had an idea that might be applicable to say the work of a molecular biologist, I would not approach them from the stance: ‘You’re wrong you know, I have this idea that explains your work better.’ Moreover, I would not organize a political movement to force the teaching of my alternative idea into pre-college classrooms, in fact I would not advocate that it be taught at all, that is a decision for educators, again, not my field.

     I don’t have much to say or contribute except one or two observations that may alert otherwise casual obervers to the insidious and deliberate mendacity of the ID “movement”. Mr. Bowman fobs off the wedge document as being inconsequential, but it is actually the central manifesto of ID. Read it, and contemplate the consequences of its realization.

     Mr. Bowman also claims that analogies to crystal growth are specious and different from biological systems, yet all of his analogies are to manufactured machines, which do not reproduce themselves, as biological entities do. He conveniently neglects to mention the fact that all of his analogize are specious.

     Finally his (Mr. Bowman’s) last bastion of argument is that we must not stifle free inquiry, but that is exactly what he is advocating in supporting the vacuous concept of ID. To lead pre-college children down the dead-end path of “design research” is nothing less than abuse.

     Given that the theory of evolution in its present context has myriad uses, applications in medicine, agriculture, animal husbandry, etc. can Mr. Bowman suggest just exactly how ID can offer even one preferable research direction for any of these fields?

     Now let me pose one question to Mr. Bowman, how does intellgent design theory explain cancer? Please be very specific about the designers intentions in front loading this phenomenon into the package.

     This is a hit and run post, I may not ever view this thread again, so I will leave you with an apt quote, not mined. Actually its just a paraphrase but pretty close I think.

     “For years we were told that faith could move mountains, and no one believed it. Now
     we are told that atom bombs can move mountains and everyone believes it.” B. Russell

     Since Mr. Bowman is so adept at “interpreting” the evidence differently, would he like to offer his alternative to the conversion of mass into energy?

     Respectfully yours,
112. Lee Bowman says:

     January 15, 2008 at 2:45 am

     Krubozumo Nyankoye wrote,

     “I don’t have much to say or contribute except one or two observations that may alert otherwise casual observers to the insidious and deliberate mendacity of the ID “movement”. Mr. Bowman fobs off the wedge document as being inconsequential, but it is actually the central manifesto of ID. Read it, and contemplate the consequences of its realization.”

     As I’ve stated, I operate independently of organizations that some may deem political. I would agree that insidiousness and mendacity may be true of some, but none that I am aware of in the current ID community meet those qualifications. What would they stand to gain by lying, or a desire to corrupt science?

     Or, delving into another realm, is organized religion, (in general), out to corrupt society? Richard Dawkins would say yes, a give a few examples of where religious intimidation in a society was used as a club to dominate and rule the masses. We can point to governments that were not theocratic, but that inflicted the same kind of tyranny on populations. Are governments therefore inherently evil and corrupt? Libertarians might say yes, but agree that we need at least a minimal level of governmental control. How about we abolish governmental control in toto?

     Or, if we simply remove the corruption from both, which is primarily the result of man’s inherent propensity to dominate and control, what is left? Ideally, merely entities set up to serve a social and regulatory function, operate to serve its members’ needs and dictates, and to perform functions, en masse, that could not easily be done by its members ‘individually’. We’ll try for that again in 2008!

     There may be some within the ID community that seek to rule, dominate and revise science to its detriment, but these groups and individuals are few today. It’s been said that “Darwin doubters” reside in a “big tent”, but the ID community may well have pitched their own tent by now. Ron Numbers addressed the AAAS back on February 14, 2004, regarding this distinction. A brief reference:
     http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-02/uow-idt021204.php

     A reading of DI’s published articles today points to a scientific approach, despite what some may infer from the nearly ten year old wedge document. I see no evidence of a theocratic, religious or a science stomping attitude by today’s members.

     “Mr. Bowman also claims that analogies to crystal growth are specious and different from biological systems, yet all of his analogies are to manufactured machines, which do not reproduce themselves, as biological entities do. He conveniently neglects to mention the fact that all of his analogies are specious.”

     Analogies are basically flawed. No one thing corresponds to another. They are a short-cut approach to a reasoned comparison, and fail on many accounts. I often compare biologic designs to man-made designs, since although totally different, they have some overlapping areas. Many of both function similarly, and are subject to the same rules of physics. The major difference of course is how they originate. But we can put that aside, since the formation of both are the result of what is available to produce them, and don’t really make them non-analogous.

     A photo detector on a substrate operates similarly to rhodopsin and cone photoreceptors. In principle, overlaying filters (or pigmented tissue) allow color differentiation. The aperture device we make is nearly identical to the iris, not only in function but in construction and appearance as well. Dialysis machines function similarly to kidneys, although bigger and bulkier.

     I could give a hundred examples but you see my point. What we have in biologic systems is not just complex devices, but complex, synergistic systems on many levels of function. These systems are what I purport to be too complex to evolve by random mutations that have no plan, and could have no ‘look ahead’ function. Although an improvement in function may occasionally happen fortuitously, complex systems could not simply ‘evolve’. Same for exaptation. We could try to model a macro process with a room full of computers operating in parallel. It’s being done now at a rather elementary level, but even with vast improvements, I’ll bet money it will never succeed without intelligent input. If it could (and does) succeed, guaranteed Nobel prize.

     “Now let me pose one question to Mr. Bowman, how does intelligent design theory explain cancer? Please be very specific about the designers intentions in front loading this phenomenon into the package.”

     Cancer appears to be a break-down of normal cellular reproduction, and faults in immune systems to contravene that process. Often we can cause it, a good example being the surge in breast cancer due to hormone therapy, as well as environmental poisons. Remember the plethora heart problems from Celebrex? I hate to say this, but I predict an increase in myositis, due to the over-use of statin drugs.

     Now to answer the question of “front loading.” I don’t accept ‘front loading’, except possibly for some ‘built in’ evolutionary correction algorithms. I accept evolution on that level. A more perplexing quandary is the existence of detrimental micro organisms, and yes, the mosquito. Were they meant to give us challenges? Possible. Were they designed by antagonistic entities? Could be. Or did they simply evolve by accident? In a way, I wish that were so.

     You mentioned Bertrand Russell. I’ve read his treatise, “Why I am not a Christian”. Almost word for word with some of Dawkins’ recent writings, it shows problems with organized religion, but does nothing to discredit the existence of a deity somewhere, or to take away from the grandeur I see in nature. Yes, there is grandeur in this [my] view of life, and I’m sure Charlie would still agree. Too bad he’s not around to ask.

     Thanks for your comments. Give me a little time on that “mass into energy” question. 🙂
113. firemancarl says:

     January 15, 2008 at 7:50 am

     Lee Bowman, you said “As I’ve stated, I operate independently of organizations that some may deem political. I would agree that insidiousness and mendacity may be true of some, but none that I am aware of in the current ID community meet those qualifications. What would they stand to gain by lying, or a desire to corrupt science?”

     Does this include the hijacking and blatant copyright infringment that the DI and Dembski used it to spread the DI propaganda? Oh, ya this
     http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/12/discovery-institute-dembski-copyright.html

     That seems like a corruption of science to me and I am sure everyone else.

     By corrupting science to use as their own and leaving out important information, the folks at the DI and ID advocates can claim they are using science.
     Heck even this seems to fit the above statement you made.
     “A reading of DI’s published articles today points to a scientific approach, despite what some may infer from the nearly ten year old wedge document. I see no evidence of a theocratic, religious or a science stomping attitude by today’s members.”

     Yet, you say this despite the fact that in Kitzmiller v Dover SB, the witnesses for the DI stated that ID was a christian movement?
114. firemancarl says:

     January 15, 2008 at 8:35 am

     Let me add that by inserting the xtian dogma into schools, it insures that only branch of religion gets taught and gets the publicity. Face it, schools need to be from religion and religion needs to be freee from people who think.
115. Ravilyn Sanders says:

     January 15, 2008 at 9:06 am

     Well Mr Bowman says: “I would agree that insidiousness and mendacity may be true of some, but none that I am aware of in the current ID community meet those qualifications. What would they stand to gain by lying, or a desire to corrupt science?”

     Pray tell, who those insidious lying cheats in the ID movement. Name them. Out them. Throw out them hypocrites to restore credibility to ID. ooops! sorry the “big tent” demands they be not named. And Bowman will kowtow the line.

     Does your list of cheats in ID include Dembski? Behe? Wells? Simple yes or no would suffice to establish your credibility.

     For the record, Bowman is dodging my postings of Jan 14
     https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=352#comment-38317
     and Jan 13 https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=352#comment-38264
116. FMCH says:

     January 15, 2008 at 10:10 am

     Ravilyn,

     We must be the delusional ones. As you can see in my post ( 2 above yours ) I called him out on the DI using Harvards’ movie for their own gain. They deleted the Harvard soundtrack and overdubbed their own. If you haven’t seen it, take a look. Abbie Smith is the one who “outed” Dembski. Oh the hilarity!

     I don’t expect him to #1 answer and #2 if he does I am willing to bet that he will use the same line o’ crap that Dembski did when he got caught with his had in the cookie jar.

     No wonder they can claim science. They are stealing it from actual scientists!!
117. FMCH says:

     January 15, 2008 at 12:10 pm

     Well, it’s been roughly 4 hours since I took Lee Bowman to task for stating an outright lie. I don’t see him here defending his statement. What a shame. I would like to hear how a DI and ID supporter defends plagerism.
118. Ravilyn Sanders says:

     January 15, 2008 at 1:23 pm

     I read Pandasthumb regularly and I admire Dr Abbey Smith greatly. Caught her expose of Dembski’s plagiarism there and her own blog ERV.

     I think Bowman is not the garden variety rube. He seems to be in ID movement to get a free ride of publicity for whatever he is planning to sell in the coming months. Could be a DVD or a book or a computer game pushing some version of “the space aliens came and seeded the earth”. It is almost a full generation since Erich von Daniken and “The Chariots of the Gods”. The next generation of sheep are ready to be fleeced.

     But he is barking up the wrong tree here. As a market segment the Heavens Gate, Area-51 type rubes are more spend more money on such
     things than the literal bible believing creationists who put on the ID hat to play scientists.

     BTW, he does not post during the day. Probably in his day job. He posts very late at night or very early in the morning. His response time is measured in days, so four hours is a little too early to expect a reply.
119. FMCH says:

     January 15, 2008 at 3:47 pm

     BTW, he does not post during the day. Probably in his day job. He posts very late at night or very early in the morning. His response time is measured in days, so four hours is a little too early to expect a reply.

     Fraaaaaaaccccckkkkkkk! I had/have him in the crushing grip of reason!!!
120. Lee Bowman says:

     January 16, 2008 at 6:51 am

     firemaniacal wrote,

     “Does this include the hijacking and blatant copyright infringment that the DI and Dembski used it to spread the DI propaganda?”

     Not relevant to my statement regarding the underlying motives in promoting ID. I see the aims of the movement as legitimate and with the intent of promoting science. Whether or not this particular act was an infringement of copyright is immaterial to the group’s fundamental motivations.

     I’ve noted times when blog authors (including some of the ‘scienceblogs’ authors) have cited portions of copyrighted texts w/o reference. No big deal, unless it’s done deliberately for profit.

     “Yet, you say this despite the fact that in Kitzmiller v Dover SB, the witnesses for the DI stated that ID was a christian movement?”

     Could you be more specific? Please provide a citation and I’ll respond to it.
121. FMCH says:

     January 16, 2008 at 6:56 am

     I’ll be happy to cite the sourse Lee. However, in your previous statement you said “……What would they stand to gain by lying, or a desire to corrupt science?”

     So, you tell me. That’s blatant lying. You cannot steal something tell someone it’s yours and then not expect to get called out on it.

     Re: Dembski using Harvards’ video as his own.
122. Lee Bowman says:

     January 16, 2008 at 7:09 am

     “I think Bowman is not the garden variety rube. He seems to be in ID movement to get a free ride of publicity for whatever he is planning to sell in the coming months.”

     I don’t think that either of us are ‘rubes’, just have different perspectives. I’m not planning on selling anything at this time, since I’m still in the ‘research mode’, and please, don’t ask me to elaborate on the nature of my research.

     Regarding future plans, you may at some time see something evolve from my efforts, and maybe not. Also, FYO, my blogging has two main purposes:

     1), An exercise in discourse. When a valid point is brought up (rare event), I research the point and sometimes gain knowledge in an area not pursued previously.

     2) Where there is traffic (not this thread, by the way – it’s dying), I post to try to persuade the ‘lurkers’ of my views, more than the commenters. The side(s) that make the most logical arguments win the day.
123. firemancarl says:

     January 16, 2008 at 10:14 am

     Lee, are you going to be checking on this thread long enough so that i can show you what proof you asked for?
124. firemancarl says:

     January 16, 2008 at 10:27 am

     http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id_12.html
     NARRATOR: Jones recommended to the U.S. Attorney that he investigate bringing perjury charges against Buckingham and Bonsell for lying under oath. And “the overwhelming evidence at trial,” he said, “established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”

     NICK MATZKE: So the correct term for this transitional form is “Cdesign proponentsists.” And everyone now refers to this as the “missing link” between creationism and intelligent design. You’ve got the direct physical evidence there of a transitional fossil.

     Lets not forget Lee that Behe stated that the definition of science for the purpose of ID is so vague that astrology fit the definition of science.

     ERIC ROTHSCHILD (Dramatization): But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory?

     MICHAEL BEHE (Dramatization): Yes, that’s correct.

     The prosecution rests, your witness.

     And please, since ID was tossed out on its’ proverbial ear, please don’t bring the ID is science crapola in here.
125. Ravilyn Sanders says:

     January 16, 2008 at 10:41 am

     Lee Bowman says:
     “Where there is traffic (not this thread, by the way – it’s dying), I post to try to persuade the ‘lurkers’ of my views, more than the commenters. The side(s) that make the most logical arguments win the day.”

     When this thread did have some traffic, you had high number of posts, and as the traffic goes down, you post some reasonable sounding inanities to catch the eye of the lurkers and late comers who check the bottom of the board.
     The serious challenges to Bowman would scroll past the top of the screen.
     Lurkers, see how clever Bowman is. He ain’t no rube.

     And the technique is also a well known Creationism hawkers modus operandi. That is why I repeat old questions that you are dodging. As you said, the side that makes the most logical arguments will carry the day.

     So lurkers, take a look at what Bowman has ignored:

     a. Ignored the charge his theory is a spandex tent. If the fish in that African lake grow wings or legs or limbs as yet unimagined by us appear, one could still argue it is just a pre-packaged design appearing like a cuckoo in the swiss clock. How far back is the drawing board anyway?

     b. People in ID camp who concede the designer could be someone other than the Christian God are a microscopic minority. Not most of IDers as claimed by Lee Bowman.

     c. Finding holes in theory A does not prove theory B. May be some theory C is correct. No matter how many holes he imagines in MET, even if they
     are real, does not prove ID.

     d. He still has not produced one single scientific observation that is explained BETTER by design perspective than evolution perspective.

     e. He suggests that most of the “field work” is a despo search for transitional forms. But in reality most of the work is the usual cataloging, specimen collection, DNA/genetic work, behavioral research etc. As for transitional forms, there is no need to even look at the fossils. I listed three species (fish, salamander, gull) all living, breathing, feeding and yes f***ing transitional forms. (in my best Hollywood starlet accent: I used profanity only because it was in good taste and was integral to the story)

     There you have it lurkers, you decide who had carried the day.

     Science supporters, always watch dead threads where you have posted.
     Stick to simple questions that will have an impact on the rubes taken
     for a ride by the merchants of snake oil. Ask again and again the questions they are dodging. You ask 5 questions, they will pick the one easiest to spin and take the thread in that direction. You stick to the 4 they dodge.
     Mention it again and again.
126. firemancarl says:

     January 16, 2008 at 11:01 am

     Ravilyn,

     I know what you mean. he dodges the questions and then says “Huh? Oh yea, those.”

     cdsign propentists indeed!
127. Lee Bowman says:

     January 16, 2008 at 1:21 pm

     firemancarl asked,

     “Lee, are you going to be checking on this thread long enough so that i can show you what proof you asked for?”

     Absolutely.
128. firemancarl says:

     January 16, 2008 at 3:32 pm

     Lee, I guess you have have been pretty busy, but I notice that you haven’t replied to my post that I made at 6:56 AM and @ 11:01 AM
129. Lee Bowman says:

     January 16, 2008 at 5:28 pm

     Are you FMCH?

     What’s to answer? I don’t consider it lying.

     The post at 11:01 AM didn’t pose a question.

     Have you checked the trial transcript yet regarding the witness for DI?
130. Don Smith says:

     January 16, 2008 at 7:01 pm

     Lee,

     Here is a chance to show us what DI can do. Which one of these is random and which is designed? Don’t forget to show your work.

     1) TAT TGG AAA ACT TGT GGC TCG GCT CGC GCC AAA GTC CCT TAA GAC AAT TGA AAC AGA AGA

     2) ATG CGC CGC TTA CCG AAA ACT CTG AGC GAA TCA TTG AAT TCG GTT ATT TCC AGC AGG GAG

     Don
131. Lee Bowman says:

     January 16, 2008 at 7:42 pm

     It looks like a nucleotide sequence, which could be the result of random transcriptions. But the point is, while the code structure itself appears designed, the actual coding could be random.

     The above sentences are plainly designed, since after decoding via the English language rules, convey a message. Jumbled, they become random.

     Merely looking at a sequence doesn’t tell one how it was generated, or what it codes for. Looking at something it represents (yeast, hg, or even just a single protein), or analyzing it based on known functional sequences will tell if it is ordered. Designed by an intelligence or a ‘process’ is a further question.

     Let’s email Collins and see what he says.
132. FMCH says:

     January 16, 2008 at 8:23 pm

     Yes, I use both, and sometimes when I time I just hit “f” and then enter….

     My bad Lee. i was refering to my posting @750 AM on Jan 15……

     Lee Bowman, you said “As I’ve stated, I operate independently of organizations that some may deem political. I would agree that insidiousness and mendacity may be true of some, but none that I am aware of in the current ID community meet those qualifications. What would they stand to gain by lying, or a desire to corrupt science?”

     Does this include the hijacking and blatant copyright infringment that the DI and Dembski used it to spread the DI propaganda? Oh, ya this
     http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/12/discovery-institute-dembski-copyright.html

     That seems like a corruption of science to me and I am sure everyone else.

     The very use of that video by Dembski is the HEIGHT of lying.
133. FMCH says:

     January 16, 2008 at 8:42 pm

     again from
     http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id_03.html
     BILL BUCKINGHAM: Intelligent design, in my way of thinking, states that life is too complex to happened at random, that there had to be a designer, something to shape how things went, so to speak. In the Book of Genesis, the designer would be God.

     BILL BUCKINGHAM: I fail to understand how teachers can call themselves Christians, go to church, talk about God, talk about Christ, and then go to ch…school five days a week and talk about Darwin, and teach it as if it’s fact, not a theory, but that’s how it happened. I don’t understand it. To me that’s talking out of both sides of your mouth.

     Add to that, the members of the Dover SB who supported ID made no bones about ID being xtian in origin.

     http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/12/dembski-copyright-and-design-of-life.html
     I would also like to know why/how you think that plagiarizing Harvard ‘s video “Inner Life of a Cell” to Behes ” The Cell as an Automated City”

     Things would go much easier if you’d just admit you’re an ID and xtian apologist.

     You have seen the evidence put before and you still say that “It’s not stealing” You my man are the guy I want if I ever rob a bank to be a star witness for me to say “Hey, it’s not stealing! It’s just borrowing”
134. Don Smith says:

     January 16, 2008 at 8:44 pm

     As an engineer, I know design when I see it.

     Also

     Merely looking at a sequence doesn’t tell one how it was generated, or what it codes for.

     Come on Lee, which is it? Can you or can you not detect design? One of those sequences is designed, the other is random. Which is which? Please apply ID “theory” to come up with your answer.

     Don
135. Don Smith says:

     January 16, 2008 at 8:52 pm

     Sorry, I tried to quote those two statement made by Mr. Bowman, but there is no preview button.

     does

     blockquote

     work here?
136. FMCH says:

     January 16, 2008 at 10:21 pm

     I would also like to know why/how you think that plagiarizing Harvard ’s video “Inner Life of a Cell” to Behes ” The Cell as an Automated City”

     I meant to add this…. is not lying or corrupting science? It’s blatant.
137. Lee Bowman says:

     January 16, 2008 at 10:43 pm

     I had stated and you quoted me,

     “A reading of DI’s published articles today points to a scientific approach, despite what some may infer from the nearly ten year old wedge document. I see no evidence of a theocratic, religious or a science stomping attitude by today’s members.”

     You then stated,

     “Yet, you say this despite the fact that in Kitzmiller v Dover SB, the witnesses for the DI stated that ID was a christian movement?”

     When I asked for a citation you quoted school board member Bill Buckingham merely stating his philosophical views. You also wrote,

     ”Add to that, the members of the Dover SB who supported ID made no bones about ID being xtian in origin.”

     1) Buckingham did/ does not represent the Discovery Institute.

     2) Neither in your quotation, nor anywhere else, did Buckingham state that DI was a “Christian movement.” In fact, he never addressed their goals or purpose.

     3) Nor did any other board members represent DI. Therefore, none of them were “witnesses for the DI”, as you stated.

     A related issue that’s been brought up a lot: “But was the DI complacent in pushing the school board’s agenda from behind the scenes?” Hear me; they were NOT.

     DI’s 11/10/05 (partial) statement:

     ”Discovery Institute repeatedly advised the Dover School Board and Thomas More that the board’s intelligent design policy enacted in the fall of 2004 was problematic and should be replaced. The Dover Board and Thomas More chose to reject Discovery Institute’s advice. “

     Here’s the complete statement: http://tinyurl.com/aog4j
138. Lee Bowman says:

     January 16, 2008 at 10:59 pm

     Correction, I meant,

     “But was the DI complicit in pushing the school board’s agenda from behind the scenes?” Hear me; they were NOT.”

     At least that’s what they’re shouting from the roof tops! Give ’em a break, will ya? An after reading the link to the 11/10/05 statement, you man want to revise your opinion of them.

     The Wedge document aside, today, they state they are a “secular think tank”, with the goal of removing the shackles binding scientific inquiry. And you guys disagree with that?! I guess that along with ‘shackles’ they have ‘blinders’ in place as well.

     These are my final thoughts for this thread.
139. Don Smith says:

     January 17, 2008 at 12:07 am

     These are my final thoughts for this thread.

     Typical. Can’t answer a challenge so he just runs away. Just like all the other cdesign proponentists. Mister “I know design when I see it” can’t even see the design that I bet a few cleaver people here could figure out. I use to do these all the time when I was a kid. Here’s a clue: UAG is a stop code.

     Don
140. Just 2 cents says:

     January 17, 2008 at 4:36 am

     Lee Bowman Says:
     January 16th, 2008 at 10:43 pm

     “A reading of DI’s published articles today points to a scientific approach, despite what some may infer from the nearly ten year old wedge document. I see no evidence of a theocratic, religious or a science stomping attitude by today’s members.”

     Dumbski is calling for advice from his herd as to what ID might possibly predict. 🙂

     http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/ids-predictive-prowess/

     ID’s “predictive prowess”

     William Dembski
     “A producer from one of the national talking heads programs is discussing with FTE’s PR firm whether to interview me or Jonathan Wells regarding our new book THE DESIGN OF LIFE. The producer has some reservations about interviewing us:”

     Hi [snip],
     As I’m sure you know, one of the main claims any scientific theory can make is predictive prowess. In other words, if a theory is true, then other things should also be verifiable experimentally, or by research. Before we make a call on your clients, can you or they provide any samples of things that intelligent design theory has predicted, which researchers have later determined to be true?
     Thanks.
     [snip]

     “I have my own list of answers, but I’d like to hear those of this group.” [William Dembski]

     The answers are most amusing….all over the place grasping at straws!
     🙂

     Another thing, wouldn’t/couldn’t the instances of “base wobble” resulting in the degeneracy of the Genetic Code be considered as beneficial mutations?
141. Just 2 cents says:

     January 17, 2008 at 4:45 am

     For interest
     “Molecular Evolution: Mice Given Bat-like Forelimbs Through Gene Switch”

     http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114173923.htm
142. FMCH says:

     January 17, 2008 at 7:10 am

     Huh? I guess the book of genesis is just a chapter in the dictionary then huh?
143. FMCH says:

     January 17, 2008 at 7:27 am

     Lee, I have also noted that you have side stepped the problem with Dembski stealing Harvards movie.
144. Krubozumo Nyankoye says:

     January 17, 2008 at 4:18 pm

     http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ZNho1mufs7kJ:www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/Book_Flier_May2004.pdf+creationism%27s+trojan+horse&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

     Re: the wedge document

     LB
     “These systems are what I purport to be too complex to evolve by random mutations that have no plan, and could have no ‘look ahead’ function. Although an improvement in function may occasionally happen fortuitously, complex systems could not simply ‘evolve’.”

     Argument from ignorance, bald assertion.

     http://www.amazon.com/Climbing-Mount-Improbable-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0393316823

     Google genetic algorithms, 1,600,000 results
     These are computer programs founded on the concept random mutation > natural selection.

     LB
     ” What would they stand to gain by lying, or a desire to corrupt science?”

     Traction for a scientifically vacuous religious concept in public schools?

     LB
     “The Wedge document aside, today, they state they are a “secular think tank”, with the goal of removing the shackles binding scientific inquiry. And you guys disagree with that?! I guess that along with ’shackles’ they have ‘blinders’ in place as well.”

     Really? What shackles? Peer review? Rigor? Objectivity? What happened to research into intelligent design? Oh, wait, there isn’t any.

     Google > scholar > advanced search > search only in Biology…
     “intelligent design” > 375
     “natural selection” > 143,000

     Bear in mind google only goes back about 10 years. If that and is not exhaustive.

     So was cancer designed?

     Mosquitos are just vectors.
     Malaria? Dengue fever? Chagas?
     What about Leprosy? Polio? Meningitis?

     How has intelligent design theory illuminated or ameliorated any of these diseases?
     Other that to suggest they were bestowed on us as “challenges”. Yes, to the 1,000,000 children per year world wide who die of malaria I’m sure its quite a challenge.

     The unifying theory of chemistry is quantum mechanics.
     The unifying theories of physics are relativity and quantum chromodynamics.
     The unifying theory of geology is plate tectonics.

     Are there alternatives to these theories? Are any of them taught in high schools? Are they even mentioned?

     For a cautionary tale go to Wikipedia and look up Trofim Lysenko.

     Florida citizens have a clear choice, science education standards based on science or a political agenda. I hope they choose wisely.

     Regards,

145. Pingback: th@talldude

146. Pete says:

     January 18, 2008 at 1:38 pm

     If anyone needs to document a clear and compelling example of cognitive dissonance please see any of Lee’s comments on this page.

147. Pingback: Tech News » Blog Archive » Anti-Evolution Gains Momentum in Florida

148. truthseeker says:

     January 22, 2008 at 10:54 am

     [Post deleted by site admin. Post removed because it was nothing more than blatant advertising. All future posts will treated in a similar manner.]
149. Karen R says:

     January 22, 2008 at 11:03 am

     Hmmm, you’re stepping on that advertising line, truthseeker.
150. S.Scott says:

     January 22, 2008 at 11:36 am

     You got that one right! Where’s “Admin”?
151. Karen R says:

     January 22, 2008 at 12:19 pm

     Volusia residents, would anyone be interested in joining me sometime soon to discuss the Florida standards with Dr. Williams? He is the lone ‘holdout’ on our school board – and this is not to say that he’s siding with the kooks. His only statement has been that he does not know enough to form an opinion. I’d like to provide him with that information – I’m planning on inviting him to dinner somewhere in Daytona.

     I’d be happy to foot the bill if anyone would like to join us. My biology is fuzzy (not so fuzzy I’ll mess it up, but there are any number of questions he might have that I’d be completely unqualified to answer) and I would love to have some knowledgeable soul beside me. Someone who can explain to him that evolution is the tool God must have used to develop life on Earth without a strained face might be nice too.

     Anyway, I’m thinking sometime next week? It’ll be up to his schedule, but I wanted to see if anyone else was interested in ‘educating’ a Volusia school board member.
152. Jonathan Smith says:

     January 22, 2008 at 4:11 pm

     Truthseeker AKA C David Parsons
     I will repeat my previous post:

     You are nothing but a disingenuous peddler of perverse pseudoscience, your sole objective is to shill your mindless crap to any poor misinformed
     sucker you can make a buck from.
     You are the laughingstock of the science community,go away and prostitute your wares on some right wing fundie site that will nod their
     tiny minds in agreement with you,afterall,other than the money that’s your real agenda is it not?

     Admin has blocked this clown before:
153. Jerry T says:

     January 23, 2008 at 3:42 pm

     I get a headache reading the unrelenting ‘inanity’ spewing forth from Lee Bowman et. al.

     So, here it is: “publish or perish”.

     ID has had the opportunity to publish peer reviewed scientific articles since Paley’s laughable watch analogy in 1802. So, go ahead, take another year or two and then submit all your papers.

     And please, please don’t give me any whiny “they’re out to stop us from publishing” conspiracy B.S. After all, we KNOW who the ‘designer’ is and we KNOW the real purpose of your fabricated ‘controversy’. We know how and when ID was dusted off and re-introduced to the “we’ll believe anything you tell us” masses. And we also KNOW why you MUST present ID as legitimate science.

     But here’s a news flash for all you mindless sheep: regardless of what you think or hope to achieve, history shows us that scientific progress, like evolution, is an unstoppable juggernaut even your ‘designer’ can’t hold back.

     Meanwhile, I am also taking a lesson from history and don’t intend to be another passive ‘meek and tolerant intellectual’. I intend to loudly and vigorously ridicule each and every one of you close-minded intellectual midgets – every opportunity I get. It’s time for you to put up or shut up. I for one am tired of your ceaseless stupidity.
154. firemancarl says:

     January 24, 2008 at 1:44 pm

     Karen R,

     Sure, but how do we get in to see him? I don’t think that anything we say will change his mind. The fact that he’s the only knuckledragger speaks well for the VC BoE.
155. Karen R says:

     January 24, 2008 at 3:59 pm

     I left a message on his home phone (I checked with the district, that is the appropriate way to contact him) and will bother him to no end if he fails to respond. He’s the representative for the high school I attended, and woe unto the elected official who refuses to meet with his constituents.

     I’m actually hopeful, his ‘no opinion’ comment sounds like he was just hoping not to piss off any religious voters. I’m hoping that with the proper information, we can get him to pen a statement supporting the standards generally and evolution specifically. The standards in question are only objectionable to real kooks – and even if it turns out he is one, I want to know.

     I’ve also got a call in to the superintendent, in the hopes that we can end up with a board with unanimous support in something other than lunacy.
156. firemancarl says:

     January 24, 2008 at 8:09 pm

     I am a grad of NSB, where did you graduate? NSB HS Class of 1990 baby! Nothing rthymes with 90! 89 is “so fine”. “Heaven can’t wait for the class of ’88” But 90? WTF?!!!
157. firemancarl says:

     January 24, 2008 at 8:11 pm

     Karen, I would love to see the VC BoE come out and condemn the other BoEs for their stance on non science. I think the Super did that when she was quoted as saying that she hoped we didn’t do anything to emabarrass ourselves.
158. Karen R says:

     January 24, 2008 at 8:33 pm

     I somehow missed the superintendent – had thought it was the chairman that made the great embarrassment quote.

     I went to Mainland for high school, but NSB for middle. I’m embarrassingly young – class of 2002. I was a decent student, but lacked some essential component required for school spirit or solidarity. My kid brother plays soccer at NSB now, so I’ve finally attended a Mainland game – rooting for the ‘other guys’ =)
159. firemancarl says:

     January 25, 2008 at 2:59 pm

     OK, well, I wont hold being a Buc against you…yet. I went to NSB JHS back when it was a JHS. I was the first group of 9th graders in the county to go the middle school/high school route.

     I actually got an email back from the VC BoE. She was the only one who responded to me email

     Here’s the email I wrote to VC BoE
     Honorable VCSB members,

     As the parent of three school aged children in Volusia County I am curious to know your position in regard to the proposed changes for science standards in Florida. In particular I would like to know if you support the use of evolution or do you support some other form of explanation for life. I want to let you know that I fully accept science and believe that evolution should be taught as our children lack enough science and math education to compete in the 21st century. I hope that you would fully support science and you would all agree that evolution should be taught and ideas like Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationism be relegated to churches or philosophy and religious studies classes.

     Here’s the only reply I got…

     couldn’t agree more. Judy Conte

     I hope she carries a lot of weight with her peers.
160. Larry Fafarman says:

     February 1, 2008 at 10:24 am

     To Florida Citizens for Science:

     For each county, you keep repeating, “the school board passed a formal resolution against the inclusion of evolution in the state science standards,” but that simply isn’t true. In all cases where I have seen a board’s actual resolution or read a media report about a resolution, the board did not say that it doesn’t want evolution taught at all.
161. Karen R says:

     February 1, 2008 at 10:42 am

     Larry – and, oddly enough, most of them refer to evolution as a theory addressing the ‘formation of the universe’ or ‘the origins of life.’ In case you suffered through Florida science classes and were unaware, evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe, or the origins of life.

     The resolution supporters are obviously ignorant of science, and still think they are better qualified to decide on science standards than the scientists Florida assembled to write them. The statements from board members all over the state (including the Florida School Board Association chairman) make it clear that this initiative is religiously motivated, and some have even come right out and said that they don’t “believe” in evolution.

     The wording on this site is nowhere near as inaccurate as the information these superintendents and board members are trying to force-feed the public.
162. S.Scott says:

     February 4, 2008 at 8:13 am

     Hey ABC/LARRY – The resolutions state that they don’t want evolution taught to the exclusion of other theories … what other theories do you think they are talking about?
163. S.Scott says:

     February 4, 2008 at 9:36 am

     ABC/XYZ/Larry – Before you say “Uh uh” –

     NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of Highlands County, Highlands County, Florida, that the State Board of Education is urged strongly to direct the Florida Department of Education to revise the new Sunshine State Standards for Science such that the “Big Bang” theory and evolution shall be presented only as two of several theories in the study of science.

     APPROVED by the School Board of Highlands County on the ___ day of February, 2008.
     THE SCHOOL BOARD OF
     HIGHLANDS COUNTY, FLORIDA

     By:_________________________________
     J. Ned Hancock, Chairperson

     ATTEST:

     By:________________________________
     Wallace P. AWally@ Cox,
     Superintendent and Ex Officio Secretary

     OH yeah, and Madison County, and several other counties as well.
164. S.Scott says:

     February 4, 2008 at 9:47 am

     I can’t help myself Larry – I just love that they think that biology teachers are going t be instructed to teach that evolution is how the universe was formed. …

     Madison County –

     Whereas, the new Sunshine State Standards for Science no longer present evolution as theory but as “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported in multiple forms of scientific evidence,” we are requesting that the State Board of Education direct the Florida Department of Education to revise/edit the new Sunshine State Standards for Science so that evolution is presented as one of several theories as to how the universe was formed.
165. S.Scott says:

     February 4, 2008 at 9:52 am

     Larry, although I think some of your ideas are a little warped – I think that even you are MUCH more intelligent than most of these school board members. (Please don’t make me regret saying that!)
166. S.Scott says:

     February 4, 2008 at 1:41 pm

     Larry, I know you are a proponent of “ID” – I also know you THINK that Judge Jones “overstepped” in his ruling. I disagree with you on both of these points.

     (Not that there is no GOD, but that “ID” tries to present itself as science)

     However, I do find you to honestly believe what you say.
     (This is refreshing, even though we disagree)

     These school boards have said that they don’t want to teach “ID” or “Creationism” (they seem to have gotten the memo that those topics would violate the “Establishment Clause”).

     So when their resolutions state that

     “the new Sunshine State Standards for Science so that evolution is presented as one of several theories as to how the universe was formed. ”

     What are they talking about????? What other theories????

     Do you see how dishonest this is??
167. Karen R says:

     February 4, 2008 at 8:49 pm

     Sure, ask him a pointed, reasonable question – and he’s nowhere to be found.

     The way I’ve been explaining it when speaking with non-science folks is, “They may as well have passed a resolution requesting that gravity be presented as one of several theories concerning the mating rituals of squirrels.”
168. klover_dso says:

     February 5, 2008 at 10:11 am

     I am somewhat of a leader of a local Church/Study Group, that believes in creationism, here in Melbourne Florida where evolution is the only accepted theory taught in classrooms…We meet every Friday at the new skateshop in Melbourne called DiSk8 and we study intellegent design via the Church of FSM…I definately agree that theories backed by scientific evidence should not be taught in schools (unless of course our theories are given equal time)…We have our own theories about Global Warming and Gravity that are non-refutable based on our faith and belief systems…We believe that the whole universe was created 5000 years ago by the FSM and all scientific evidence pointing to a “3-5 billion” year old earth was planted by the FSM in order to confuse us and give us something to do (similar to why Jesus spoke in Parables)…The similar theories supported by Christianity and the timeline of the Bible shows that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, but they do not have any reasoning behind why scientific evidence shows a much older Earth…If you would like to learn more meet us at DiSk8 off Wickham Rd. (near Staples and Tijuana Flats) every Friday between 5-7 PM…We hope that all who attend can wear some sort of Pirate regalia (eye-patch, skull and cross bone t-shirt etc…)

     RAmen
169. Alan Conwell says:

     February 6, 2008 at 9:38 pm

     OK all, here’s my letter to the members of the FL SBOE. Comments?

     Dear Member of the Florida State School Board of Education,

     I strongly support the proposed standards for Florida high school education, particularly in its treatment of evolution in biology science class. For far too long, the minority view that evolution is somehow a God-stopper, and therefore must be denied, has held sway in many states, including our own. The anti-evolution resolutions that are being passed by various school districts in our state and sent to your Board of Education generally hold that teaching the unifying idea of biology is somehow “dogmatic”, and that alternative ideas of equal traction in the biology community are being unfairly suppressed. In the following discussion, I use the impersonal plural pronoun to indicate the folks that oppose the teaching of evolution as what it truly is; the fundamental concept at the center of biology, as described in the proposed standards.

     This is a specious argument on several fronts. First, it leaves vague the “alternative theories” they wish given equal time. This deliberately obfuscates the only alternative theory proposed in decades that I’m sure is in their minds, namely Intelligent Design (ID) (unless, of course, they are specifically thinking of teaching the literal reading of Genesis as a viable scientific alternative; they know that won’t go anywhere against the many Supreme Court and appellate court decisions stopping that).

     Are they aware that even the most vociferous proponents of ID admit that ID is not ready for presentation in a high school class? Do they think that the first place a new, revolutionary scientific theory should be presented as a viable alternative to evolution is in a high school biology class? I think this is the LAST place any new idea should be formally taught, as codified in the state standards (surely and hopefully, class discussion would cover any late-breaking “new” ideas that are causing a buzz in the scientific community). Still, this approach of teaching a vague and underdeveloped theory as an alternative circumvents the normal scientific process of presenting any new ideas to the scientific community and the opportunity to argue its acceptance there first? This model has served very well for over four hundred years, so shouldn’t be casually discarded based on the belief that it supports ingrained religious ideas. Do they actually present evidence that supports the new idea and shows the old idea false, or at least, wanting? Did they know that mainstream science, as the result of informally reviewing the ideas behind ID (since they don’t or haven’t tried to confront the scientists in any normal fashion), dismisses ID as vacuous?

     Of course, any explicit mention of ID would immediately bring into the discussion the pasting that ID took in the Dover, PA school board vs. Kitzmiller decision of December 2005. As mentioned earlier, trying to teach literal biblical inerrancy as scientific fact is also doomed to legal action under previous court decisions. Therefore, the fallback position is to attack evolution as being taught “dogmatically”, with allusions to unspecified “alternative theories”. The dogmatism and dishonesty of the opponents of teaching evolution depresses me, and the irony of their accusations is staggering, since they are the ones guilty of presenting new ideas dogmatically, that is, without adequate review and consensus within the scientific community.

     The concepts of “teach the controversy”, or “teach evolution but emphasize its gaps and weaknesses”, or the singling out of the theory of evolution to be the only subject “subjected to critical analysis” are all discredited attempts to undermine a legitimate subject in science, one that is supported by 150 years of steady confirmation by the evidence, and is currently undergoing an explosion of insights and confirmation, especially from genome sequencing research of the past few years. For any theory as successful as the theory of evolution to be supplanted by a new idea, past experience shows that the new theory must “reduce”, in some way, to the old theory under the right conditions. One can easily suspect that this is not the goal or expectation of those who would oppose teaching the proposed standards regarding the theory of evolution.

     If Florida wishes to fulfill its stated aim of being at the forefront of future technology, which will likely include substantial expansion in biotechnology, we can not permit a narrow, religiously inspired “head buried in the sand” attack on real science to stand unchallenged. Please include me among the people of Florida who steadfastly support the teaching of actual science in high school science classrooms.

     With respect, I thank you for your time in reading this letter.

     Alan Conwell
170. S.Scott says:

     February 6, 2008 at 10:34 pm

     Very nicely done! 🙂
171. Alan Conwell says:

     February 6, 2008 at 11:51 pm

     S. Scott (and everyone else with 2c!!),

     Thanks for the accolade. Do you have any thoughts on changes I can/should make? Am I too strident in my attack on ID? Going too far overboard in assuming ID is the “alternative theory” that can’t be mentioned? I’d appreciate substantive feedback on this before I send it. I don’t want to come across as too strange, yet forceful enough that a reasonable person would be loath to disagree with me (OK, that’s what every person asserting a point wants; am I wrong?). Thanks for a prompt response (I need to send this well before the decision on the 19th). Thanks in advance.
172. S.Scott says:

     February 7, 2008 at 1:11 am

     Actually, it was pleasurable for me to read. I could actually understand the “flow” – if that makes any sense.

     Sometimes, if I read thoughts from a scientist, I’ll have to read them 3 maybe 4 times before I understand what is going on.

     I don’t think that the BoE would go to that trouble.

     One “nit pick” – Look at this sentence …

     ” Still, this approach of teaching a vague and underdeveloped theory as an alternative (comma?) circumvents the normal scientific process of presenting any new ideas to the scientific community and the opportunity to argue its acceptance there first? (Question mark?) ” –

     (I’m not an English teacher either – so what do I know?)

     So, in short,

     Very nicely done! 🙂
173. Alan Conwell says:

     February 7, 2008 at 6:32 pm

     S.SCott,

     You are correct on both suggestions. I guess I word-smithed too much when sticking those two phrases together from earlier drafts, without actually reading it as if the first time seen. It flows much better using your suggestions. Thanks.
174. Dr. Stephen Thomas says:

     February 11, 2008 at 6:42 pm

     I have a great idea for the Florida School Board. Teach evolution as it has always been taught, since a strong majority supports this theory. Majority votes seem to be important in this science. But add a purely objective scientific chapter in each paleo-biology book about why evolution may not be the way species appeared on earth. Don’t present any alternate theories, for which there are none at this time that can be scientifically corroborated. Presenting the reasons that Darwinian evolution may not have actually been the way species originated would be very scientific, and surely any backer of pure objective science would want evolution to be constantly tested, as good science dictates. The anti-evolution chapter should be written using good objective science only, of course, with absolutely no religious overtones of any kind. This tack would most likely satisfy the non-scientific creationists and ID’ers, eliminate a lot of legal and court costs, and keep evolution science on its toes as far as discovering new and accurate scientific evidence that backs (or does not back) evolution.

175. Pingback: Welcome to the dark ages - Sportbikes.net

176. PC-Bash says:

     February 18, 2008 at 12:58 am

     Presenting the reasons that Darwinian evolution may not have actually been the way species originated would be very scientific, and surely any backer of pure objective science would want evolution to be constantly tested, as good science dictates.

     So, we should include a contradictory chapter in the text books… just to appease the religious crowd?

     The problem is that there are no “reasons” that have been discovered yet. “Irreducible complexity” is a joke, and gaps in the fossil record are not enough “evidence” to cast doubt on evolution.
177. PC-Bash says:

     February 18, 2008 at 12:59 am

     Although, having a chapter in the books to refute common creationist rhetoric, such as “irreducible complexity”, might be useful to teach students the difference between real science and junk science.
178. Santiago Molina says:

     February 19, 2008 at 9:41 am

     I am a Biology teacher and an ordained Deacon in the Catholic church. I object to the standards (or perhaps to the few new standards) that treat evolution as a dogmatic fact. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against the teaching of evolution, I am not even in favor of teacher so called “other theories” in a science classroom. But, I do not think that making the broad statement “evolution is the concept underlying all of biology” is scientific. Evolution is NOT a fact, it is at best a theory (more a hypothesis in my opinion)… a good one YES. And it is scientific! Thus, it should be taught. But I think we set ourselves up when we make a broad sweeping statement that we might regret later as science unfolds new perspectives on the origin of life and its diversity.
179. Albert says:

     February 19, 2008 at 10:40 am

     Pc bash there you go again – appease the religious crowd – evolution is a religion (macro) you’re asking people to accept it because smart people say so – give me a break – science has methods – it’s called a theory not a law – just because you don’t or won’t see the other side makes it no less viable – please stop being a discriminating bigot – isn’t that what you call and believe creationists are??? Teach both or teach neither – only fair
180. Albert says:

     February 19, 2008 at 10:44 am

     Dr. Stephen Thomas RIGHT ON DOC! – that is the best way to be scientifically accurate and be balanced and as unbiased as can be and still follow the law!
181. PC-Bash says:

     February 19, 2008 at 11:21 am

     Santiago Molina –

     Evolution is NOT a fact, it is at best a theory

     You should consider reading the definition of scientific theory. It is different than you think, and as close to “fact” as science can get.
182. PC-Bash says:

     February 19, 2008 at 11:25 am

     Albert –

     evolution is a religion

     and

     it’s called a theory not a law

     Well, that would make it easier for you to attack if so, because then it would be as faulty as any other religion. Unfortunately, you fail to comprehend how scientific method works.

     You also really don’t understand what a scientific theory or a scientific law is, nor why certain things become laws and others theories. Try reading a bit on science, you might learn a thing or two. Science education is what these new standards are about. If you were held to these standards, then you would understand why your arguments are so inane.

     Teach both or teach neither – only fair

     So, should we teach all creation myths? The Tibetan myth, the Hindu myth, the Egyptian myth, the native American myths? That is not what science is about. Science teaches that which has been verified through scientific method. Creationism cannot be verified, there is absolutely no evidence to support it.
183. Richard Voss says:

     February 20, 2008 at 3:29 pm

     Evolution was proposed by Darwin 150 years ago. It is testable, verifiable by observation and falsifiable, qualifying it as a scientific theory. Evolution, and allied studies such as genetics, microbiology and paleantology, belong in a science program.

     Creationism and ID are none of the above. They are beliefs, but not theories or even hypothesies. They belong in philosophy or religion courses.
184. Joe says:

     February 27, 2008 at 12:52 pm

     An interesting comment by one of the most astute men of our time:

     I’ve always liked the exchange featuring the excited young Darwinian at the end of the 19th century. He said grandly to the elderly scholar, “How is it possible to believe in God?” The imperishable answer was, “I find it easier to believe in God than to believe that Hamlet was deduced from the molecular structure of a mutton chop.”
     That rhetorical bullet has everything — wit and profundity. It has more than once reminded me that skepticism about life and nature is most often expressed by those who take it for granted that belief is an indulgence of the superstitious — indeed their opiate, to quote a historical cosmologist most profoundly dead. Granted, that to look up at the stars comes close to compelling disbelief — how can such a chance arrangement be other than an elaboration — near infinite — of natural impulses? Yes, on the other hand, who is to say that the arrangement of the stars is more easily traceable to nature, than to nature’s molder? What is the greater miracle: the raising of the dead man in Lazarus, or the mere existence of the man who died and of the witnesses who swore to his revival?
     The skeptics get away with fixing the odds against the believer, mostly by pointing to phenomena which are only explainable — you see? — by the belief that there was a cause for them, always deducible. But how can one deduce the cause of Hamlet? Or of St. Matthew’s Passion? What is the cause of inspiration?
     This I believe: that it is intellectually easier to credit a divine intelligence than to submit dumbly to felicitous congeries about nature. As a child, I was struck by the short story. It told of a man at a bar who boasted of his rootlessness, derisively dismissing the jingoistic patrons to his left and to his right. But later in the evening, one man speaks an animadversion on a little principality in the Balkans and is met with the clenched fist of the man without a country, who would not endure this insult to the place where he was born.
     So I believe that it is as likely that there should be a man without a country, as a world without a creator.

     -Bill Buckley-
185. Joe says:

     February 27, 2008 at 1:04 pm

     The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
     I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist’s views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
     I answered, “The reason scientific theories change is because we don’t know everything, isn’t it? We don’t have all the evidence.”
     “Yes, that’s right,” he said.
     I replied, “But, we will never know everything.”
     “That’s true,” he answered.
     I then stated, “We will always continue to find new evidence.”
     “Quite correct,” he said. I replied, “That means we can’t be sure about anything.”
     “Right,” he said.
     “That means we can’t be sure about evolution.”
     “Oh, no! Evolution is a fact,” he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.
     Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not.
     The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!
186. Joe says:

     February 27, 2008 at 1:14 pm

     Another memory from another brilliant mind: Blaise Pascal

     Pascal attended parties where gambling was being conducted, and unfortunately became distracted by this lifestyle. However, Pascal had a narrow escape from death in 1654, when the horses pulling his carriage bolted. The horses were killed, but Pascal was unhurt. Convinced that it was God who had saved him, he reassessed how he was living. From then on,
     ‘From the age of thirty-one to the day of his death, at the age of thirty-nine, he had but one desire: he lived that he might turn the thoughts of men to his Saviour.’
     At this time of recommitment to God, Pascal wrote:
     ‘Certainty! Joy! Peace!
     ‘I forget the world and everything but God! …
     ‘I submit myself absolutely to Jesus Christ my Redeemer.’
     Much of Pascal’s last few years was devoted to his religious writings. He wrote a famous series of 18 letters known as the ‘Provincial Letters,’ considered by critics to mark the beginning of modern French prose. Pascal also wrote the outstanding book Pensées (French for ‘thoughts’) in which he argues the case for his Christian beliefs.
     Pascal recognized that man could not arrive at all knowledge by his own wisdom. He wrote that ‘Faith tells us what the senses cannot, but it is not contradictory to their findings.’ He also recognized that God was more than just the Creator—He was a loving, personal God as well—‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of the Christians is a God of love and consolation.’
     Pascal is famous for the statement known as Pascal’s Wager in which he applied his thinking in terms of probabilities to the question of salvation. Pascal’s Wager paraphrased is:
     ‘How can anyone lose who chooses to become a Christian? If, when he dies, there turns out to be no God and his faith was in vain, he has lost nothing—in fact, he has been happier in life than his non-believing friends. If, however, there is a God and a heaven and hell, then he has gained heaven and his skeptical friends will have lost everything in hell.’
     When approaching his death, Pascal wrote: ‘And so I stretch forth my hands to my Redeemer, who came to earth to suffer and die for me.’ Pascal died on 19 August 1662, in Paris. Despite a short life with constant sickness and pain, this devout Christian made outstanding contributions to science, mathematics, and literature that still amaze the minds of our age.
187. PC-Bash says:

     February 28, 2008 at 9:07 am

     Joe –

     Apparently, you are just going to spam these same inane posts all over. I’ll respond to them again.

     Regarding your quote from Bill Buckley. It is easier to claim that your god did something and therefore not consider it anymore. Easier, but very unscientific. Science is about the discovery of knowledge through a process, a process of building intelligence. Using the excuse that your god did it is anti-intellectual, it’s a cop-out.

     Regarding your story about the geologist, this is nothing more than a strawman fallacy. Not even worthy of comment.

     Regarding Pascal. I read Pensées in the original French. I am very familiar with it. However, I fail to see how any of this has to do with evolution.

     You, like most creationists, are confusing evolution with atheism.
188. S.Scott says:

     February 29, 2008 at 9:55 am

     ” PC-Bash Says:

     February 28th, 2008 at 9:07 am
     Joe –

     Apparently, you are just going to spam these same inane posts all over. I’ll respond to them again. … ”

     I didn’t know what you meant here PC-Bash, so I had a look around the site.

     For any lurkers that are confused as well – this “Joe” person is cutting and pasting his comments in many different threads on this web site. (I guess with the hope that he will have the “Last Word” somewhere.

     It’s quite obnoxious, and is grounds to be banned from posting on a lot of blogs. I don’t know what the rule is here though.

     I am going to “cut and paste” THIS message everywhere I can find an infraction. (Hopefully I will be forgiven for doing so 🙂 )

189. Pingback: sony ericsson ringtones sony ericsson k700i ringtones

190. Pingback: poker ligne

191. Pingback: america bank card credit secured

192. Pingback: madonna mp3 ringtones do.blogspot.com madonna ringtones

193. Pingback: Cheap Lawnmower Parts

194. Pingback: Php Designer 2007 Professional 5.3

195. Pingback: tournois texas holdem

196. Pingback: Florida Citizens for Science » Blog Archive » South Carolina, excel, panhandle, critters

197. Pingback: Florida Citizens for Science » Blog Archive » More about the 2008 science FCAT

198. Pingback: Florida Citizens for Science » Blog Archive » Another resolution slipped in

199. Pingback: Florida Citizens for Science » Blog Archive » Early report on the Miramar meeting

200. Pingback: Florida Citizens for Science » Blog Archive » More about Pinellas mess

Comments are closed.