Re: Hurray!!! One Giant Step Back!!

In article <[email hidden]>,

Slambram said:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:14:51 -0500, WillBrink
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not perfect. What does that have to with God doing it? Nothing.

Sure, and i'm not saying that, but science isn't science if you can't
admit there are things we can't explain.

There are many things we can't explain (yet), which has zero to do with
whether or not some all knowing being had a hand in it. "I don't know
how that works" does not = God did it.

Quoted message said:

Ask anybody who's gone to
med school.

One does not need to go to med school for such knowledge.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Slambram said:

WillBrink said:

Quoted message said:

If you can't admit the theory of Evolution is not perfect,

It's not perfect. What does that have to with God doing it? Nothing.

Sure, and i'm not saying that, but science isn't science if you
can't admit there are things we can't explain.

This is completely backwards - if you want to see real problems that
evolution is dealing with, look for publications in journals like
Evolution, or Genetics, by people who actually study evolution.

You'll find that ID/creationists don't produce any such publications.
They're not even aware of things that evolution can or can't
explain. They write pseudoscience books instead, because not only they
can't pass peer review, they aren't even trying to submit
anything. There was a paper in Science that found that there aren't
any submissions.

Ignorance is a part of it, but the underlying reason is that science
is partly a methodology, and being anti-science, ID doesn't provide
tools for answering questions - everything fits into the "intellectual
laziness" ID paradigm.

Does evolution stand out as a field that can't admit things we can't
explain and should we view IDers as a group of modern Giordano Brunos
fearlessly opposing doctrine of the establishment? That would be
absurd. The reality is, the ID movement is a mix of people who are

(1) Arrogant idiots.
(2) Confused and ignorant.
(3) Psychologically abnormal - e.g. those who block or are unable to
critically evaluate emotionally loaded information.
(4) Liars with agenda to back-door into a science class through
fraud.

An IDer can be described as a mixture of (1) through (4), taken with
person-specific weights. For example, idiocy is not a prerequisite, so
if one is not an idiot, the weight for (1) is set to nearly zero.

As we start to move away from file-and-ranks, there is typically
heavier load on first (2), then on (3), and for the most outspoken
IDers, mostly on (4).

DZ said:

Slambram said:

WillBrink said:

> If you can't admit the theory of Evolution is not perfect,

It's not perfect. What does that have to with God doing it? Nothing.

Sure, and i'm not saying that, but science isn't science if you
can't admit there are things we can't explain.

This is completely backwards - if you want to see real problems that
evolution is dealing with, look for publications in journals like
Evolution, or Genetics, by people who actually study evolution.

You'll find that ID/creationists don't produce any such publications.
They're not even aware of things that evolution can or can't
explain. They write pseudoscience books instead, because not only they
can't pass peer review, they aren't even trying to submit
anything. There was a paper in Science that found that there aren't
any submissions.

None of this is surprising. It's a technique that is *de rigueur* in
my field. The are not trying to prove, or even conclusively disprove,
anything. They are merely attempting to create reasonable doubt.

In article <[email hidden]>,

DZ said:

They're not even aware of things that evolution can or can't
explain. They write pseudoscience books instead, because not only they
can't pass peer review, they aren't even trying to submit
anything. There was a paper in Science that found that there aren't
any submissions.

Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of ID and religion in general.
How could it be any other way? To be intellectually honest on the topic
is to dismiss ID for the joke it is. Thus, they are stuck
misrepresenting science in general, and evolution specifically. If
proponents of ID had any interest in intellectual honesty over the
topic, they would (at the very least) be forced to admit that what ever
intelligence is/was behind it, it¹s just as likely to be a non Christian
God (e.g., Allah, Shiva, etc) or alien intelligence. In fact, based on
available evidence, the latter is most likely! :-)

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink said:

DZ said:

They're not even aware of things that evolution can or can't
explain. They write pseudoscience books instead, because not only they
can't pass peer review, they aren't even trying to submit
anything. There was a paper in Science that found that there aren't
any submissions.

Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of ID and religion in
general.

I have nothing against religion. Some people need it for whatever
reason and that is none of my business. Perhaps I'm missing out that
spiritual something they have. Even billions of years from now science
would still only be able to explain approximately 0% of the laws of
nature. That would leave plenty of room for God and I'm convinced that
there is some internal need for many people to be religios - I see
nothing wrong with that. I'm specifically against dishonest attempts
to portray ID/creationism as science. Some people simply don't
understand it, but they would, if the issue is explained.

For example, this article could be written by a thoroughly confused
undergraduate (judging by somewhat juvenile style) student who wasn't
yet exposed to a good explanation on what constitutes the domain of
science:
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/2/ARTICLE/6097/2005-11-11.html

To say that religion is the root of the problem would only alienate a
person like that. In fact, I think it is to the advantage of evolution
theory regarding its public perception that there are religious
evolutionists like Ayala and Collins.

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

WillBrink said:

DZ said:

They're not even aware of things that evolution can or can't
explain. They write pseudoscience books instead, because not only they
can't pass peer review, they aren't even trying to submit
anything. There was a paper in Science that found that there aren't
any submissions.

Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of ID and religion in
general.

I have nothing against religion. Some people need it for whatever
reason and that is none of my business.

I have great respect for anybody who worships a Jew as their Savior.

David

David Cohen said:

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

WillBrink said:

DZ wrote:

>They're not even aware of things that evolution can or can't
>explain. They write pseudoscience books instead, because not only they
>can't pass peer review, they aren't even trying to submit
>anything. There was a paper in Science that found that there aren't
>any submissions.

Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of ID and religion in
general.

I have nothing against religion. Some people need it for whatever
reason and that is none of my business.

I have great respect for anybody who worships a Jew as their Savior.

I can understand that if they mean YOU, but one with a God complex? Ewwww.

Dally

David Cohen said:

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

WillBrink said:

DZ wrote:
> They're not even aware of things that evolution can or can't
> explain. They write pseudoscience books instead, because not only they
> can't pass peer review, they aren't even trying to submit
> anything. There was a paper in Science that found that there aren't
> any submissions.

Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of ID and religion in
general.

I have nothing against religion. Some people need it for whatever
reason and that is none of my business.

I have great respect for anybody who worships a Jew as their Savior.

You should get an official Buddy Christ for your dashboard:

http://www.graphittidesigns.com/shop/files/images_backup/t_82171.jpg

Maybe a big one for your living room, too:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v253/phoenixburning/bigguy.jpg

In article <[email hidden]>,

DZ said:

WillBrink said:

DZ said:

They're not even aware of things that evolution can or can't
explain. They write pseudoscience books instead, because not only they
can't pass peer review, they aren't even trying to submit
anything. There was a paper in Science that found that there aren't
any submissions.

Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of ID and religion in
general.

I have nothing against religion.

As a concept, I don't either.

Quoted message said:

Some people need it for whatever
reason and that is none of my business. Perhaps I'm missing out that
spiritual something they have. Even billions of years from now science
would still only be able to explain approximately 0% of the laws of
nature.

Heh?

Quoted message said:

That would leave plenty of room for God and I'm convinced that
there is some internal need for many people to be religios - I see
nothing wrong with that. I'm specifically against dishonest attempts
to portray ID/creationism as science.

'Cause it's not.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

That great Christian and man of God, Pat Robertson exposes the Christian
right¹s true agenda with ID, that it¹s simply creationism presented as
pseudo science designed to put doubt about evolution into the minds of
the ignorant masses. If ID is not about religion (as ID proponents
claim) then how could God be voted out of this town? ID is all about
religion, and this walking pile of dung Robertson exposes the agenda by
threatening the town of Dover with the wrath of God. PitifulŠ
__________________________________________

Robertson warns Pennsylvania voters of God's wrath

Eight 'intelligent design' school board members lost election

Thursday, November 10, 2005; Posted: 5:27 p.m. EST (22:27 GMT)

The eight members of the school board are depicted on a billboard on
Election Day in Dover, Pennsylvania.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson
told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by
voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent
design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the
influential Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has
made similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements before.

Last summer, he hit the headlines by calling for the assassination of
leftist Venezuelan Present Hugo Chavez, one of President George W.
Bush's most vocal international critics.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster
in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city,"
Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia,
"The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they
begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just
voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His
help because he might not be there," he said.

The 700 Club claims a daily audience of around one million. It is also
broadcast around the world translated into more than 70 languages.

In voting on Tuesday, eight Dover, Pennsylvania, school board members up
for re-election lost their seats after trying to introduce a statement
on "intelligent design" to high school biology students.

Adherents of intelligent design argue that certain forms in nature are
too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must have been
created by a "designer." Opponents say it is the latest attempt by
conservatives to introduce religion into the school science curriculum.

The Dover case sparked a trial in federal court that gained nationwide
attention after the school board was sued by parents backed by the
American Civil Liberties Union. The board ordered schools to read
students a short statement in biology classes informing them that the
theory of evolution is not established fact and that gaps exist in it.

The statement mentioned intelligent design as an alternate theory and
recommended students read a book that explained the theory further. A
decision in the case is expected before the end of the year.

In 1998, Robertson warned the city of Orlando, Florida that it risked
hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist bombs after it allowed homosexual
organizations to put up rainbow flags in support of sexual diversity.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That great Christian and man of God, Pat Robertson exposes the Christian
right¹s true agenda with ID, that it¹s simply creationism presented as
pseudo science designed to put doubt about evolution into the minds of
the ignorant masses. If ID is not about religion (as ID proponents
claim) then how could God be voted out of this town? ID is all about
religion, and this walking pile of dung Robertson exposes the agenda by
threatening the town of Dover with the wrath of God. PitifulS
__________________________________________

Robertson warns Pennsylvania voters of God's wrath

Eight 'intelligent design' school board members lost election

Thursday, November 10, 2005; Posted: 5:27 p.m. EST (22:27 GMT)

The eight members of the school board are depicted on a billboard on
Election Day in Dover, Pennsylvania.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson
told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by
voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent
design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the
influential Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has
made similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements before.

Last summer, he hit the headlines by calling for the assassination of
leftist Venezuelan Present Hugo Chavez, one of President George W.
Bush's most vocal international critics.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster
in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city,"
Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia,
"The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they
begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just
voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His
help because he might not be there," he said.

The 700 Club claims a daily audience of around one million. It is also
broadcast around the world translated into more than 70 languages.

In voting on Tuesday, eight Dover, Pennsylvania, school board members up
for re-election lost their seats after trying to introduce a statement
on "intelligent design" to high school biology students.

Adherents of intelligent design argue that certain forms in nature are
too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must have been
created by a "designer." Opponents say it is the latest attempt by
conservatives to introduce religion into the school science curriculum.

The Dover case sparked a trial in federal court that gained nationwide
attention after the school board was sued by parents backed by the
American Civil Liberties Union. The board ordered schools to read
students a short statement in biology classes informing them that the
theory of evolution is not established fact and that gaps exist in it.

The statement mentioned intelligent design as an alternate theory and
recommended students read a book that explained the theory further. A
decision in the case is expected before the end of the year.

In 1998, Robertson warned the city of Orlando, Florida that it risked
hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist bombs after it allowed homosexual
organizations to put up rainbow flags in support of sexual diversity.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

We all know Robertson is a nut. He just keeps proving it to all the non
believers.

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Cohen said:

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

WillBrink wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> They're not even aware of things that evolution can or can't
>> explain. They write pseudoscience books instead, because not only they
>> can't pass peer review, they aren't even trying to submit
>> anything. There was a paper in Science that found that there aren't
>> any submissions.
>
> Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of ID and religion in
> general.

I have nothing against religion. Some people need it for whatever
reason and that is none of my business.

I have great respect for anybody who worships a Jew as their Savior.

You should get an official Buddy Christ for your dashboard:

http://www.graphittidesigns.com/shop/files/images_backup/t_82171.jpg

Oh, I have GOT to get one of these!

Quoted message said:

Maybe a big one for your living room, too:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v253/phoenixburning/bigguy.jpg

Too big. Scary. Like that Burger King guy.

David

David Cohen said:

JMW said:

David Cohen said:

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote
> WillBrink wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> They're not even aware of things that evolution can or can't
>>> explain. They write pseudoscience books instead, because not only they
>>> can't pass peer review, they aren't even trying to submit
>>> anything. There was a paper in Science that found that there aren't
>>> any submissions.
>>
>> Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of ID and religion in
>> general.
>
> I have nothing against religion. Some people need it for whatever
> reason and that is none of my business.

I have great respect for anybody who worships a Jew as their Savior.

You should get an official Buddy Christ for your dashboard:

http://www.graphittidesigns.com/shop/files/images_backup/t_82171.jpg

Oh, I have GOT to get one of these!

They're abundant on eBay. They even have a bobblehead version:
http://cgi.ebay.com/BUDDY-CHRIST-BOBBLE-HEAD-FIGURE-DOGMA-KEVIN-SMITH_W0QQitemZ6577560585QQcategoryZ3983QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
(http://tinyurl.com/8mqo9)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe a big one for your living room, too:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v253/phoenixburning/bigguy.jpg

Too big. Scary. Like that Burger King guy.

No [censored]! Those commercials are like something out of a horror flick.

WillBrink said:

DZ said:

Some people need it for whatever reason and that is none of my
business. Perhaps I'm missing out that spiritual something they
have. Even billions of years from now science would still only be
able to explain approximately 0% of the laws of nature.

Heh?

Is the number of things for science to understand finite? It only gets
"Curiouser and curiouser!" and every new discovery only uncovers a new
abyss of unknown with a brand new collection of questions. This leads
to a paradox. Although science helps us to understand more things in
total, the proportion of things we understand is only getting smaller.

Highly cited papers are those that make important discoveries, but the
real reason they're cited is that they succeed in uncovering all the
new problems for others to work on.

JMW said:

No [censored]! Those commercials are like something out of a horror flick.

Funny as hell though! I like the one where he's in bed giving the guy
his "whopper", and accidently touches his leg. I'm sure you guys can
relate to having your legs touched by males in bed.

In article <[email hidden]>,

DZ said:

WillBrink said:

DZ said:

Some people need it for whatever reason and that is none of my
business. Perhaps I'm missing out that spiritual something they
have. Even billions of years from now science would still only be
able to explain approximately 0% of the laws of nature.

Heh?

Is the number of things for science to understand finite? It only gets
"Curiouser and curiouser!" and every new discovery only uncovers a new
abyss of unknown with a brand new collection of questions. This leads
to a paradox. Although science helps us to understand more things in
total, the proportion of things we understand is only getting smaller.

Highly cited papers are those that make important discoveries, but the
real reason they're cited is that they succeed in uncovering all the
new problems for others to work on.

Makes sense, but I don't quite see how it = we "able to explain
approximately 0% of the laws of nature."

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink said:

DZ said:

WillBrink said:

DZ wrote:
> Some people need it for whatever reason and that is none of my
> business. Perhaps I'm missing out that spiritual something they
> have. Even billions of years from now science would still only be
> able to explain approximately 0% of the laws of nature.

Heh?

Is the number of things for science to understand finite? It only gets
"Curiouser and curiouser!" and every new discovery only uncovers a new
abyss of unknown with a brand new collection of questions. This leads
to a paradox. Although science helps us to understand more things in
total, the proportion of things we understand is only getting smaller.

Highly cited papers are those that make important discoveries, but the
real reason they're cited is that they succeed in uncovering all the
new problems for others to work on.

Makes sense, but I don't quite see how it = we "able to explain
approximately 0% of the laws of nature."

I can simply say that if you agree that the number of things to
understand is infinite, then the proportion is zero. But if you also
agree with the statement that every new discovery uncovers a bunch of
new questions then it follows that the progress leads to the increased
amount of what we realize as unknown. The total number of answers
expands with time, but the proportion of answered questions goes to
zero.

Super knowledgeable future civilization will approach the intellectual
singularity due to the exponentially exploded amount of unknown and
suddenly everything will stop making any sense :-)

As a corollary I also suggest that scientists who publish lots of
papers that nobody cites are doing a solid job in answering questions
without bringing up whole lot of new annoying issues. Therefore,
evaluation of academic merit should be based on the inverse citation
rate rule - the smaller your citation rate, the better. While it's not
too late, I urge all institutions to reverse their policy on all
scientific promotions!

WillBrink said:

DZ said:

WillBrink said:

DZ wrote:
> Some people need it for whatever reason and that is none of my
> business. Perhaps I'm missing out that spiritual something they
> have. Even billions of years from now science would still only be
> able to explain approximately 0% of the laws of nature.

Heh?

Is the number of things for science to understand finite? It only gets
"Curiouser and curiouser!" and every new discovery only uncovers a new
abyss of unknown with a brand new collection of questions. This leads
to a paradox. Although science helps us to understand more things in
total, the proportion of things we understand is only getting smaller.

Highly cited papers are those that make important discoveries, but the
real reason they're cited is that they succeed in uncovering all the
new problems for others to work on.

Makes sense, but I don't quite see how it = we "able to explain
approximately 0% of the laws of nature."

I can simply say that if you agree that the number of things to
understand is infinite, then the proportion is zero. But if you also
agree with the statement that every new discovery uncovers a bunch of
new questions then it follows that the progress leads to the increased
amount of what we realize as unknown. The total number of answers
expands with time, but the proportion of answered questions goes to
zero.

Super knowledgeable future civilization will approach the intellectual
singularity due to the exponentially exploded amount of unknown and
suddenly everything will stop making any sense :-)

As a corollary I also suggest that scientists who publish lots of
papers that nobody cites are doing a solid job in answering questions
without bringing up whole lot of new annoying issues. Therefore,
evaluation of academic merit should be based on the inverse citation
rate rule - the smaller your citation rate, the better. While it's not
too late, I urge all institutions to reverse their policy on all
scientific promotions!

In article <[email hidden]>,

DZ said:

WillBrink said:

DZ said:

WillBrink <[email hidden]> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> Some people need it for whatever reason and that is none of my
>> business. Perhaps I'm missing out that spiritual something they
>> have. Even billions of years from now science would still only be
>> able to explain approximately 0% of the laws of nature.
>
> Heh?

Is the number of things for science to understand finite? It only gets
"Curiouser and curiouser!" and every new discovery only uncovers a new
abyss of unknown with a brand new collection of questions. This leads
to a paradox. Although science helps us to understand more things in
total, the proportion of things we understand is only getting smaller.

Highly cited papers are those that make important discoveries, but the
real reason they're cited is that they succeed in uncovering all the
new problems for others to work on.

Makes sense, but I don't quite see how it = we "able to explain
approximately 0% of the laws of nature."

I can simply say that if you agree that the number of things to
understand is infinite, then the proportion is zero.

Got it now.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/