Coyne: Poor Beleaguered Melanie Phillips!

Science • Views: 3,255

University of Chicago geneticist Jerry Coyne has a good post on Melanie Phillips’ latest 2,000-word attempt to burnish her credentials with the anti-evolution crowd (by attacking me). Phillips tries to earn some martyr points by claiming she’s the victim of a “secular Inquisition:” Poor beleaguered Melanie Phillips!

Just call me Torquemada.

Thanks to an alert reader, I’ve learned that Melanie Phillips has responded to the spate of criticism she got for her recent Spectator article claiming that intelligent design grew out of science, not religion.  She got it in the neck from bloggers and readers for that, most especially for her moronic claim that ID is not a form of creationism.  Now she has posted a long response to her critics, distancing herself somewhat from ID but still claiming that it’s not creationism.  She mentions Michael Behe as one of the scientific IDers, asserting that “He is not a Creationist.” Does she know that he once said that new species were “poofed” into being by the designer? If that ain’t creationism, I don’t know what is.

Ms. Phillips claims she’s the victim of a “secular inquisition.”

I hold no particular brief for ID, but am intrigued by the ideas it raises and want it to be given a fair crack of the whip to see where the argument will lead. What I have also seen, however, is an attempt to shut down that argument by distorting and misrepresenting ID and defaming and intimidating its proponents.

One way of doing so is to conflate ID with Creationism. I wrote below that this is wrong, since ID comes out of science and creationism comes out of Biblical literalism. This provoked Charles Johnson on LGF to accuse me of being either duped or dishonest. Johnson – who has become unhealthily obsessed with ID and Creationism in recent months — says I am wrong to say that ID is based on science rather than on religion, and wrong to say that it is different from Creationism…

Dogma is certainly what is on the other side of ID in this fight – a materialist dogma which, posing as the standard-bearer of reason against obscurantism, actually embodies irrationality and a kind of intellectual fascism. It is a secular inquisition – as the reaction to my post makes all too plain.

On the other head, maybe she’s just ignorant and biased, like the Inquisitors themselves.

Meanwhile, Phillips is still wrong when she insists “intelligent design” is based on science and unrelated to creationism. Claims of persecution mixed with long-debunked talking points from the Discovery Institute are a pretty pitiful way to make an argument.

As for Michael Behe, cited by Melanie Phillips as an authority, he has the distinction of being the only tenured professor currently working at an American university whose own department has distanced itself from his views: Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences.

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Jump to bottom

338 comments
1 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:36:50pm
I hold no particular brief for ID, but am intrigued by the ideas it raises and want it to be given a fair crack of the whip to see where the argument will lead.

This is just another talking point, as ID can only lead to one conclusion, if given the opportunity, and that being, "God did it".

2 gmsc  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:37:41pm
University of Chicago geneticist Jerry Coyne has a good post on Melanie Phillips’ latest attempt to burnish her credentials with the anti-evolution crowd (by attacking me). Phillips tries to earn some martyr points by claiming she’s the victim of a “secular Inquisition:”

The Inquisition? Here we go . . .

3 Shug  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:38:04pm
intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific

The money shot

4 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:42:16pm
While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences.

I look forward to the debate between the scientific community and the editorialist Melanie Phillips. First however, Ms. Phillips must learn of the cohabitational habits of the scientists in the debate.

5 solomonpanting  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:42:39pm
It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

What do they know, they're only scientists.

6 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:42:42pm
What I have also seen, however, is an attempt to shut down that argument by distorting and misrepresenting ID and defaming and intimidating its proponents.

No, Ms Phillips. What you have seen is the distortions of the disco institute convincing millions of people, including yourself, that it has any scientific validity whatsoever. It doesn't.

Those who claim to be able to scientifically support ID have been shown wrong, yet they continue their lies. This is not a misrepresentation- it's the truth.

7 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:44:02pm
One way of doing so is to conflate ID with Creationism. I wrote below that this is wrong, since ID comes out of science...

Okay, Melanie, help me out here. What testable, falsifiable hypotheses does ID put forth? What testable, falsifiable theories have been presented by the DI? On what grounds can the DI claim that ID is a scientific theory, or that it "comes out of science" at all?

8 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:44:11pm

hey Rob, how about a music thread?

/white smoke %-)

9 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:44:30pm
One way of doing so is to conflate ID with Creationism. I wrote below that this is wrong, since ID comes out of science and creationism comes out of Biblical literalism.

This is simply not true, Ms Phillips. ID was born of creationism after the Edwards v. Aguillard case. This is well documented, and easy to find for those interested in the truth.

10 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:44:58pm

re: #7 Slumbering Behemoth

Okay, Melanie, help me out here. What testable, falsifiable hypotheses does ID put forth? What testable, falsifiable theories have been presented by the DI? On what grounds can the DI claim that ID is a scientific theory, or that it "comes out of science" at all?

where have i seen those questions before?

damn those LNDT and their fruitcups!

11 [deleted]  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:44:59pm
12 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:45:39pm
Dogma is certainly what is on the other side of ID in this fight – a materialist dogma which, posing as the standard-bearer of reason against obscurantism, actually embodies irrationality and a kind of intellectual fascism. It is a secular inquisition – as the reaction to my post makes all too plain.

And with this, Ms Phillips- you lose all credibility in this debate.

13 Catttt  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:46:35pm

I learned a secret about 15 years ago. Better late than never.

When you are wrong, admit it. Say "silly me." Say "mea culpa." Say "touché." Say "oops."

Life is much better when you realize you are not perfect.

14 laZardo  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:46:42pm

re: #6 Sharmuta

No, Ms Phillips. What you have seen is the distortions of the disco institute convincing millions of people, including yourself, that it has any scientific validity whatsoever.

A quick hypnosis test:

15 solomonpanting  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:47:18pm
Johnson – who has become unhealthily obsessed with ID and Creationism in recent months

I wonder what her scientific intelligently designed basis is for this characterization?

16 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:47:20pm

Edwards v. Aguillard

The ruling had great effect on the creationist movement. It only affected state schools, with independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools free to still teach creationism. Within two years a creationist textbook had been produced: Of Pandas and People which attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the supposed "intelligent designer". Drafts of the text used "creation" or "creator" before being changed to "intelligent design" or "designer" after the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling.[3] This form of creationism, known as intelligent design creationism started in the early 1990s. This would eventually lead to another court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which went to trial on September 26, 2005 and was decided in U.S. District Court on December 20, 2005 in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that intelligent design be taught was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The 139 page opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research. Because the Dover school board chose not to appeal, the case never reached a circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

17 funky chicken  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:48:05pm

Was Robespierre sciency? Charles, perhaps you're Rasputin--weaving your wicked, sciency spell on us all.

good night lizards.

18 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:48:37pm

Of course- she lost all credibility in my eyes when a previous article she wrote said ID was related to creationism.

19 freetoken  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:48:43pm

Now you've done it Charles... gotten inside the head of Ms. Phillips... man, you're becoming.... omnipresent!

/

20 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:49:05pm

re: #10 redc1c4

I know. I hate sounding like a broken record, but as long as the cdesign proponentists keep playing the same tune, I will keep responding with the same track.

21 LwoodPDowd  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:49:29pm

Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!

22 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:50:08pm

re: #15 solomonpanting

I wonder what her scientific intelligently designed basis is for this characterization?

Right, unhealthily obsessed. Yet she feels compelled to write another 2000 words of nonsense under the title of being persecuted. I suppose she thinks feeling persecuted is healthy.

23 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:51:05pm

Intelligent design

The concept of intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state.

Yeah- no relation, huh Ms Phillips?

24 Catttt  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:52:24pm

When Charles started posting about ID, I thought there was scientific - um - stuff somewhere backing up ID. I looked, and I looked, and I researched. Darned if there was no research or science whatsoever backing ID up. Nothing but hot air gum flapping. ID is not testable via scientific methods - it is NOT science.

I wish Ms. Phillips would take a minute or two to read a little bit and research a little bit and realize she is dead wrong here instead of reacting like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rockers.

25 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:52:29pm

Hey, Mellie! Google this: cdesign proponentsists.

26 SpaceJesus  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:53:07pm

creationism: hebrew god makes life as it is

ID: magical unnamed entity makes life as it is

?

27 freetoken  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:53:33pm

re: #18 Sharmuta

Of course- she lost all credibility in my eyes when a previous article she wrote said ID was related to creationism.

Yup, she denies her own history.

/glad I did the research

28 BignJames  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:54:29pm

ID = catch phrase for a car ad.

29 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:54:30pm

re: #12 Sharmuta

The cries of inquisition and persecution are not only tiresome, they make the person making such claims look like complete assholes who posses no conscience when you consider the inhuman horrors people have suffered, and continue to suffer, at the hand of real life inquisitors and persecutors.

30 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:54:47pm

re: #25 Sharmuta

Hey, Mellie! Google this: cdesign proponentsists.

With a video!

31 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:55:04pm

re: #20 Slumbering Behemoth

I know. I hate sounding like a broken record, but as long as the cdesign proponentists keep playing the same tune, I will keep responding with the same track.

i wern't complaining..... troll hammer part deux!

32 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:55:12pm

Tas Walker is over there in the comments for Melanie's article, castigating her for denying young earth creationism. Gotta love it.

33 Catttt  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:55:25pm

OT

I think my ice maker just committed suicide. Either that or it fought to the death with the Banquet TV dinners in my freezer. It actually woke the cats up.

Maybe I'd better go check. Hmmmmm.

34 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:55:47pm

Also some of the usual stalkers, of course.

35 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:56:23pm

She title's her article "The Secular Inquisition." Yep, when you are up against the wall, and tap dancing a mile a minute, best way to help get the masses minds off of what you REALLY said is to use scare words like "Inquisition."

Cheap-assed, chickens way out.

36 MrPaulRevere  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:56:23pm

Ms. Phillips articles illustrate the peril of writing about subjects that one knows nothing about. She strikes me as intellectually lazy, never a good thing.

37 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:56:28pm

re: #28 BignJames

ID = catch phrase for a car ad.

ID + what they don't ask me for at a bar anymore, unless i try and order the Senior Citizen Special.

38 BignJames  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:56:29pm

re: #33 Catttt

Careful....might be a polar bear in there.

39 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:56:43pm

re: #29 Slumbering Behemoth

The cries of inquisition and persecution are not only tiresome, they make the person making such claims look like complete assholes who posses no conscience when you consider the inhuman horrors people have suffered, and continue to suffer, at the hand of real life inquisitors and persecutors.

It's really insulting to actual victims, isn't it?

40 Kronocide  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:57:23pm

Literally speaking, Philips is correct. Practically speaking is where it falls apart.

Creationism = not scientific. Earth was created 6000 years ago by a divine creator.

Intelligent design = scientific. Earth was created whenever, but a divine force tweaks it here and there to get it going.

To point out otherwise is intellectual fascism. How ironic.

41 laZardo  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:57:57pm

re: #28 BignJames

ID = catch phrase for a car ad.

ID = my major in college.

/design evolution! q;

42 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:58:40pm

And, Ms Phillips? It's not an obsession. It's an Illuminati plot. ///

43 pat  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:59:14pm

The young earth dogma is strange indeed. A recent phenomenon, historically speaking. (yes that was a pun). When I took my comparative religion courses, it was no more than a couple hundred years old, and was not part of any true religious belief. Created from nothing.

44 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:59:18pm

re: #40 BigPapa

i hope your seatbelt is securely fastened and your tray is locked.....

/enjoy the ride

45 BignJames  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:59:24pm

re: #41 laZardo

ID = my major in college.

/design evolution! q;


IE = Imaginary Engineer

46 freetoken  Mon, May 4, 2009 10:59:43pm

re: #40 BigPapa


Intelligent design = scientific.

Something tells me...

47 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:00:00pm

re: #42 Sharmuta

And, Ms Phillips? It's not an obsession. It's an Illuminati plot. ///

Was the a special reason you used three slashes, a secret code of some sort, alerting your agents in the Illuminati? I saw you do it, come clean.

48 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:00:02pm

re: #42 Sharmuta

And, Ms Phillips? It's not an obsession. It's an Illuminati plot. ///

sssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh. you'll ruin everything.

49 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:00:03pm

re: #42 Sharmuta

And, Ms Phillips? It's not an obsession. It's an Illuminati plot. ///

I thought it was a Marxist-Materialist plot.

//

50 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:00:05pm

re: #31 redc1c4

Oh, I didn't think you were complaining at all, I was just 'splaining why I keep saying the same damn thing over and over.

51 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:00:12pm

re: #40 BigPapa

Literally speaking, Philips is correct. Practically speaking is where it falls apart.

Creationism = not scientific. Earth was created 6000 years ago by a divine creator.

Intelligent design = scientific. Earth was created whenever, but a divine force tweaks it here and there to get it going.

No, ID really is not scientific, just because it sounds scientific. To qualify as a scientific theory, it would need to produce testable, falsifiable evidence for the theory.

And it has absolutely none. It's not science. It's creationism in a cheap lab coat.

52 BatGuano  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:00:28pm

re: #17 funky chicken

Robespierre had nothing to do with the Inquisition.

53 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:00:42pm

re: #47 Walter L. Newton

Was the a special reason you used three slashes, a secret code of some sort, alerting your agents in the Illuminati? I saw you do it, come clean.

are we doing pr0n now?

54 freetoken  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:01:25pm

re: #53 redc1c4

are we doing pr0n now?

You tempt me...

55 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:01:32pm

re: #53 redc1c4

are we doing pr0n now?

I don't even know what you mean by "pr0n." Really.

56 Kronocide  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:01:34pm

ID came from science, defined:

"You mean to tell me that I came from a puddle of pre-complex proteins and amino acid compounds?"

57 laZardo  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:01:34pm

re: #47 Walter L. Newton

Nah, it was for Mossad.

The Illuminati use four, not three.

////

/ C:

58 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:01:49pm

re: #50 Slumbering Behemoth

Oh, I didn't think you were complaining at all, I was just 'splaining why I keep saying the same damn thing over and over.

/beer?

59 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:02:02pm

re: #47 Walter L. Newton

3 tags for the Illuminati, 5 for the Free Masons. Or is it the other way around?

I just remember it's 8 tags for the Smurf uprising. Crap! Shouldn't have let that one slip. Papa Smurf will kill me.

60 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:02:14pm

re: #55 Walter L. Newton

I don't even know what you mean by "pr0n." Really.

y'all need to get out more.

61 lostlakehiker  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:02:37pm

This is almost tragic. Good people, otherwise of sound reason and keen moral perception, are fixing their standard and building their castle on the sands of ID.

In losing the public fight over creationism, they drag down the rest of their cause, the part that stands a chance and that is better founded in reason and law. If they should win, which is unlikely but must be reckoned a remote possibility, in winning, they'd establish precedents that would be immensely helpful to demagogues of any stripe. With the Constitution interpreted loosely and pliable to the will of the people, and the role of facts in deciding case law out the window, the next cause that has little constitutional license and no grounding in science to come along will have its path smoothed.

Creationists surely must understand that endless mischief must come of throwing out this Baby---the influence of science and the constitution on how the schools are run---with the bathwater (as they see it) of allowing Darwin into biology class.

62 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:02:56pm

re: #39 Sharmuta

Not just insulting, but dismissive of true persecution, and belittling to those who have suffered from it.

She should know better.

63 Catttt  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:03:05pm

re: #41 laZardo

ID = my major in college.

/design evolution! q;

In college, on the "are you too crazy" personality test they gave us, I came out as having "high expediency and low super-ego strength." In other words, I'm a Borgia prince. :D I wasn't surprised - on the high school test I came out the same way, plus 80 percent masculine! They've changed that to "aggressive" since the old days when I took it.

They did not mention my id. :D

64 Walter L. Newton  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:03:37pm

re: #60 redc1c4

y'all need to get out more.

Got it, and really, thanks for all the help.

65 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:03:53pm

re: #59 Sharmuta

3 tags for the Illuminati, 5 for the Free Masons. Or is it the other way around?

I just remember it's 8 tags for the Smurf uprising. Crap! Shouldn't have let that one slip. Papa Smurf will kill me.

¡ǝpıs ʞɹɐp ǝɥʇ ɯoɹɟ sʇǝɹɔǝs ǝɥʇ lɐǝʌǝɹ ʇou op

////

66 Catttt  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:03:56pm

re: #43 pat

The young earth dogma is strange indeed. A recent phenomenon, historically speaking. (yes that was a pun). When I took my comparative religion courses, it was no more than a couple hundred years old, and was not part of any true religious belief. Created from nothing.

Those pictures of little girls in their Flintstones outfits, playing with little baby dinos, creep me out.

67 hazzyday  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:04:04pm

Huxley's famous response to the idea of natural selection was "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!".

68 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:04:21pm

re: #40 BigPapa

Literally speaking, Philips is correct. Practically speaking is where it falls apart.

Creationism = not scientific. Earth was created 6000 years ago by a divine creator.

Intelligent design = scientific. Earth was created whenever, but a divine force tweaks it here and there to get it going.

To point out otherwise is intellectual fascism. How ironic.

:sigh:

What testable, falsifiable hypotheses does ID put forth? What testable, falsifiable theories have been presented by the DI? On what grounds can the DI claim that ID is a scientific theory?

/see, Redc1c4, it just keeps coming back

69 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:04:34pm

re: #61 lostlakehiker

a religious person might see the hand of the devil in all of this....

where, exactly, i won't venture to guess.

70 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:05:07pm

re: #66 Catttt

Those pictures of little girls in their Flintstones outfits, playing with little baby dinos, creep me out.

Same here. At first it seemed like an Aryan race of cavemen.

71 Kronocide  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:05:16pm

re: #51 Charles

I was paraphrasing Philips. Her initial article just floored me.

I'm just shocked that somebody who's made some really great posts just fell apart here, still trying to get my head around it.

72 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:05:28pm

re: #64 Walter L. Newton

Got it, and really, thanks for all the help.

it's what i do best......

/well, maybe not. %-)

73 gmsc  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:06:09pm

Time for my standard list of favorite ID/Creationist argument links:

reDiscovery Institute (Parody site)

The Holy Book for Turtles-all-the-way-downism (Thanks, jcm!)

Using creationist/ID arguments against them:
Why We Believe in a Designer!
Organisms that Look Designed
Oolon Colluphid's Guide to Creation

Talk.Origins archive

Need To Know: Charles Darwin (5 Minute documentary on Charles Darwin)

People involved in spreading Darwin's discoveries as a philosophy, whom Ben Stein mysteriously neglects to mention:
Ernst Haeckel
William Sumner
Vladmir Ulyanov

Is There An Artifical God? (essay by Douglas Adams)

Get A-Life (essay on using artificial life to study evolution)

Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker (video about a-life)

Documentaries:
The Day The Universe Changed - "Fit To Rule" (Episode 8)

More evolution documentaries can be found here, including Evolution, Evolve, Human Evolution, Journey of Man, Origins and Why do people laugh at creationists?.

74 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:06:25pm

re: #68 Slumbering Behemoth

:sigh:

What testable, falsifiable hypotheses does ID put forth? What testable, falsifiable theories have been presented by the DI? On what grounds can the DI claim that ID is a scientific theory?

/see, Redc1c4, it just keeps coming back

who's the Redc1c4 person trying to hijack my nick?

/white smoke

75 solomonpanting  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:06:32pm

re: #66 Catttt

Those pictures of little girls in their Flintstones outfits, playing with little baby dinos, creep me out.

Just think how those little girls must have felt.

76 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:06:37pm

re: #42 Sharmuta

And, Ms Phillips? It's not an obsession. It's an Illuminati plot. ///

*Ahem* that's Illuminaughty. If you're gonna be a respectable conspiracy theorist, you have to get it right.

77 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:08:11pm

Secular Torquemada. Has a ring to it.

78 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:08:17pm

re: #76 Slumbering Behemoth

Illuminaughty plots are another matter......

79 Killian Bundy  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:09:18pm

Afghan president chooses warlord as running mate

President Hamid Karzai chose a powerful warlord accused of rights abuses as one of his vice presidential running mates on Monday, hours before leaving for meetings in Washington with President Barack Obama and Pakistan's president.

The selection of Mohammad Qasim Fahim, a top commander in the militant group Jamiat-e-Islami during Afghanistan's 1990s civil war, drew immediate criticism from human rights groups.

House Democrats seek $94.2 billion in emergency funds

/stand clear, vicious Bonkey internecine titty twisting Xing next three months.

80 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:09:38pm

re: #71 BigPapa

I was wondering if your posts were just not coming across right. After all- you joined in over at Panda's Thumb the other day.

81 freetoken  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:09:42pm

One of the commenters on Phillips' latest entry is perceptive:

Alan Staley
May 4th, 2009 11:58pm
Melanie, I would ask that you step back from this a bit and consider what you are stating. These appear to be the current talking points of the Discovery Institute itself, [...]

82 BignJames  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:10:11pm

re: #77 Charles

Secular Torquemada. Has a ring to it.


Could be a good name for a metal band.

83 Fenway_Nation  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:10:18pm

re: #76 Slumbering Behemoth

Oh, be Illumi-nice.

84 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:10:51pm

re: #71 BigPapa

I was paraphrasing Philips.

Gotcha.

85 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:10:55pm

re: #58 redc1c4

/beer?

I just knew you were part of the Big Brother Police State, spying on me. How else could you know what I was drinking?
/

86 erraticsphinx  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:11:44pm

Melanie Phillips should be ashamed of herself.

When you have to resort to pretending you're the victim of an "inquisition" over a huge mistake of your own making, Hmmm, I dunno.

I hope I don't have to reconsider/research some of her non-kooky ID based views, but I've been disappointed before (with RS).
:(

87 hazzyday  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:11:48pm

More Huxley from wiki:

The following was written by Huxley to Rolleston before the 1861 BA meeting:

"My dear Rolleston... The obstinate reiteration of erroneous assertions can only be nullified by as persistent an appeal to facts; and I greatly regret that my engagements do not permit me to be present at the British Association in order to assist personally at what, I believe, will be the seventh public demonstration during the past twelve months of the untruth of the three assertions, that the posterior lobe of the cerebrum, the posterior cornu of the lateral ventricle, and the hippocampus minor, are peculiar to man and do not exist in the apes. I shall be obliged if you will read this letter to the Section" Yours faithfully, Thos. H. Huxley

88 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:11:50pm

re: #85 Slumbering Behemoth

I just knew you were part of the Big Brother Police State, spying on me. How else could you know what I was drinking?
/

aren't we all?

89 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:11:51pm
and a kind of intellectual fascism

And with this, she completely jumps the shark.

Ms. Phillips- you are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

90 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:12:23pm

Intellectual fascism = criticism.

91 erraticsphinx  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:12:51pm

re: #86 erraticsphinx

I meant her views on Londonistan, etc.
Just to clarify.

92 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:12:54pm

re: #84 Charles

Gotcha.

did you see the icon?

93 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:13:07pm

Discovery Institute presents: How the Earth was Created

Staring Robert Young as Cavedad.
Jane Wyatt as Cavemom.
Billy Gray as Caveboy.
Elinor Donahue as Cavegirl

With special guest, Fred Gwynne as the Friendly Dinosaur.

//

94 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:13:19pm

re: #59 Sharmuta

3 tags for the Illuminati, 5 for the Free Masons.

The Masonic Order DOES NOT use tags, we just know.

/Our Zionist collaborators taught us that trick

95 Kronocide  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:14:00pm

What its seems I failed to say is that literally speaking, specifically, Philips is right: creationism and ID aren't the same.

Practically speaking, they are.

Except she made an entire argument around this, and said anybody who says otherwise are intellectual fascists.

96 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:14:22pm

re: #60 redc1c4

y'all need to get out more.

You go out for your pr0n? I always order in.

97 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:15:12pm

re: #96 Slumbering Behemoth

You go out for your pr0n? I always order in.

disorder, dat order, it's all the same damn day man................

98 Outrider  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:15:34pm
"unhealthily obsessed with ID and Creationism in recent months"

Dang Charles..... you seen a Doctor about this? ;-)>

99 solomonpanting  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:17:07pm

re: #93 Gus 802

Discovery Institute presents: How the Earth was Created

Staring Robert Young as Cavedad.
Jane Wyatt as Cavemom.
Billy Gray as Caveboy.
Elinor Donahue as Cavegirl

With special guest, Fred Gwynne as the Friendly Dinosaur.

//

Father Knows Beast

100 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:17:30pm

re: #99 solomonpanting

Father Knows Beast

Exactly.

101 nnw59  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:17:42pm

The most frustrating aspect of this debate is the complete absence of intellectual honesty in those who will not admit that Darwinian evolution has, at its core, an article of faith no more scientific or provable than, for example, Jesus rose from the dead. "An unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" is not a scientific statement but a faith-based one. How exactly does one know that an event was "unplanned" or "unguided?" Why stating it, of course! But the invective and scorn and ridicule heaped on those who take it seriously as a hypothesis to test is maddening as well as repellent. How exactly would one go about trying to prove "Unguidedness" or randomness? Perhaps by showing guidedness or, gasp, design?
I never see this issue fairly addressed by those who take it an as absolute article of faith that these evolutionary events are random. No one can prove that. And at least Jesus had eye witnesses (2 Peter 1:16-18).

102 Killgore Trout  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:18:29pm

Revealed: the face of the first European
Ethnic nationalists can bite me.

103 Outrider  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:19:44pm

re: #99 solomonpanting

Father Knows Beast

Does Alan Reed get to do any voice overs?

104 Kronocide  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:19:55pm

re: #80 Sharmuta

I was a bit distracted in typing. I'm still shocked at this, she's made some great essays over the last few months. Completely fell apart here.

I'm hoping this kind of stuff levels off soon.

I can accept people who believe in ID. But it's faith, no more or less. But it's not science, should not be taught in schools, and the arguments for ID are corrupt and rife with fallacy. That, I can accept as well.

It's the victimization and accusations of 'intellectual fascism' the get my goat. The diet version of Godwin's Law in the Creationism/ID dialog.

105 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:20:17pm

re: #95 BigPapa

What its seems I failed to say is that literally speaking, specifically, Philips is right: creationism and ID aren't the same.

Practically speaking, they are.

Except she made an entire argument around this, and said anybody who says otherwise are intellectual fascists.

Basically she's just trying to poison the well. Claiming victimhood as a mean of argument never accomplished anything. Or perhaps she thinks along the line of "he who claims to be the most offended first wins."

I think it's simple to put down like this. Intelligent design is simply the re-writing of creationism utilizing secular language to replace religious language.

106 hazzyday  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:20:27pm

A last bit of Huxley.

Huxley supported the reading of the Bible in schools. This may seem out of step with his agnostic convictions, but he believed that the Bible's significant moral teachings and superb use of language were relevant to English life. "I do not advocate burning your ship to get rid of the cockroaches". However, what Huxley proposed was to create an edited version of the Bible, shorn of "shortcomings and errors... statements to which men of science absolutely and entirely demur... These tender children [should] not be taught that which you do not yourselves believe." The Board voted against his idea, but it also voted against the idea that public money should be used to support students attending church schools. Vigorous debate took place on such points, and the debates were minuted in detail. Huxley said "I will never be a party to enabling the State to sweep the children of this country into denominational schools".The Act of Parliament which founded board schools permitted the reading of the Bible, but did not permit any denominational doctrine to be taught.

107 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:22:21pm

re: #101 nnw59

How exactly would one go about trying to prove "Unguidedness" or randomness? Perhaps by showing guidedness or, gasp, design?

Dude- even Michael Behe is uninterested in applying the scientific method to his own theories.

108 Bob Levin  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:22:36pm

I read all of Coyne's post, and I think that Melanie Phillip's entire article in the Spectator is much more representative of what she is trying to say. I wrote in another post that I believed she is trying to have a reasonable discussion bringing together the worlds of science and religion together. I believe her response in the Spectator reinforces my assertion. But this isn't just an academic question, because it frequently affects public policy and schools' curriculum. And I suppose this is what raises everyone's dander. It should. It's an issue of where private beliefs should affect the public domain--there isn't a clear answer. It's also an issue of opportunism, that the creationists that she speaks of will either build or hop on the ID bandwagon, and she mentions this. But for her, ID is simply an idea that Gd exists, not science per se, and she doesn't see why this belief should preclude her from taking part in scientific discussions. And she also notes that there are people from the world of science who wish to take part in religious discussions--making the religious discussions more interesting. There may be genuine battles between ID and school boards, but this, I believe, is just one woman's opinion. That is how I read her article.

109 Kronocide  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:23:08pm

re: #101 nnw59

You know little about Darwinism.

Random variation and natural selection are not part and parcel, part of the same, etc.

110 solomonpanting  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:24:14pm

re: #103 Outrider

Does Alan Reed get to do any voice overs?

Hey, silly. We all know dinosauers didn't speak English.

111 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:25:01pm

re: #110 solomonpanting

Hey, silly. We all know dinosauers didn't speak English.

they're illegal?

112 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:25:33pm

re: #78 Sharmuta

Illuminaughty plots are another matter......

Yeah, they're usually pretty thin, relying mostly on action action action, not much story, and either a cable guy or a pizza delivery guy. But not always, some of my most favorite plots feature no guys at all.

113 Killian Bundy  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:25:35pm

re: #102 Killgore Trout

Revealed: the face of the first European

Ethnic nationalists can bite me.

/they weren't around back then or they would probably bite you as food

114 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:25:39pm

re: #101 nnw59

No.

If that were the case then Darwin's body of work and writing would have remained an "article of faith" as you call it. Instead it has evolved from his initial work and blossomed into other studies and scientific inquiry. Many of which contradicts, or corrects previous bodies of work as the science progresses over a period of time.

115 Fenway_Nation  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:27:29pm

re: #111 redc1c4

Yep- they snuck in from the Land Before Time....

116 solomonpanting  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:27:30pm

re: #111 redc1c4

they're illegal?

They're were just doing the jobs domestic dinosaurs wouldn't do.

117 MrPaulRevere  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:27:37pm

re: #105 Gus 802

"Claiming victimhood as a mean of argument never accomplished anything"... I have to say most self identified 'conservatives' have adopted the mantle of victimhood. Victims of the the MSM, victims of the DHS, whatever. I find this appalling.

118 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:28:16pm

re: #108 Bob Levin

Maybe you should read the comments on this thread too, as ID was specifically born out of the creationist movement and it's loss in the Edwards v. Aguillard case.

119 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:28:20pm

re: #90 Charles

Intellectual fascism = criticism.

"I see a flaw in your argument".

"STOP BRUTALIZING ME YOU NAZI"!

120 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:30:13pm

re: #117 MrPaulRevere

"Claiming victimhood as a mean of argument never accomplished anything"... I have to say most self identified 'conservatives' have adopted the mantle of victimhood. Victims of the the MSM, victims of the DHS, whatever. I find this appalling.

That they have. I was going to mention something along those lines but I wanted to be sensitive. ;) Victimhood is now de moda for some groups that once thought of themselves as otherwise.

121 BignJames  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:30:15pm

re: #102 Killgore Trout

Revealed: the face of the first European
Ethnic nationalists can bite me.

You read any of the comments?


I agree on purpose, but not on our origins. Go and explore the reality on [Link: www.theyfly.com....] Learn that the white and the Oriental races are not of this planet. Our first visit here was 22 million years ago, with then already with beyond-lightspeed travel tech. The orientals canme later from the other side of Galaxy. Our history is over as billion years. Theories such as originating in Africa from Lucy, Iraq cradle of civilzation etc. is mainstream misinformation.

Oh,yeah.

122 Outrider  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:30:35pm

re: #110 solomonpanting

Hey, silly. We all know dinosauers didn't speak English.

What? They spoke Spanish perhaps? ;-)>

123 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:31:10pm

re: #108 Bob Levin

See also the Wedge Strategy and then there's this, from the father of the Wedge:

Johnson calls his movement "The Wedge." The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."

124 HelloDare  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:32:27pm

Poor Melanie Phillips.

I have the world's smallest secular violin around here somewhere. Where did I put it...

125 gmsc  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:32:38pm

May 5th, 1925: John T. Scopes served an arrest warrant for teaching evolution in violation of the Butler Act.

126 Killian Bundy  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:32:41pm

re: #118 Sharmuta

Maybe you should read the comments on this thread too, as ID was specifically born out of the creationist movement and it's loss in the Edwards v. Aguillard case.

482 U.S. 578

/don't link it or anything

127 Kronocide  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:32:53pm

Our history is over as billion years.

Nobody has disproved this except for the intellectual fascists.

128 laZardo  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:32:58pm

re: #121 BignJames

Learn that the white and the Oriental races are not of this planet. Our first visit here was 22 million years ago, with then already with beyond-lightspeed travel tech. The orientals canme later from the other side of Galaxy. Our history is over as billion years.

Shit, I just remembered that I forgot to set the hover-brakes when I parked my cruiser last night.

/coming from and living in the Pearl of said Orient c:

129 erraticsphinx  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:34:09pm

This isn't the Melanie Phillips I thought I knew

Pity Obama has made the phrase sounds silly, because that is how I really feel.

130 Buster Bunny  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:34:23pm

re: #101 nnw59

nnw59 .. take your argument further. Allowing for the fact that this intelligent design is the means of doctrine that should be acceptable, do this for me.

Build on it.

Show me methods of proving that the existence of an intelligent designer are ENGRAVED into the mechanism. Show me the trigger sequences that allow a lifeform to commit to absolute and immediate abiogenesis. Direct me to the derivative events and consequent conclusions that state that evolution isnt happening .. never happened and couldnt possibly be happening within a normal observable framework.

Outside of that schema, let me call you a liar and enjoy it.

131 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:35:07pm

re: #117 MrPaulRevere

Agreed. Behaving like pussies, they are.

/sexist Yoda
//Is it sexist to call whiny brats "pussies"?

132 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:35:22pm

re: #126 Killian Bundy

Yeah... I already linked to the wiki page, where the link for the decision can be found. I'm pretty sure Ms Phillips isn't interested anyways.

133 Fenway_Nation  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:35:31pm

re: #128 laZardo

I gotta say, you don't look a day over 19 million years old.

134 hazzyday  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:35:40pm

re: #108 Bob Levin

She is referring to ID incorrectly if the scope of her arguments covers this discussion on the internet. ID is intelligent design as propagated by the Discovery institute. ID is not the cosmic beginnings of the universe as created by a divine intelligence billions of years ago. Of which now we only comprehend an iota of. The discovery institute has purloined the phrase "intelligent design" for a specific purpose. It seems easy enough to place oneself on either side of the argument by stating whether or not one believes the earth appeared by Miracle around 10,000 years ago with human beings intact.

135 freetoken  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:36:22pm

re: #108 Bob Levin

I wrote in another post that I believed she is trying to have a reasonable discussion bringing together the worlds of science and religion together. I believe her response in the Spectator reinforces my assertion.

Labeling criticisms of her poorly (and contradictorily) written essays as "The Secular Inquisition" is, in your terms "trying to have a reasonable discussion"?

Not buying it.

If Ms. Phillips truly wanted to have a "reasonable discussion" she could start by telling us why she changed her tune over the years (from ID being creationism, to now ID not being creationism), and why she is shilling for the DI. On top of that, she could explain why she wants to discuss US court cases without knowing the details of them, or of understanding the difference between the US and the UK.

re: #108 Bob Levin

But this isn't just an academic question, because it frequently affects public policy and schools' curriculum. And I suppose this is what raises everyone's dander. It should. It's an issue of where private beliefs should affect the public domain--there isn't a clear answer.

Contrary - the answer is clear. In the United States, and not in the UK (which is a monarchy whose head is also the head of the state church), sectarian religious beliefs cannot be established by the power of the state.

136 Kronocide  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:37:41pm

But secularists, including the militant atheist and evangelist for Darwin Professor Richard Dawkins, are enraged. They say that the school’s fundamentalist Christian teachers are undermining the scientific teaching of biology.

Wow. Militant atheists? Darwin evangelists?

Look at all that intellectual dishonesty coming from all those zealous theists!

137 Buster Bunny  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:37:47pm

re: #133 Fenway_Nation

I gotta say, you don't look a day over 19 million years old.

Its the facelift .. we took his face all the way back to Pluto and pinned back his ears !

138 hazzyday  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:38:15pm

Jay Leno OT. Miss Piggy has caught the bird flue, and Big Bird has caught the swine flu.

139 BignJames  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:38:17pm

re: #128 laZardo

The orientals canme later from the other side of Galaxy. Our history is over as billion years.


Which other side?

Enquiring minds

140 HelloDare  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:39:47pm

I hope Phillips researches her other articles better than she did her long response. Yikes.

141 hazzyday  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:39:47pm

re: #135 freetoken

I think like Medved she has been paid for this service. or retained as a scholar. something to that effect.

142 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:40:34pm

re: #138 hazzyday

Jay Leno OT. Miss Piggy has caught the bird flue, and Big Bird has caught the swine flu.

Heh.

"Here is a pie chart of my favorite bars. Here is a bar graph of my favorite pies".

143 erraticsphinx  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:41:17pm

re: #140 HelloDare

She doesn't.

I've spent the last hour going through the articles on her site. She puts on a very good persona; I was fooled.

144 Catttt  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:41:24pm

re: #131 Slumbering Behemoth

Agreed. Behaving like pussies, they are.

/sexist Yoda
//Is it sexist to call whiny brats "pussies"?

No - it's speciesist! /

145 Drogheda  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:41:37pm

re: #139 BignJames

The orientals canme later from the other side of Galaxy. Our history is over as billion years.

Which other side?

Enquiring minds

The East side of course.

146 Bob Levin  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:41:41pm

#118 and #123 Sharmuta

I'm not going to dispute anything you say. I'm just talking about whether or not Melanie is sincere. In her article she's pretty straightforward that she isn't an expert on the history of ID. She is clear that it doesn't come from Creationism, and I think I know what she's referring to. It's the gray hair. When we were kids, creationists had a particular line, almost a script. I think she's referencing those memories. However, she is intrigued with the idea--that Gd exists. Perfectly normal thoughts. She isn't going so far as to say ID is science, she is saying that some people who are either in the sciences, read about the sciences as laypeople, come to the thought that Gd exists, and the catalyst for such thoughts consist of scientific data. Okay. I just don't see reason to jump on her case.

147 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:42:33pm

re: #144 Catttt

No - it's speciesist! /

Clearly a case of genderism.

//Or perhaps he's an organist.

//

148 BignJames  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:42:36pm

re: #145 Drogheda

The East side of course.

Not the bottom/top?

149 gmsc  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:42:40pm

re: #139 BignJames

The orientals canme later from the other side of Galaxy. Our history is over as billion years.

Which other side?

Enquiring minds

They came from hundreds of thousands of light years away, despite the fact that our universe is only 6 thousand years old.

////

150 erraticsphinx  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:42:51pm

re: #146 Bob Levin

There IS a reason to jump to her case because she is doing what is the textbook definition of intellectual dishonesty.

151 Killian Bundy  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:42:53pm

re: #132 Sharmuta

Yeah... I already linked to the wiki page, where the link for the decision can be found. I'm pretty sure Ms Phillips isn't interested anyways.

/guess you didn't Shepardize it either, not saying it not still valid law, but you never know until you trace it up to date, wiki isn't a reliable source for current case law

152 laZardo  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:42:58pm

re: #133 Fenway_Nation

Thaaaaaanks, but 19 million is the new 0.0919922735 eons these days. D:

I wish I was around to lounge on those Great Pangaean Beaches though. Even a few private miles made it look so...endless.

re: #139 BignJames

Take a left at Andromeda, 270 degrees around Sombrero and straight up till the next Earth morning. You can't miss it.

153 gmsc  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:44:10pm

re: #152 laZardo

Thaaaaaanks, but 19 million is the new 0.0919922735 eons these days. D:

I wish I was around to lounge on those Great Pangaean Beaches though. Even a few private miles made it look so...endless.

re: #139 BignJames

Take a left at Andromeda, 270 degrees around Sombrero and straight up till the next Earth morning. You can't miss it.

"The second star to the right, shines with a light . . ."

154 Buster Bunny  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:44:43pm

re: #152 laZardo

Take a left at Andromeda, 270 degrees around Sombrero and straight up till the next Earth morning. You can't miss it.

Oh good .. I always take the wrong turn at Albaturkey .. its a family bunny tradition.

155 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:44:55pm

re: #152 laZardo

Thaaaaaanks, but 19 million is the new 0.0919922735 eons these days. D:

I wish I was around to lounge on those Great Pangaean Beaches though. Even a few private miles made it look so...endless.

re: #139 BignJames

Take a left at Andromeda, 270 degrees around Sombrero and straight up till the next Earth morning. You can't miss it.

270 degrees around Sombrero?

Is that like a Trans Sombrero Injection?

//

156 Danny  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:45:33pm

I find it amusing that these people always say the critisism against them is due to Charles's mental "health" problems. LOL.

157 BignJames  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:46:00pm

re: #155 Gus 802

270 degrees around Sombrero?

Is that like a Trans Sombrero Injection?

//


No globular clusters?

158 gmsc  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:46:08pm

re: #154 Buster Bunny

Oh good .. I always take the wrong turn at Albaturkey .. its a family bunny tradition.

I've noticed that's something of a problem . . .

159 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:46:31pm

re: #144 Catttt

Well, that's a relief, because I really like women, but I really hate cats.
/kidding

160 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:46:49pm

re: #157 BignJames

No globular clusters?

Nah. Just a few macular floaters. //

161 solomonpanting  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:47:46pm
For those who appear to assume I am part of some cosmic Christian conspiracy to destroy science and deny the laws of nature, let me first of all gently enlighten you: I am an agnostic if traditionally-minded Jew; not a scientist, not a philosopher,

But I did spend the night at a Holiday Inn.

162 laZardo  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:47:53pm

re: #153 gmsc

"The second star to the right, shines with a light . . ."

You can't stop there! That's Hipster country!

/why do you think they look so...peculiar?

re: #154 Buster Bunny

Could be worse. Travelers sometimes forget which Magellanic cloud they're in about a couple light-years through.

163 Drogheda  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:48:06pm

re: #148 BignJames

Not the bottom/top?

That would be the Penguins and the Esquimaux of course.

164 Catttt  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:48:14pm

re: #145 Drogheda

The East side of course.

Did they take the A train through the middle to get to the other side? I hear that can be a bumpy ride.

/honestly!

165 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:48:30pm

re: #146 Bob Levin

I'm just talking about whether or not Melanie is sincere

She's not. A few years ago, she said ID and creationism were related.

166 hazzyday  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:49:57pm

re: #153 gmsc

.999 is the new 1

167 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:50:02pm

re: #156 Danny

I find it amusing that these people always say the critisism against them is due to Charles's mental "health" problems. LOL.

It is an extremely pathetic retort to any reasonable argument, and evidences their dishonesty and insecurity.

168 Bob Levin  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:50:41pm

#135 Freetoken,

I'll move from the bottom of your comments to the top. The line isn't clear, which is why cases regarding church and state keep moving up to the Supreme Court.

Now to the real point, she's just expressing an opinion, not doing a footnoted scholarly article. She's a little peeved. But she tried to state her case once again. She's not making any outrageous claims, like Ben Stein made--although, you've got to argue with Stein, you can't just dismiss him. But she isn't even doing that. But if you read the Spectator article and something strikes you as nefarious--that's how you see it. Okay.

169 freetoken  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:50:48pm

So no one has asked the question yet: Why Charles?

Why did Melanie pick on LGF in her article?

LGF was not the first blog to write a criticism of Ms. Phillips' article "Creating An Insult To Intelligence."

Ms. Phillips has long running arguments with the atheist/secular humanist bloggers and they jumped on that article right away. So did many science bloggers. Indeed, LGF was a bit slow (/ahem...) to respond.

So why LGF?

I have a hypothesis (only Ms. Phillips knows the real reason.)

170 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:51:55pm

re: #146 Bob Levin

She isn't going so far as to say ID is science

Yes- she is:

This is because Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science.

This is simply not true. ID was born from creationism.

171 Catttt  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:52:09pm

I gotta do this. Gotta. From Wiki:

The complex astronomical radio source Sagittarius A appears to be located almost exactly at the Galactic Center, and contains an intense compact radio source, Sagittarius A*, which coincides with a supermassive black hole at the center of our Galaxy.

172 Gus  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:52:16pm

re: #169 freetoken

Vlaams Belang, et al.

Maybe.

173 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:52:41pm

re: #169 freetoken

Might be that circle of friends.

174 Sharmuta  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:53:02pm

re: #172 Gus 802

We are so on the same wavelength.

175 freetoken  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:53:42pm

re: #168 Bob Levin

I'll move from the bottom of your comments to the top. The line isn't clear, which is why cases regarding church and state keep moving up to the Supreme Court.

You need to talk to Killian (one of our resident lawyers.) He's beaten into my head that this is all cut-n-dried. Indeed, he complains that we are wasting our time talking about this subject because it is so cut and dried.

176 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:54:14pm

re: #169 freetoken

It's the popular thing to do for crowd-following non-thinkers.

177 Bob Levin  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:58:18pm

#150 Erraticsphinx

For me, if someone is intellectually dishonest, you'll see it across the board in everything that person writes. I've read some very fine things by her, and so I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.

But is everyone really trying to say that Melanie is some kind of dishonest person, who writes with ulterior motives and rhetorical tricks that distort the truth and guide people to do terrible things? Is that what's going on? If not, someone explain it to me.

178 redc1c4  Mon, May 4, 2009 11:59:17pm

re: #175 freetoken

You need to talk to Killian (one of our resident lawyers.) He's beaten into my head that this is all cut-n-dried. Indeed, he complains that we are wasting our time talking about this subject because it is so cut and dried.

yeah, but Killian complains about lots of things......

/white smoke

179 Bob Levin  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:03:54am

#170 Sharmuta,

Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you. You are factually correct. I was paraphrasing from her Spectator article, trying to understand what she's talking about. I don't think she was being quite so, literal, accurate, you pick the word. I think she and I probably has similar experiences with full blown creationists when we were younger. That's all.

180 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:08:44am

Test

181 Danny  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:09:00am

re: #177 Bob Levin


But is everyone really trying to say that Melanie is some kind of dishonest person, who writes with ulterior motives and rhetorical tricks that distort the truth and guide people to do terrible things? Is that what's going on? If not, someone explain it to me.

Not everyone. I think a lot of people are saying she's just flat wrong about certain things: in this case, about I.D. vs science.

182 gmsc  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:10:16am

re: #180 Gus 802

Test

Yep - other threads are fine. It seems to be just the overnight open thread.

183 Gus  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:10:48am

re: #182 gmsc

Yep - other threads are fine. It seems to be just the overnight open thread.

Yeah, working fine here.

184 Bob Levin  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:12:01am

#181 Danny,

Okay, so she's wrong. No need to question her character. I'll bet she's written things which have been informative and helpful to just about everyone here.

185 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:26:55am

re: #179 Bob Levin

You pondered her sincerity, which her past articles indicate she's not being. If she was promoting theistic evolution, I would be more on her side, but she's pushing pseudo-science and bad theology and being disingenuous while doing so.

186 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:28:41am

re: #101 nnw59

The most frustrating aspect of this debate is the complete absence of intellectual honesty in those who will not admit that Darwinian evolution has, at its core, an article of faith no more scientific or provable than, for example, Jesus rose from the dead. "An unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" is not a scientific statement but a faith-based one. How exactly does one know that an event was "unplanned" or "unguided?" Why stating it, of course! But the invective and scorn and ridicule heaped on those who take it seriously as a hypothesis to test is maddening as well as repellent. How exactly would one go about trying to prove "Unguidedness" or randomness? Perhaps by showing guidedness or, gasp, design?
I never see this issue fairly addressed by those who take it an as absolute article of faith that these evolutionary events are random. No one can prove that. And at least Jesus had eye witnesses (2 Peter 1:16-18).

What you have to assume is that God is microcontrolling radiation from the sun, 93 million miles away, in order to aim it at specific targets in the reproductive genomes of individual moving animals, to such a degree that it disrupts particular genomic base pairs, and not those on either side. And your proof of that is? And why would a mistake-proof God do this in such a way that 99+% of them do not survive to reproduce? Naah; genetic mutations are random.

The nonrandom selecting agent that decides which mutations survive and which ones thrive is, of course, eminently observable; it is the environment itself.

187 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:32:31am

re: #108 Bob Levin

I read all of Coyne's post, and I think that Melanie Phillip's entire article in the Spectator is much more representative of what she is trying to say. I wrote in another post that I believed she is trying to have a reasonable discussion bringing together the worlds of science and religion together. I believe her response in the Spectator reinforces my assertion. But this isn't just an academic question, because it frequently affects public policy and schools' curriculum. And I suppose this is what raises everyone's dander. It should. It's an issue of where private beliefs should affect the public domain--there isn't a clear answer. It's also an issue of opportunism, that the creationists that she speaks of will either build or hop on the ID bandwagon, and she mentions this. But for her, ID is simply an idea that Gd exists, not science per se, and she doesn't see why this belief should preclude her from taking part in scientific discussions. And she also notes that there are people from the world of science who wish to take part in religious discussions--making the religious discussions more interesting. There may be genuine battles between ID and school boards, but this, I believe, is just one woman's opinion. That is how I read her article.

It's an issue of fucking facts, pure and simple. And the facts, whether they be of the history of ID or the genetics of evolution, are NOT on her side.

People have the right to their own opinions; they do NOT have the right to their own "facts".

188 Bob Levin  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:34:33am

#186 Salamantis

Hey guy. Can you please answer the question I asked earlier? That E8 link was very interesting. Where would that fit into a curriculum, or is it college level, or graduate level? How early could that be taught? That's what I meant by ramping up science education.

189 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:37:45am

re: #146 Bob Levin

#118 and #123 Sharmuta

I'm not going to dispute anything you say. I'm just talking about whether or not Melanie is sincere. In her article she's pretty straightforward that she isn't an expert on the history of ID. She is clear that it doesn't come from Creationism, and I think I know what she's referring to. It's the gray hair. When we were kids, creationists had a particular line, almost a script. I think she's referencing those memories. However, she is intrigued with the idea--that Gd exists. Perfectly normal thoughts. She isn't going so far as to say ID is science, she is saying that some people who are either in the sciences, read about the sciences as laypeople, come to the thought that Gd exists, and the catalyst for such thoughts consist of scientific data. Okay. I just don't see reason to jump on her case.

But there IS NO empirical scientific data that supports ID. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

190 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:38:41am

re: #188 Bob Levin

#186 Salamantis

Hey guy. Can you please answer the question I asked earlier? That E8 link was very interesting. Where would that fit into a curriculum, or is it college level, or graduate level? How early could that be taught? That's what I meant by ramping up science education.

Most definitely graduate level, with the possible exception of really bright undergrads.

191 Bob Levin  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:40:37am

#187 Salamantis

Then I guess she's wrong, and that's it. She's not hurting anyone, she's exploring her own thoughts and feelings, and that's how I take it. I'm not taking a class from her. She a columnist for goodness sake. Honest, I've read columnists who are wrong on issues. She's very helpful on many issues, and I know she's helped you, because she's pretty darned good.

192 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:41:12am

re: #167 Slumbering Behemoth

It is an extremely pathetic retort to any reasonable argument, and evidences their dishonesty and insecurity.

And desperation. And utter lack of personal integrity. Or decency.

193 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:42:23am
194 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:45:38am

re: #193 kelidor

Unlike you Mr Johnson, Melanie Phillips is beyond reproach.

At least she was until she started spouting demonstrably false statements, and then started playing the victim card when she was called on it.

195 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:45:43am

re: #191 Bob Levin

#187 Salamantis

Then I guess she's wrong, and that's it. She's not hurting anyone, she's exploring her own thoughts and feelings, and that's how I take it. I'm not taking a class from her. She a columnist for goodness sake. Honest, I've read columnists who are wrong on issues. She's very helpful on many issues, and I know she's helped you, because she's pretty darned good.

But on this issue, she sux on dry ice. People should have clued her into this fact before, because it's more painful now. But if we just let he blather on undebunked, her comeuppance would be even more painful later.

She needs to get out from under this disaster, and fast, and limit the damage to her credibility, because it threatens to taint all her other, more useful work, with the general, and undeserved, stink of naive, gullible and dogmatic foolishness.

And that would be a grievous loss for all of us.

196 freetoken  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:46:03am

re: #191 Bob Levin

She's not hurting anyone, [...]

Well, with her anti-vaccine tirades she is.

197 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:46:32am

re: #193 kelidor

Unlike you Mr Johnson, Melanie Phillips is beyond reproach. An award winning journalist and former writer of editorials for the bible of the left in the UK, Guardian Newspaper. Got a problem?

Fucking facts are not a popularity contest, nimrod!

198 leereyno  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:47:56am

About the only thing I detest more than leftists are creationists. I don't hate creationists in the way that I hate leftists, because creationism isn't a death cult responsible for the murder of millions, but it is an incredibly annoying denial of clear and obvious reality. Creationism is either the result of brainwashing, or the result of someone being unable to reconcile their faith with reality.

Now some people, including a good friend of mine, will argue that Genesis et.al. are really comprised of metaphors because ancient peoples lacked the conceptual framework to understand the origin of the universe as it actually happened. I cannot argue with this notion because a metaphor that can mean anything is one that can mean everything and is therefore non-falsifiable. Neither do I really care to argue with a person who claims this because they are not denying the truth. Instead of pretending that objective reality does not exist, they are instead finding a way to make their faith match up with reality. Contrast this with someone who pretends that earth is 6,000 years old.

199 freetoken  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:50:51am

re: #193 kelidor

Unlike you Mr Johnson, Melanie Phillips is beyond reproach.

No she is not.

Her long running stoking of the anti-vaccine hysteria is a disgrace and dangerous.

Her absolutely pig-headed refusal to accept the corrections of her mischaracterizations of various scientific knowledge is insight into how doctrinaire she truly is.

Her need to blame the ills of the UK on her pet targets of atheists and Moslems, as well as her hanging with the religiously proto-nazi Euro-nationalists, definitely reveals a woman intent on scapegoating whoever she finds convenient in order to sell essays.

200 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:51:12am

re: #177 Bob Levin

#150 Erraticsphinx

For me, if someone is intellectually dishonest, you'll see it across the board in everything that person writes. I've read some very fine things by her, and so I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.

But is everyone really trying to say that Melanie is some kind of dishonest person, who writes with ulterior motives and rhetorical tricks that distort the truth and guide people to do terrible things? Is that what's going on? If not, someone explain it to me.

People are saying that she emotionally selects her conclusions, from among her pre-established convictions, then cherry-picks ways to reach them. Kinda like creationists do.

Not a good thing for people to be generalizing to her valid and valuable antijihadi work, For any of us.

201 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:54:20am

re: #179 Bob Levin

#170 Sharmuta,

Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you. You are factually correct. I was paraphrasing from her Spectator article, trying to understand what she's talking about. I don't think she was being quite so, literal, accurate, you pick the word. I think she and I probably has similar experiences with full blown creationists when we were younger. That's all.

I think she wants to have her scientific cake and eat her creationist sympathies too. But she can't; those are two disparate realms. Knowledge and belief. Presence and absence of empirical evidence. Falsifiability and un-.

202 Bob Levin  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:54:57am

#196 Freetoken,

That's another issue, and yep, you've got a point. That is a problem, a serious one at that. Well, it looks like I'm the one that has to sit down and reconsider a few things. Ain't it always the case, life's mirror has a way of sneaking up on you. Well, I guess I'll just head on back up to the cheap seats.

203 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:56:54am

re: #184 Bob Levin

#181 Danny,

Okay, so she's wrong. No need to question her character. I'll bet she's written things which have been informative and helpful to just about everyone here.

But she's so egregiously wrong, when it's so simple and easy to be factually right...

It doesn't require much google-fu at all.

It's either a case of malicious dishonesty, one of willful ignorance, or one of obtuse denseness. None of these alternatives is flattering.

204 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 1:00:45am

re: #191 Bob Levin

#187 Salamantis

Then I guess she's wrong, and that's it. She's not hurting anyone, she's exploring her own thoughts and feelings, and that's how I take it. I'm not taking a class from her. She a columnist for goodness sake. Honest, I've read columnists who are wrong on issues. She's very helpful on many issues, and I know she's helped you, because she's pretty darned good.

Well, now she neds to pull her fat outta the fire, and avoid being CONSISTENTLY wrong on this topic.

Because if she continues down this catastrophic path, she'll be quite deservedly pinned to the public cardboard with indisputable, irrefutable facts, as surely as a slow insect is transfixed to specimen display by a nimble lepidopterist.

205 Bob Levin  Tue, May 5, 2009 1:01:47am

#201 Sharmuta,

Yes, I noticed that about the Spectator article. For her ID is definitely a belief, not knowledge. Where is the line between science and belief?--which to me has always been a personal question, whereas, oh heck, all the way back to Hume, farther really, folks have been trying to make this personal question one of indisputable fact. Has never worked, no matter what side folks take.

206 Bob Levin  Tue, May 5, 2009 1:05:19am

Okay, to the cheap seats. Have a good evening everyone.

207 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 1:07:03am

re: #205 Bob Levin

#201 Sharmuta,

Yes, I noticed that about the Spectator article. For her ID is definitely a belief, not knowledge. Where is the line between science and belief?--which to me has always been a personal question, whereas, oh heck, all the way back to Hume, farther really, folks have been trying to make this personal question one of indisputable fact. Has never worked, no matter what side folks take.

The ability to falsify vs. the inability to falsify, which translates to the ability to produce supporting or undermining empirical evidence vs. the inability to.

208 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 1:32:46am
209 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 1:37:53am

re: #208 edinbud

Then kick rocks. No one is keeping you here.

Or, if you prefer, offer a real argument and not just some lame bitching.

210 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 1:45:45am

re: #208 edinbud

This site continues to go downhill. Very sad.

Maybe it is heading uphill, and you lack the mental muscles to climb along.

211 Wild Knight  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:49:32am

Just to reaffirm my special support for Charles on this issue. The growth of this pestilential dogma has taken me by surprise. There is no justification for it, especially since their are many models of divinity which permit evolution as a dynamic in the material world.

212 Hettie  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:10:36am

"What testable, falsifiable hypotheses does ID put forth? What testable, falsifiable theories have been presented by the DI? On what grounds can the DI claim that ID is a scientific theory, or that it "comes out of science" at all?"

The limitation of the scientific method is that it can only be applied to testable and falsifiable hypotheses. Therefore; we will not get any answers from science on phenomena that are not testable or falsifiable.

People could do with a little reading on the philosophy of science. For the record I will regard neither Charles or Melanie as authoritative on these matters. They inform us about what happens in our time and both are very good at that. Neither of them should get bogged down in philosophical/metaphysical arguments as neither of them are properly qualified and I don't expect them to be so.

213 luxomni  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:17:52am

Here we are sitting on the end of life as we have known it. We are changing from a representational government of the free to a fascitistic 'progressive' government of serfs, and everyone is arguing instead about my superstition can beat up your superstition.

214 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:18:22am

re: #212 Hettie

"What testable, falsifiable hypotheses does ID put forth? What testable, falsifiable theories have been presented by the DI? On what grounds can the DI claim that ID is a scientific theory, or that it "comes out of science" at all?"

The limitation of the scientific method is that it can only be applied to testable and falsifiable hypotheses. Therefore; we will not get any answers from science on phenomena that are not testable or falsifiable.

People could do with a little reading on the philosophy of science. For the record I will regard neither Charles or Melanie as authoritative on these matters. They inform us about what happens in our time and both are very good at that. Neither of them should get bogged down in philosophical/metaphysical arguments as neither of them are properly qualified and I don't expect them to be so.

But I am. My BA is in philosophy, including logic and philosophy of science, and my MA is in humanities interdisciplinary, with a major track in comparative religion. I have taught both philosophy and comparative religion at Troy State University.

Charles is completely right on this issue, and Melanie is utterly wrong.

215 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:21:09am

re: #212 Hettie

Thus, Intelligent Design is not scientific in any way, shape or form. Not hypothetically, not theoretically, and not even arguably philosophically.

Myth, not science. Fantasy, not reality.

216 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:23:28am

re: #213 luxomni

Here we are sitting on the end of life as we have known it. We are changing from a representational government of the free to a fascitistic 'progressive' government of serfs, and everyone is arguing instead about my superstition can beat up your superstition.

One of them IS a superstition, and the other one ISN'T. The difference between superstition and nonsuperstition is measured via the presence and absence of supporting empirical evidence. Evolutionary theory is massively supported by vast plethoras of empirical evidence from many different scientific fields, and contradicted by none, while ID is utterly bereft of any evidentary support whatsoever - and the Biblical Literalist version is irretrievably empirically falsified.

217 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:27:05am

re: #213 luxomni

Here we are sitting on the end of life as we have known it. We are changing from a representational government of the free to a fascitistic 'progressive' government of serfs, and everyone is arguing instead about my superstition can beat up your superstition.

More like observable, testable reality can "beat up" unobservable, untestable fairy tales.

Try again, your fallacious argument has miserably failed to obfuscate this issue.

218 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:38:14am

re: #213 luxomni

Here we are sitting on the end of life as we have known it.

Hmmm... Beck fan(atic), Jones fan(atic), Robertson (or any other televangelist for that matter) fan(atic)?

Is there a real, substantial difference?

219 freetoken  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:40:32am

re: #213 luxomni

Here we are sitting on the end of life as we have known it.

Apocalyptic political hypochondria....

And anyway, according to Ms. Phillips, she is concerned about exactly what you claim to be, and she blames the evil evolution-teaching atheists for the problem. Perhaps you agree with her?

220 Million Dollar Man  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:41:31am

Melanie Phillips is wrong about everything except for the fact that ID is not part of some creationist conspiracy. On that point, she's right.

221 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:48:18am

re: #220 Million Dollar Man

Melanie Phillips is wrong about everything except for the fact that ID is not part of some creationist conspiracy. On that point, she's right.

What?!?

Heh. You're trying to stealth troll, eh?

222 Million Dollar Man  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:52:14am

re: #221 Slumbering Behemoth

What?!?

Heh. You're trying to stealth troll, eh?

No.

223 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:07:03am

re: #222 Million Dollar Man

Got it.

Read the Wedge Document. If, after doing so, you can say with a straight face that ID is not "part of some creationist conspiracy", then you are either a blatant liar or a brain dead dupe.

224 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:10:26am

It's called a conclusive refutation, Mil Man; otherwise known as an egregious empirical smackdown, and being irretrievably pwned.

Major kudos to the Johnny on the Spot Behemoth. He slumbers not tonight.

225 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:12:41am

re: #223 Slumbering Behemoth

Got it.

Read the Wedge Document. If, after doing so, you can say with a straight face that ID is not "part of some creationist conspiracy", then you are either a blatant liar or a brain dead dupe.

Yep; once he's read that document, he can nooooo longer resort to the third alternative - ignorance.

226 Million Dollar Man  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:15:46am

re: #225 Salamantis

Yep; once he's read that document, he can nooooo longer resort to the third alternative - ignorance.

I've read the "wedge" document and it still doesn't indicate some vast conspiracy. I'm absolutely against ID being taught in schools, but saying it's a sinister conspiracy is a stretch.

227 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:19:48am

re: #225 Salamantis

Some read it and still feign ignorance. A wholly dishonest, diabolical and manipulative lot. Look forward to the low-rent Steve Austin popping up on another thread with the same "Wot wot".

228 theheat  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:28:24am

re: #13 Catttt

Or, you (Phillips) can write a 2,000 word essay to convince people you aren't standing there in front of God and everyone with your pants around your ankles.

Mea culpa is much more elegant.

229 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:34:56am

re: #226 Million Dollar Man

I've read the "wedge" document and it still doesn't indicate some vast conspiracy. I'm absolutely against ID being taught in schools, but saying it's a sinister conspiracy is a stretch.

No, it indicates the unmistakeable intent to perpetrate a vast conspiracy; an intent that has subsequently been put into action in states throughout this nation.

230 ducktrapper  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:36:36am

Philips is right about some things and wrong about others. Like the rest of us, distinctly human. I wonder, however, is there a new model of PCness that requires everybody to be on the same page, on all things. Take me for instance. I'm usually right about everything but it turns out, that this year, the Habs really did suck. Go figure. Anyway, can we forgive her creationist dabblings because she's nailing the jihadis? Despite Einstein's pooh poohing, it seems God does play dice with the universe. He was a pretty smart guy for the most part though.

231 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:40:13am

re: #230 ducktrapper

Philips is right about some things and wrong about others. Like the rest of us, distinctly human. I wonder, however, is there a new model of PCness that requires everybody to be on the same page, on all things. Take me for instance. I'm usually right about everything but it turns out, that this year, the Habs really did suck. Go figure. Anyway, can we forgive her creationist dabblings because she's nailing the jihadis? Despite Einstein's pooh poohing, it seems God does play dice with the universe. He was a pretty smart guy for the most part though.

People who reference the selfsame objective facts should share a common perspective upon them.

Unless they didn't take the trouble to check those facts. And that is a mortal sin for a public pundit columnist.

232 Mr Secul  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:00:49am

re: #203 Salamantis

But she's so egregiously wrong, when it's so simple and easy to be factually right...

It doesn't require much google-fu at all.

It's either a case of malicious dishonesty, one of willful ignorance, or one of obtuse denseness. None of these alternatives is flattering.

Especially in a journalist.

233 Mr Secul  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:03:55am

re: #193 kelidor

Unlike you Mr Johnson, Melanie Phillips is beyond reproach. An award winning journalist and former writer of editorials for the bible of the left in the UK, Guardian Newspaper. Got a problem?

Yes, I have no time for journalists that can't fact check.

Unless she's not a journalist. Is she a comedienne?

234 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:15:14am
235 dwells38  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:26:10am

re: #108 Bob Levin

I read all of Coyne's post, and I think that Melanie Phillip's entire article in the Spectator is much more representative of what she is trying to say. I wrote in another post that I believed she is trying to have a reasonable discussion bringing together the worlds of science and religion together. I believe her response in the Spectator reinforces my assertion. But this isn't just an academic question, because it frequently affects public policy and schools' curriculum. And I suppose this is what raises everyone's dander. It should. It's an issue of where private beliefs should affect the public domain--there isn't a clear answer. It's also an issue of opportunism, that the creationists that she speaks of will either build or hop on the ID bandwagon, and she mentions this. But for her, ID is simply an idea that Gd exists, not science per se, and she doesn't see why this belief should preclude her from taking part in scientific discussions. And she also notes that there are people from the world of science who wish to take part in religious discussions--making the religious discussions more interesting. There may be genuine battles between ID and school boards, but this, I believe, is just one woman's opinion. That is how I read her article.

I just hate to see anyone adding fuel to the fire of the creationists. And I think there is danger here. I remember a Frontline a few years ago where in a high-school there was a strong clique of fundamentalist's children that were rejecting some of the science teachings based on their religion.

In short, give these people one inch and they'll take a parsec.

Once everyone's completely confused about what science really is will it even be safe to cross a bridge or board an airplane or undergoe surgery?

Will we see structures that are supposedly safer because they're "blessed" or some idiot flung "holy" water on them? It's a slippery slope and we've seen some people are quite ready to go right there tomorrow if they could.

236 Jimmah  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:27:36am

re: #193 kelidor

Unlike you Mr Johnson, Melanie Phillips is beyond reproach. An award winning journalist and former writer of editorials for the bible of the left in the UK, Guardian Newspaper. Got a problem?

Nobody is 'beyond reproach'. What is this idiotic attitude that anyone who has ever said anything in the way of 'opposing Jihad' should get a free pass to spout *whatever nonsense they want on any other topic ?

*As long as its some flavour of religious/anti scientific/far-right wing nonsense of course.

237 uptight  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:33:49am

Melanie Phillips is a total heroin and this attack on her is not your classiest moment Charles.

So you disagree. Sort of. BFD. Give the woman a break.

238 uptight  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:37:05am

re: #236 Jimmah

It's not that MP is beyond reproach, it's the aggressive way in which opposition is expressed that is so disrespectful, unnecessary and counterproductive.

For the record, I agree with Charles's argument - just not the way he is treating Melanie.

239 Jimmah  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:44:29am

re: #237 uptight

Melanie Phillips is a total heroin and this attack on her is not your classiest moment Charles.

So you disagree. Sort of. BFD. Give the woman a break.

This attitude of worshipping anti-jihad media 'saints' is very silly. I'll still support Mrs Phillips when she says something that makes sense, but on the topic of science, she's awful and we shouldn't pretend she is any less awful than she is here just because of the other stuff she has said that does make sense.

In short, it's not about allegeiance to personalities, it's about issues.

240 uptight  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:49:10am

Yes Jimmah, but she has earned some respect.

241 Jimmah  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:52:47am

re: #240 uptight

Phillips hasn't been entirely respectful towards Charles in this, so why should he be expected to wear kids gloves for her?

Johnson – who has become unhealthily obsessed with ID and Creationism in recent months

242 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:57:05am

re: #237 uptight

It's hardly an "attack"- spare me. There was nothing in Charles' original post except facts and a respectful approach. And in return we get, "a kind of intellectual fascism" lines. Talk about disrespectful!

243 Achilles Tang  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:05:56am

re: #1 Sharmuta

This is just another talking point, as ID can only lead to one conclusion, if given the opportunity, and that being, "God did it".

When I first heard of this I too was intrigued by the idea that there could be a mathematical method, related to information theory (which is how the concept was first proposed by Dembski years ago), that would "prove" something artificial.

It did not however take long to realize that Dembski was no genius and that the idea was bunk, but I at the time also thought that if they wanted to play the game of science, they would quickly be proven wrong and implode.

What I did not count on was the strength of ignorance and that their appeal is deliberately targeting the ignorant, and intellectually lazy. Clearly Phillips, and for that matter Jon Stewart are fully in that camp.

I'm begining to think that there was more to Ayn Rand than I first thought when I read her long ago.

244 nyc redneck  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:06:13am

i disagree w/ melanie phillips completely, however, i'm not going to trash her.
she has done so much to enlighten the civilized world to the dangers of islamic jihad that i still respect and admire her.
i'm very curious to know how this unexpected strange development in her perspective occurred. she is one of the last people i would expect to abandon reason and science for creationism and intelligent design.
melanie, you are off base here.

245 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:08:04am

re: #212 Hettie

You'll note, however, that the person that is qualified, Dr. Coyne, took Ms Phillips to task, and not Charles. There might be a reason why.

246 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:09:58am

re: #193 kelidor

Aren't you an ass. Not much more need be said to you.

247 funky chicken  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:17:17am

re: #61 lostlakehiker

This is almost tragic. Good people, otherwise of sound reason and keen moral perception, are fixing their standard and building their castle on the sands of ID.

In losing the public fight over creationism, they drag down the rest of their cause, the part that stands a chance and that is better founded in reason and law. If they should win, which is unlikely but must be reckoned a remote possibility, in winning, they'd establish precedents that would be immensely helpful to demagogues of any stripe. With the Constitution interpreted loosely and pliable to the will of the people, and the role of facts in deciding case law out the window, the next cause that has little constitutional license and no grounding in science to come along will have its path smoothed.

Creationists surely must understand that endless mischief must come of throwing out this Baby---the influence of science and the constitution on how the schools are run---with the bathwater (as they see it) of allowing Darwin into biology class.

I think the ID movement is their way to try to fight back against what they see as the leftist takeover of education. You notice most ID proponents answer criticism by listing examples of leftist indoctrination in public schools rather than answering specific questions about ID itself. It's like they believe that they can battle post-modern nonsense in the social sciences by introducing their own flavor of nonsense into the hard sciences.

Nonsense is nonsense.

248 S'latch  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:18:28am

You can't Torquemada nothing.

249 funky chicken  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:19:35am

re: #244 nyc redneck

i disagree w/ melanie phillips completely, however, i'm not going to trash her.
she has done so much to enlighten the civilized world to the dangers of islamic jihad that i still respect and admire her.
i'm very curious to know how this unexpected strange development in her perspective occurred. she is one of the last people i would expect to abandon reason and science for creationism and intelligent design.
melanie, you are off base here.

Frankly, her embrace of ID and anti-vaxx propaganda has lead me to doubt a lot of what she's written about the Islamic threat in GB.

250 Jimmah  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:20:37am

re: #244 nyc redneck

I notice she has a lot of buzzwords in common with some other UK writers like Bryan Appleyard and Fay Weldon, who talk a lot about 'scientism' and how it has 'confuddled modern man's mind' and 'banished the spiritual' etc. I generally see this sort of thing as a result of the gulf between the humanities and sciences in educational establishments in the UK, particularly in the past when these people were being taught. As a result, a lot of British 'literati' haven't got a clue when it comes to understanding science.

The problem was recognised at the university I attended, which started first semester courses called "Science and the Modern Man" especially for arts/humanities students, in an attempt to at least break the basic facts of science to this sort of student. As I remember though, all most of those students took from that course was the knowledge of how to brew alcohol at home. But it was worth a try.

251 funky chicken  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:28:46am

re: #235 dwells38

I just hate to see anyone adding fuel to the fire of the creationists. And I think there is danger here. I remember a Frontline a few years ago where in a high-school there was a strong clique of fundamentalist's children that were rejecting some of the science teachings based on their religion.

In short, give these people one inch and they'll take a parsec.

Once everyone's completely confused about what science really is will it even be safe to cross a bridge or board an airplane or undergoe surgery?

Will we see structures that are supposedly safer because they're "blessed" or some idiot flung "holy" water on them? It's a slippery slope and we've seen some people are quite ready to go right there tomorrow if they could.

My last two years of high school a group of students (a couple of whom had been friends of mine) suddenly became super-duper evangelicals. It was bizarre--they started confronting other students and cornering them in the halls and otherwise making a nuisance of themselves. But they NEVER attempted to highjack the instruction offered by teachers in the classroom. That was over 25 years ago and it was a suburban Kansas City school, and students just didn't initiate academic conflicts with teachers.

Sadly, that's no longer the case, and it appears that parents and churches are teaching their kids to be obnoxious and disruptive in the classroom....really, the attitude seem to be that if the "bad" kids get to scream at teachers about the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, the "good" kids should get to scream at teachers that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

252 Barflytom  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:29:29am

re: # 214 Salamantis

But I am. My BA is in philosophy, including logic and philosophy of science, and my MA is in humanities interdisciplinary, with a major track in comparative religion. I have taught both philosophy and comparative religion at Troy State University.

Charles is completely right on this issue, and Melanie is utterly wrong.

Do you know the answer to the ultimate question of life the universe and everything ?

42 ?

I can see the point about "intelligent design" being a trojan horse for creationism, but isn't that missing the wider point ?

Substitute "agnosticism" for "ID" and what MP and others are saying is that there are no absolute certainties, which I agree with. I don't doubt the facts of evolution, but beyond that you're into the question of "is there a God ?", to which the only honest answer I can think of is "how the #@%! should I know ?"

253 funky chicken  Tue, May 5, 2009 6:35:23am

re: #251 funky chicken

oops, con't.

I think you can blame a lot of the problems with education on the switch to constructivism instead of direct instruction. I taught for a couple of years, and every inservice I attended told us that our job was to set a framework in the classroom that would allow the kids to basically self-discover or self-teach. Presenters frequently mocked the "sage on the stage" as hopelessly outdated and direct instruction as something to be avoided at all costs.

Thus students feel empowered to shout down educators even when the students are totallly ignorant of what they are saying.

254 Land Shark  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:01:52am

I guess we'll just have to call you Charles Torquemada Johnson The Grand Lizard Inquisitor Of The Secular Inquisition. No one expects The Secular Inquisition! Of course, the fact it's Creationists trying to impose their views in science classrooms that's the real reason all this is even an issue is conveniently not mentioned by I.D. apologists.

Well, what does she expect, spewing that nonsense about I.D. being based on science? I believe in I.D. and would never try to insult people's intelligence by claiming it's based on science. It's faith. It continues to amaze me the crap some people will peddle.

255 Yashmak  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:18:33am

re: #240 uptight

Yes Jimmah, but she has earned some respect.

Yes, and she's obviously burned some by misrepresenting I.D. You can't expect people to ignore the lies or misrepresentations of a person just because they've done some things you like or agree with. That's a dangerous road to take.

re: #193 kelidor

Unlike you Mr Johnson, Melanie Phillips is beyond reproach. An award winning journalist and former writer of editorials for the bible of the left in the UK, Guardian Newspaper. Got a problem?

Cool. Maybe one day I can be 'beyond reproach', so that I can then say whatever nonsense I choose, and never be held accountable for my mistakes or misrepresentations. NO ONE is beyond reproach.

256 Yashmak  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:22:11am

re: #247 funky chicken

I think the ID movement is their way to try to fight back against what they see as the leftist takeover of education. You notice most ID proponents answer criticism by listing examples of leftist indoctrination in public schools rather than answering specific questions about ID itself.

True, it's almost impossible to get through one of these threads without one of them bringing up global warming. Oh crap. Now I'VE done it.

257 dato_jo_khan  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:23:05am

If something can't be empirically tested, for all intensive purposes, it is not science. Science is, at it's heart, observation of the natural world, and these observations should be reproducible through experimentation and observation.

If these ID or Creationists can come up with a way to test an omnipotent being's ability to miracle something into existence then I'll be all ears. Until then stick to religion classes.

258 Honorary Yooper  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:33:23am

re: #32 Charles

Tas Walker is over there in the comments for Melanie's article, castigating her for denying young earth creationism. Gotta love it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Now that's between a rock and a hard place! We're critical of her support of ID because ID is YEC, and a YEC is pissy becuase she's attempting to calll ID "science" and not YEC.
Maybe after a few rounds of this she might get the point. Maybe.

259 opnion  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:34:06am

Test

260 Honorary Yooper  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:44:22am

re: #193 kelidor

Unlike you Mr Johnson, Melanie Phillips is beyond reproach. An award winning journalist and former writer of editorials for the bible of the left in the UK, Guardian Newspaper. Got a problem?

No one, and I repeat, no one is above and beyond reproach. That includes you, me, and Ms. Phillips. To say otherwise is to either be narcissistic (about oneself), or to fall into demagoguery.

261 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:44:27am

re: #259 opnion

If this is about the overnight thread- it's not just you. That thread is jacked up.

262 ducktrapper  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:44:53am

Maybe one could argue that Phillips' opposition to the Jihadis is based merely upon religious differences. However, they are creationists too. I still think there is a danger of becoming like "them" if we allow no deviation from correct thought. Is she insisting that it be taught in school science courses? If someone opposes totalitarianism and stands for freedom, even the freedom to be wrong about evolution and how the west west was won, they can believe in the Easter Bunny, for all I care. Am I missing something here? I can understand pulling the neo-nazis' pants down, showing them for what they are and disassociating with them and their ilk entirely but Philips appears to be one of the good guys.

263 Honorary Yooper  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:46:07am

re: #208 edinbud

Then go somewhere else, dipstick.

264 Honorary Yooper  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:48:43am

re: #220 Million Dollar Man

Melanie Phillips is wrong about everything except for the fact that ID is not part of some creationist conspiracy. On that point, she's right.

Obviously you haven't been paying attention here. Ever hear of the Wedge Document? Or of the two differing drafts of Of Pandas and People? You know, the one where they changed "Creation Science" to "Intelligent Design"?

Use the search function. It might enlighten or disturb you.

265 uptight  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:49:54am

re: #255 Yashmak

Cool. Maybe one day I can be 'beyond reproach', so that I can then say whatever nonsense I choose, and never be held accountable for my mistakes or misrepresentations. NO ONE is beyond reproach.

When did I say she shouldn't have to answer for her words?

All I'm asking for is civility, but this is just the latest example of our self-destructive weakness. When we should tolerate each others differences and generally support each other, we turn in on ourselves and the only people laughing are the Islamofascists and the red/brown convergees.

266 Honorary Yooper  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:53:03am

re: #261 Sharmuta

If this is about the overnight thread- it's not just you. That thread is jacked up.

Yeah, I keep getting the spinning hamster wheel of death of the overnight thread when I use the "new comments" button.

267 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:55:23am

re: #265 uptight

All I'm asking for is civility

Where in Charles' original post was he "uncivil"?

268 lurking faith  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:55:54am

It appears to me that Michelle Phillips is attempting to support the idea of intelligent design as a concept separate from the obviously unscientific creationist belief that is being pushed at our schools under the name Intelligent Design.

When I first heard, very briefly, the term intelligent design, it made sense to me. I do believe in a Creator (partly out of faith, and partly because it makes sense to me for reasons too long to go into now), but I also believe in evolution in general terms (because of the mounds of evidence).

But with a national creationist movement now defining the phrase, it must be abandoned by anyone who takes science seriously. Not merely abandoned, but opposed as unscientific.

Understanding of evolution is not critical to most people's daily lives. However, allowing the destruction of the rational methods underlying science will eventually ruin our way of life.

269 lurking faith  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:57:35am

re: #266 Honorary Yooper

Yeah, I keep getting the spinning hamster wheel of death of the overnight thread when I use the "new comments" button.

Refresh works, though.

270 Archimedes  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:05:27am
Intelligent Design, whose proponents are mainly scientists, holds that the complexity of science suggests that there must have been a governing intelligence behind the origin of matter, which could not have developed spontaneously from nothing..

Is she her referring to the existence of matter as such, or is she talking about the theory of evolution? These are two different (albeit related) things.

If she is referring to creatio ex nihilo, i.e. something out of nothing, then this is more of a philosophical question than a scientific question. If that is what she is referring to, then there are a few problems with the claiming that there was intelligence behind it: 1> there is no direct evidence of this "intelligence". 2> Conscious requires existence. It doesn't work the other way. 3> This is less important, but the fact is if you claim there is such an intelligence then you have to answer how it came to be, which means you have really just pushed the chain back and thus you have explained nothing.

As to evolutionary theory, well, the theory of natural selection explains it brilliantly well. But, I believe she was referring to the former, creatio ex nihilo.

Hey, listen, I respect Melanie Phillips on lots of things, but I have a fundamental disagreement with her on this.

271 lostlakehiker  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:22:09am

re: #101 nnw59

The most frustrating aspect of this debate is the complete absence of intellectual honesty in those who will not admit that Darwinian evolution has, at its core, an article of faith no more scientific or provable than, for example, Jesus rose from the dead. "An unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" is not a scientific statement but a faith-based one. How exactly does one know that an event was "unplanned" or "unguided?" Why stating it, of course! But the invective and scorn and ridicule heaped on those who take it seriously as a hypothesis to test is maddening as well as repellent. How exactly would one go about trying to prove "Unguidedness" or randomness? Perhaps by showing guidedness or, gasp, design?
I never see this issue fairly addressed by those who take it an as absolute article of faith that these evolutionary events are random. No one can prove that. And at least Jesus had eye witnesses (2 Peter 1:16-18).

Science tries to steer clear of "absolute articles of faith". Darwin's explanation for the mix of variety and similarity we see in today's mix of species amounts to this: once life is up and running, however that happened, we can account for the rest without HAVING to invoke divine intervention:

(1) Chance variations exist. They do. You can just look around and see them. Breeders are well acquainted with the phenomenon.

(2) Fecundity outstrips the carrying capacity of the environment. This is simple. A handful of rabbits populated the Australian outback in a few years. If not culled by hunger and predators, that initial breeding population would by now blanket Australia sea to sea and six fathoms deep.

(3) In the struggle for survival, it may happen from time to time that one of those chance variations confers an advantage. (Most such variations confer only an early death, but that is beside the point.) When an advantageous variation arises, natural selection leads to the propagation of that variation throughout the population. In modern terminology, the mutation sweeps the population and becomes a fixed NEW TRAIT. (Among humans, adult lactose tolerance, for instance, is new enough that while it's sweeping, it hasn't swept.)

(4) The geological record suggests, (and now, radioactive dating and the antiquity of the skies confirm) that there has been plenty of time for small changes to accumulate. Speciation requires thousands of years, perhaps millions. We've had billions.

(5) How exactly would you show guidedness? By showing that (1)-(4) in fact are NOT a viable explanation. And scientists have labored heroically to fill the gaps and demonstrate the viability of this scientific explanation. ID-ers have catcalled from the sidelines, but at every factual turn, their objections have been answered. It simply is not true that this or that biochemical pathway exhibits "irreducible complexity". It simply is not true that intermediate forms do not exist. It simply is not true that feathers are of no use unless they serve the purpose of flying, for instance.

And so, there is a logical mechanism which accounts for the variety of life as well as the deep similarities. Whether it really happened that way, or whether, instead, the earth was created 5000 years ago, fully formed, with fossils placed in the rock exactly as if the earth were old, and with light placed in space, enroute from places that never existed, exactly as if they had, well, science cannot unmask such a perfectly constructed deception. It is an article of faith, at least in certain christian circles, that God not only cannot be deceived, He cannot deceive.
If science has any article of faith at its core, it is that very belief: He just wouldn't do that.

272 elcaro  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:31:07am

re: #257 dato_jo_khan

If something can't be empirically tested, for all intensive purposes, it is not science. Science is, at it's heart, observation of the natural world, and these observations should be reproducible through experimentation and observation.

If these ID or Creationists can come up with a way to test an omnipotent being's ability to miracle something into existence then I'll be all ears. Until then stick to religion classes.

For all "intents and purposes"... Science is derived through natural observation of the natural world. Religion is derived through revelation. Science is received through the eye of the body, Religion through the eye of the soul... or the nous (in Greek)... the Latins call it the "mind's eye".

The distinction is very important... People shouldn't cross religion with science, because they usually end up with some form of heresy (religion or science).

Allow me to interject my own personal thoughts... This debate has been going on for quite a long time on this website, but the last few months has been less about the debate and more about what people are saying about Charles. I know it's difficult to simply ignore when someone attacks the site and its author, but a lot of these people who are doing the attacking seem pretty inconsequential in the grand scheme of things... There really is no end in sight.

Ah, well... I like the site and its focus on geo-political matters and the occasion technical matter... I'll keep checking in. Rarely do I post... and it's usually to disagree or show displeasure. Please accept my humble apology for that.

273 Yashmak  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:35:09am

re: #262 ducktrapper

Maybe one could argue that Phillips' opposition to the Jihadis is based merely upon religious differences. However, they are creationists too. I still think there is a danger of becoming like "them" if we allow no deviation from correct thought. Is she insisting that it be taught in school science courses? If someone opposes totalitarianism and stands for freedom, even the freedom to be wrong about evolution and how the west west was won, they can believe in the Easter Bunny, for all I care. Am I missing something here? I can understand pulling the neo-nazis' pants down, showing them for what they are and disassociating with them and their ilk entirely but Philips appears to be one of the good guys.

It's not about 'correct thought'. She's misrepresenting a known quantity; I.D. As already said, a 'good guy' can make mistakes, and deserves no less to have them pointed out. Also, given the attempts currently underway to insert this bit of religion into the science classroom, it's important to immediately call out attempts like hers to cast non-science as science. It doesn't mean her other good works need be ignored.

274 erraticsphinx  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:42:59am

re: #199 freetoken

What you said.

re: #230 ducktrapper

I'm sorry, I don't know about you, but I'd rather NOT have liars leading the anti-jihad cause.
Just because she is anti-jihad does not mean EVERYTHING else should be overlooked; that's how one quickly finds themselves in undesirable postions having undesirable friends.

275 Yashmak  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:46:56am

re: #265 uptight

When did I say she shouldn't have to answer for her words?

You'll note that I was quoting someone else (kelidor), not you.

All I'm asking for is civility, but this is just the latest example of our self-destructive weakness.

Yes, attempting to insert religion, in whatever guise, into a classroom that's supposed to teach an empirical science, is indeed self-destructive.

When we should tolerate each others differences and generally support each other, we turn in on ourselves and the only people laughing are the Islamofascists and the red/brown convergees.

How you can talk about tolerating each others' differences, and then turn around generalize about a group of people, citing their religion and skin color amuses me greatly.

276 ducktrapper  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:55:22am

Who said that EVERYTHING else should be overlooked? But hey let's stay pure folks. I denounce myself on the chance I may believe something, um, silly. Like the right to be wrong about things that don't matter to me? Am I to believe that Melanie Phillips is now a danger to freedom for holding some ideas with which I disagree? My mother knocked on wood the other day, I denounce her, as well.

277 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:55:33am

Please note: burst in spewing insults and your account will be blocked. Debate is welcomed, insults and abuse will get you the boot.

278 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:00:37am

re: #276 ducktrapper

Evolution should matter to you. To take an immediate example, it is evolutionary theory that helps us develop effective influenza vaccines (something that Phillips also attacks). Those vaccines will be essential to ensuring that swine flu doesn't come back in virulent form in the fall. Essentially, you may well end up owning your life to humanity's understanding of evolution.

279 ozemc  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:09:27am

All I can say is:

"Hey Torquemada, what do you say?"

(with apologies to Mel Brooks)

280 ducktrapper  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:20:23am

Dark Falcon - Where did I say that evolution doesn't matter (to me)? I merely opined that Ms. Phillips' ideas on the subject, unless she is in a position to impose them on others, didn't matter to me any more than my mother's harmless superstition. If you insist on assigning to me, opinions that I don't actually hold, however, perhaps it is you that has a problem. If we talked long enough, I'm sure we'd find a belief of yours that we could hold to ridicule. Maybe you're deathly afraid of spiders or balloons or something. I'm sure it's hiding in there somewhere. And now here you are writing your opinions on the internet even though you are undoubtably mistaken about something.

281 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:24:58am

re: #280 ducktrapper

Forgive me if my inference was incorrect. And her views on evolution do matter, as they contribute to an anti-science atmosphere on the right that can hurt our ability to learn and cost us elections by making us look like fools and bigots.

282 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:25:36am

re: #280 ducktrapper

I'm not "ridiculing" Melanie Phillips -- I'm criticizing her mistaken viewpoints.

There is a difference, you know.

283 [deleted]  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:30:49am
284 Charles Johnson  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:33:55am

Third meltdown this morning.

285 ducktrapper  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:35:46am

Charles - I certainly understand that. I haven't used the word ridicule. I do not agree with Phillips, on this issue. I merely wonder if we can take this too far. Me? I don't have so many friends that I can afford to cut them off for fairly harmless differences of opinion. Vlaam der blaam is one thing. If a friend of mine turned out to be a nazi, neo or otherwise, I would throw them under the bus. If they turned out to believe in creationism, I think I could bear with them unless they were in control of some process by which they could impose these beliefs on others. Is Ms. Phillips in that position or advocating the like? I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. I find out when I ask questions.

286 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:39:31am

re: #285 ducktrapper

Charles - I certainly understand that. I haven't used the word ridicule. I do not agree with Phillips, on this issue. I merely wonder if we can take this too far. Me? I don't have so many friends that I can afford to cut them off for fairly harmless differences of opinion. Vlaam der blaam is one thing. If a friend of mine turned out to be a nazi, neo or otherwise, I would throw them under the bus. If they turned out to believe in creationism, I think I could bear with them unless they were in control of some process by which they could impose these beliefs on others. Is Ms. Phillips in that position or advocating the like? I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. I find out when I ask questions.

Creationism isn't harmless, but I do take your point. I agree, creationism is not a reason to cut someone off. Actually, what normally prompts the cutoff is that the person in question reacts to Charles' criticism by attacking Charles.

287 erraticsphinx  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:46:16am

re: #286 Dark_Falcon

I don't think anyone is questioning Ms. Phillip's right to free speech.

It's her right to deceive that's under the microscope.

288 ducktrapper  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:49:08am

I like to keep my eyes on self. I hang out on a few guitar discussions forums where once in a while, I get exasperated with and I get in trouble for questioning the smug dismissiveness of lefties who assume all must think like they do. Bush bad. Obama good. Check out the Gear Forum at Acoutic Guitar Magazine's Forum. My bad. No center-right guitar players allowed. And whatever you do, don't question Pete Seeger's right to America's highest honors. I've looked at wrong from both sides now, from left and right and still somehow ...

289 Archimedes  Tue, May 5, 2009 9:59:07am

re: #270 Archimedes

Argh, I made quite a few typos. :~D

Is she her referring to the existence of matter as such, or is she talking about the theory of evolution? These are two different (albeit related) things.

her = here


If she is referring to creatio ex nihilo, i.e. something out of nothing, then this is more of a philosophical question than a scientific question. If that is what she is referring to, then there are a few problems with the claiming that there was intelligence behind it: 1> there is no direct evidence of this "intelligence".

claiming = claim


2> Conscious requires existence. It doesn't work the other way. 3> This is less important, but the fact is if you claim there is such an intelligence then you have to answer how it came to be, which means you have really just pushed the chain back and thus you have explained nothing.

conscious = consciousness


As to evolutionary theory, well, the theory of natural selection explains it brilliantly well. But, I believe she was referring to the former, creatio ex nihilo.

Hey, listen, I respect Melanie Phillips on lots of things, but I have a fundamental disagreement with her on this.

290 dato_jo_khan  Tue, May 5, 2009 10:56:02am

re: #272 elcaro

Thanks for making absolutely no sense. Or at least not doing anything with what I said..... I have no idea why you even quoted me.

291 Euler  Tue, May 5, 2009 11:13:23am

re: #101 nnw59

The most frustrating aspect of this debate is the complete absence of intellectual honesty in those who will not admit that Darwinian evolution has, at its core, an article of faith no more scientific or provable than, for example, Jesus rose from the dead.

The insights that lead to statistical explanations of biological phenomena are much broader than biology; they have born fruit throughout the sciences, starting in the mid 19th century.

The most obvious example is statistical mechanics, which explains macroscopic behavior of large populations--for example, of gas molecules--in terms of what are assumed to be random interactions between individuals. All of the laws of thermodynics rest on this assumption of randomness.

Another example is information theory, which grew out of statistical physics in the mid 20th century. Fundamental limits on data transmission rate (channel capacity) are derived from the assumption that the statistics governing corrupting noise are random.

Speaking of information theory, one very important branch of it is the theory of coding and detection, which is the study of how best to encode a signal for transmission accross a noisy channel, and then to reliably detect the noisy signal at the receiver. One of my favorite analogies to the process of natural selection is the Viterbi algorithm for detecting a signal by weeding out the most likely transmitted message among a collection of competing possibilities, in a process that is very similar to the pruning of the tree of life by natural selection. This algorithm is being carried out by your modem, and your hard drive, right now.

All of these are statistical theories that make real, testable predictions about phenomena. Here is an old comment of mine linking to just one example from evolutionary biology.

What is my point? If it is an artical of faith that "an unguided, unplanned process" lies at the heart of evolutionary biology, then that same artical of faith is at the heart of most of science.

292 Ilan Toren  Tue, May 5, 2009 11:23:38am

Torquemeda, Charles?

I didn't expect some sort of Spanish Inquisition......

No one ever does...

293 Achilles Tang  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:13:23pm

re: #262 ducktrapper

Maybe one could argue that Phillips' opposition to the Jihadis is based merely upon religious differences. However, they are creationists too. I still think there is a danger of becoming like "them" if we allow no deviation from correct thought. Is she insisting that it be taught in school science courses? If someone opposes totalitarianism and stands for freedom, even the freedom to be wrong about evolution and how the west west was won, they can believe in the Easter Bunny, for all I care. Am I missing something here? I can understand pulling the neo-nazis' pants down, showing them for what they are and disassociating with them and their ilk entirely but Philips appears to be one of the good guys.

Why don't you try an experiment? Come here and promote the "theory" of phlogiston, and then defend yourself when people call you a fool, by saying that you didn't mean that it should actually be taught in school and, besides, you are against Jihadists.

ID and creationism belong in the same dustbin as phlogiston, flat earth, the coal burning sun and much much more, even while they could all conceivably have been called science until they were shown the door.

294 Achilles Tang  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:28:49pm

re: #101 nnw59


I never see this issue fairly addressed by those who take it an as absolute article of faith that these evolutionary events are random. No one can prove that. And at least Jesus had eye witnesses (2 Peter 1:16-18).

You haven't been paying attention in science class, evolution isn't simply "random", and you haven't been paying attention in bible class either; Jesus had alleged eye witnesses, removed by several hundred years at least when quoted.

295 ducktrapper  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:34:27pm

Naso - Maybe I will, that is, if you try a little experiment and re-read what was written. Was I here promoting some sort of philosphy with which you disagree? Damn! Who knew? Thanks for getting on a soapbox and clearing that up for everybody.
Alas, I'm probably a lot like Mr. Johnson. Too conservative for "liberals" and too "liberal" for conservatives. I think I'll have a beer and a joint and go practice me some Chet Atkins tunes. G'night.
Mr. Sandman ...

296 Achilles Tang  Tue, May 5, 2009 12:59:58pm

re: #295 ducktrapper

Be careful you don't melt. You said

I still think there is a danger of becoming like "them" if we allow no deviation from correct thought.

......and you said it in defense of rubbish. I would agree with you if we were being critical of what someone said in their bedroom, or on the john and all that implies, but that is not the case is it?

Melanie made the issue public, and in defense of those who DO want to teach it in school. Saying that SHE didn't promote teaching it (which I'm not sure if she did or not) is pretty lame.

So, I "allow" deviant thought when it is not in my face. Melanie is, figuratively, in my face and, come to think of it, so are you.

297 Archimedes  Tue, May 5, 2009 1:38:13pm

re: #294 Naso Tang

You haven't been paying attention in science class, evolution isn't simply "random", and you haven't been paying attention in bible class either; Jesus had alleged eye witnesses, removed by several hundred years at least when quoted.

That's true. It's not random. In fact, evolution is *selective*. Survival is the test, which is a very efficient filter over the long haul.

There is a random element, but the whole process is not random.

298 Bob Levin  Tue, May 5, 2009 1:48:05pm

#295 Ducktrapper

I was in your exact position yesterday, so I know where you're coming from. Melanie is just expressing an opinion, her personal opinion, she's clear in her Spectator column that it isn't a carefully crafted piece of scholarship, and she's getting hammered for it. She's been helpful, vital really, in her reportings from Great Britain on the decay of what have been the nexus of western culture despite what the French think, and so you think the response has been excessive. On the comments above, I said we can give her some slack for being wrong, and then I said something I consider to be a vital point, that she isn't hurting anyone by expressing this opinion. Someone responded, yes, actually, her anti-vaccine position is hurting someone, and that flipped me. So I had to rethink quite a bit. So, here's my new conclusions about this debate, and debate in general.

1. If she is hurting people, this response is reasonable.
2. If we want a world where there is vigorous debate instead of say senseless killing, well, this is what that debate is going to look like. The idea of peace without human intensity is pretty silly.
3. Nothing is keeping her from signing in here and putting herself in the position that both you and I gladly took. In fact, it would be welcome.
4. Nevertheless, you and I are proof that chivalry is not dead. Oh yeah.

299 Achilles Tang  Tue, May 5, 2009 1:56:43pm

re: #298 Bob Levin

Chivalry speaking, you are waffling.

Your last points suggest you have understood something, why don't you just say so? A "public" figure that says stupid things deserves to be hammered, all the more so if they can't accept why.

300 Yashmak  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:16:35pm

re: #299 Naso Tang

A "public" figure that says stupid things deserves to be hammered, all the more so if they can't accept why.

Which is why I hope I'm never in the position of being a "public" figure. I say stupid things on a semi-regular basis :)

301 Achilles Tang  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:23:32pm

re: #300 Yashmak

:D

Don't look now, but you are public. Perhaps I should have said "with high enough karma"?

302 Bob Levin  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:24:56pm

#299 Naso Tang

You can't be serious. Okay, what exactly do want me to say? I was wrong for even thinking that the criticisms of Melanie were too harsh? I was wrong for acting on those feelings? Seriously? I'm Jewish, we don't have confessionals. Sorry, but I would do it again if I thought something was going on that was unfair. You want to talk science? Start with the Millgram experiments.

303 Lynn B.  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:50:03pm

Melanie Phillips, from her "response:"

The first thing to note is that the distinction I was drawing was not between ID and religion but between ID and creationism. Creationism holds that the universe was literally created in six days or -- through ’young earth’ Creationism -- that it was created in a few thousand years

What's that saying about opening your mouth and leaving no doubt as to your ignorance?

YECs do NOT believe the earth was created in a few thousand years. They believe it was created in six days, a few thousand years AGO. A distinction with a difference. And one that surely rests the case as to Phillips' understanding of what she's raving on about.

Yikes.

304 freetoken  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:24:18pm

re: #303 Lynn B.

And one that surely rests the case as to Phillips' understanding of what she's raving on about.

In the area of science, Ms. Phillips has a history of being quite wrong, and quite stubborn about it.

305 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:31:14pm

re: #252 Barflytom

Do you know the answer to the ultimate question of life the universe and everything ?

42 ?

I can see the point about "intelligent design" being a trojan horse for creationism, but isn't that missing the wider point ?

Substitute "agnosticism" for "ID" and what MP and others are saying is that there are no absolute certainties, which I agree with. I don't doubt the facts of evolution, but beyond that you're into the question of "is there a God ?", to which the only honest answer I can think of is "how the #@%! should I know ?"

Umm...isn't the statement that there are no absolute certainties itself an absolute statement? Kinda self-contradictory, ain't it?

But the question being addressed is not the existence or nonexistence of a deity, but the nonexistent veracity of ID. No purported 'wider point' is being addressed. And ID is indeed merely a new coat of PR propaganda lipstick slapped on the snout of an ancient creationist pig; of that there can be no empirical, historical, reasonable, or rational doubt.

306 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:36:20pm

re: #265 uptight

When did I say she shouldn't have to answer for her words?

All I'm asking for is civility, but this is just the latest example of our self-destructive weakness. When we should tolerate each others differences and generally support each other, we turn in on ourselves and the only people laughing are the Islamofascists and the red/brown convergees.

That's the same argument proferred by Pamela Geller when she urges antijihadis to embrace euroneonazis. And it's just as irretrieveably wrongheaded, and just as morally corrupt, when applied in this instance as it is when applied in that one.

307 Lynn B.  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:41:35pm

re: #304 freetoken

In the area of science, Ms. Phillips has a history of being quite wrong, and quite stubborn about it.

Indeed. But equally clearly, she's developing a history of being quite wrong about Creationism as well. One would think she would at least have done a bit of homework on that. It's much less of an intellectual strain than science, surely. But no.

But the materialist fundies cannot accept this. Believing as they do with perfect faith that all dissent from their world view is heresy, they assume that ID can be nothing other than a conspiracy to smuggle religion back into the public sphere under the heavy disguise of science. And not just religion but Creationism, the Biblical, literalist, science-denying, dinosaurs-never-existed full monty.

Creationists deny that dinosaurs ever existed, do they? That's why the Creation Museum has life-size replicas of Adam and Eve petting dinos in the Garden of Eden?

/I actually do know some Creationists who simply deny that dinosaurs ever existed, but those sorts have been kind of quiet lately.

308 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:44:15pm

re: #276 ducktrapper

Who said that EVERYTHING else should be overlooked? But hey let's stay pure folks. I denounce myself on the chance I may believe something, um, silly. Like the right to be wrong about things that don't matter to me? Am I to believe that Melanie Phillips is now a danger to freedom for holding some ideas with which I disagree? My mother knocked on wood the other day, I denounce her, as well.

It would be rational and reasonable for you to accept, based upon the evidence, that Melanie is wrong about ID, and egregiously so. And that to endeavor to prevent her from making a further fool of herself on this issue by apprising her of her many errors concerning it can only be of great benefit to her.

309 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:46:30pm

re: #278 Dark_Falcon

Evolution should matter to you. To take an immediate example, it is evolutionary theory that helps us develop effective influenza vaccines (something that Phillips also attacks). Those vaccines will be essential to ensuring that swine flu doesn't come back in virulent form in the fall. Essentially, you may well end up owning your life to humanity's understanding of evolution.

Hmm...I wonder whether she attacks vaccination precisely because it IS inextricably interwoven with evolutionary theory...

310 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 3:52:10pm

re: #280 ducktrapper

Dark Falcon - Where did I say that evolution doesn't matter (to me)? I merely opined that Ms. Phillips' ideas on the subject, unless she is in a position to impose them on others, didn't matter to me any more than my mother's harmless superstition. If you insist on assigning to me, opinions that I don't actually hold, however, perhaps it is you that has a problem. If we talked long enough, I'm sure we'd find a belief of yours that we could hold to ridicule. Maybe you're deathly afraid of spiders or balloons or something. I'm sure it's hiding in there somewhere. And now here you are writing your opinions on the internet even though you are undoubtably mistaken about something.

But she is propagating her sorely mistaken opinions as fact, and trading upon her antijihadi credibility in order to do so, in a major mainstream merdia outlet. That entails the possibility that many of the people who will undoubtedly read her disastrously incorrect article there will uncritically embrace its many and massive untruths, merely because they have come to trust her word.

That cannot be good. For history, for education, or for empirical science.

311 uptight  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:34:50pm

re: #306 Salamantis

That's the same argument proferred by Pamela Geller when she urges antijihadis to embrace euroneonazis. And it's just as irretrieveably wrongheaded, and just as morally corrupt, when applied in this instance as it is when applied in that one.

Melanie Phillips is not a Nazi and her views are not repugnant - just naive (if faith is naivety).

Aside from that - good work arguing against civility

312 Jimmah  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:49:07pm

re: #307 Lynn B.

Creationists deny that dinosaurs ever existed, do they? That's why the Creation Museum has life-size replicas of Adam and Eve petting dinos in the Garden of Eden?

Nice catch. She obviously hasn't done her homework at all on this.

313 Jimmah  Tue, May 5, 2009 4:50:06pm

re: #310 Salamantis

merdia

Typo or apt neologism?

314 Jimmah  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:01:20pm

re: #311 uptight

Melanie Phillips is not a Nazi and her views are not repugnant

No-one said that. Salamantis just correctly pointed out that the 'hey, c'mon lets just ignore each other's bullshit since we're all opposed to jihadism and that trumps everything' argument you are using here is the same one that is used by Geller with regard to 'euronazis'. The egression of subscribing to IDrivel is not by any means in the same league as the egression of getting into bed with the european racist far-right, but it doesn't by any means get a free pass.

If we did follow that sort of advice we'd find ourselves not only hurt directly by Jihadism, but also indirectly by the voluntary stifling of vital discourse and debate that still needs to take place within our own society.

315 Achilles Tang  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:18:47pm

re: #302 Bob Levin

#299 Naso Tang

You can't be serious. Okay, what exactly do want me to say? I was wrong for even thinking that the criticisms of Melanie were too harsh? I was wrong for acting on those feelings? Seriously? I'm Jewish, we don't have confessionals. Sorry, but I would do it again if I thought something was going on that was unfair. You want to talk science? Start with the Millgram experiments.

One doesn't mute criticism of a position that is dead wrong, or dead ignorant, just because one agrees about something else entirely unrelated.

That seems to be the gist from you and others, and it is a common theme heard often.

The issue of ID and creationism is a very very public topic here for all the reasons that have been stated in many threads. Melanie Phillips could easily have educated herself on this topic before going public, if not at LGF, then in many other places.

She does do harm by promoting or legitimizing these issues, whether you realize it or not.

As to Milgram, I don't see the relevance any more than if you had said Stockholm.

316 hopperandadropper  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:08:09pm

Like most people who don't understand science, Ms. Phillips thinks ID somehow hasn't been given a fair shot in scientific circles. It's been given the same "fair shot" as any line of thinking that invokes magical forces: none. It deserves the same "fair shot" as the "Jesus holds the nucleus together" concept of atomic physics.

You can argue about this stuff all you want in a philosophy or religion class, but not a science class.

317 Lynn B.  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:27:39pm

re: #311 uptight

Melanie Phillips is not a Nazi and her views are not repugnant - just naive (if faith is naivety).

Aside from that - good work arguing against civility

Faith? What faith?

I am an agnostic if traditionally-minded Jew; not a scientist, not a philosopher, not a subscriber to any kind of -ology but a mere journalist who has always gone wherever the evidence has led and, trying not to make too many mistakes, has formed her conclusions and her opinions from that process.

Agnostics generally aren't big on faith (no offense to agnostics, as on odd Tuesdays I tend to consider myself one). And in this instance, she has most certainly NOT gone wherever the evidence has led, but instead has indulged in and fabricated her own witch hunt against "materialistic fundamentalism" (whatever that is) and formed her conclusions and opinions on the basis of her passions and biases. As a result, she has, in fact, made far too many mistakes and would be wise to concede that.

318 Jimmah  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:39:56pm

re: #314 Jimmah

PIMF 'egression' should be 'regression'.

319 Lynn B.  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:43:56pm

I came very late to this thread, unfortunately, because once I'd read Ms. Phillips' "response," I had a great deal I wanted to say. Since it seems a few people are still dropping in, I'll just point out what to me is among the most glaring fallacies in this piece of piffle and which from an admittedly quick scan of the comments above hasn't yet been addressed.

Sez Mellie:

Refusing to accept that science and religion can be complementary -- and indeed feed each other --because religious faith is out to lunch, they cannot grasp that ID is a metaphysical idea that comes out of but stands separate from science, in that science leads here to an idea with which by definition it must abruptly part company. Instead they insist that the two must be fused – and when that proves impossible, they cry victory.

But of course Charles (whom she goes on to quote as an example of such wrong thinking) has never asserted or cried any such thing. To the complete contrary, in the immortal words of his alter ego:

Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God. Do not trust those who insist otherwise.
-- Lao Stinky

Again, extremely poor research skills for someone who calls herself a journalist. And it does make you wonder about the validity of other points she makes. I no longer trust her as an authority on anything.

320 Sharmuta  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:44:56pm

re: #319 Lynn B.

You may be late to this thread- but I think that point gets the gold star.

321 Jimmah  Tue, May 5, 2009 7:48:38pm

re: #316 hopperandadropper

I'd love to see a one on one debate between the ill informed and hugely under researched(on this topic) Melanie Phillips, and Richard Dawkins. It'd be a schooling and a half.

322 Bob Levin  Tue, May 5, 2009 8:18:26pm

#315 Naso Tang,

My mistake, I mispelled Milgram. It should be Milgram Experiment. That should clear everything up.

323 Bob Levin  Tue, May 5, 2009 11:43:32pm

Since the discussion is pretty much over, how bout we end on several positive notes. Hope this works.

Your text to link...

324 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:55:30am

re: #311 uptight

Melanie Phillips is not a Nazi and her views are not repugnant - just naive (if faith is naivety).

Aside from that - good work arguing against civility

Incivility is when Pamela called for Charles to be publicly flogged in a post on her site, for exposing the fascist connections of her new best eurofriends.

325 Bob Levin  Wed, May 6, 2009 2:54:38am

Salamantis,

Let me ask you some questions about physics, time and space, if you please. I say this, because I sense we are pretty close to finishing the discussion about Melanie Phillips.

Now, the E8 is drawn and diagrammed, and so I can't help but think of it in spatial terms. But does the idea of time-space mean I should also think of it in temporal terms, and if so, do you have a metaphor that will make this work? If I you say that I should continue to think of the E8 in spatial terms, then how should I think about the time that it moves in, using, once again, a helpful metaphor?

If you don't have time to answer, I'll understand. But we have a lull here....

326 freetoken  Wed, May 6, 2009 3:20:28am

re: #325 Bob Levin


Now, the E8 is drawn and diagrammed, and so I can't help but think of it in spatial terms.

The problem (well, one of them) of looking at a diagram drawn on a piece of paper or on an LCD is that our brain wants to automatically associate our physically experience of dimensionality (front - back, left - right) with what we see on the diagram.

E8 comes out of mathematics which deals in very abstract thinking.

Indeed, one criticism of Lisi's attempt to unify everything by using E8 is that it is not truly an insight into everything physical. At the heart of the matter is that a physical theory of the physical universe has to be testable by physical means. (Which of course why ID is not science, it doesn't fit the definition of science.) Furthermore, if a theory claims to be a theory of everything (physical), then one ought to be able to (eventually) connect said new theory with all the older discoveries in physics.

327 Bob Levin  Wed, May 6, 2009 4:35:57am

#326 Freetoken,

I'm really not interested in ID. But you're right, the brain normally puts diagrams into spatial terms and I really work to get away from that. But I'm not a math person. So I hope it's possible with metaphors, or music, jazz specifically, because the flow of time is so crucial to the music. (If you get the feel of the time, you can play.) But, we're talking about physics. And I feel I've got to break these learned patterns of thinking. So that's why I ask. I know that if it can be described using math, which math people will turn into metaphors, maybe we can go right to the metaphors. My gut tells me that Lisi, or at least the E8, is important. The only way I'll figure out why is to ask questions. Thanks for the reply.

328 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 5:06:30am

re: #325 Bob Levin

Maybe this will help:

[Link: science.discovery.com...]

[Link: www.fqxi.org...]

329 ducktrapper  Wed, May 6, 2009 9:13:32am

Very well. Even though I didn't actually make any statements, didn't espouse any theory, disproven or otherwise or any unpopular philosophy, save perhaps tolerance, I will try very hard to not ask unpopular questions any more. Did I express tolerance for the nazis, neo and otherwise? No. Did I suggest tolerance for marxism, fascism or some sort of totalitarianism? No. I may have been trying to understand why someone who believes in God can't express the stuff, silly as it may be, that goes with that belief without being, if not ridiculed, but called on it. Do we think that everyone, friend or foe, should be called on every single misstatement made or every slightly off kilter believe that they hold?
"I like to watch the sunrise." ..... "You realize, you idiot, that the sun doesn't actually rise?"
Or is it merely another version of what Andrew Klaven calls, "Just Shut Up!"?

[Link: americandigest.org...]

330 Achilles Tang  Wed, May 6, 2009 9:21:31am

re: #322 Bob Levin

#315 Naso Tang,

My mistake, I mispelled Milgram. It should be Milgram Experiment. That should clear everything up.

I corrected your spelling. My statement stands.

331 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 9:27:00am

re: #329 ducktrapper

Very well. Even though I didn't actually make any statements, didn't espouse any theory, disproven or otherwise or any unpopular philosophy, save perhaps tolerance, I will try very hard to not ask unpopular questions any more. Did I express tolerance for the nazis, neo and otherwise? No. Did I suggest tolerance for marxism, fascism or some sort of totalitarianism? No. I may have been trying to understand why someone who believes in God can't express the stuff, silly as it may be, that goes with that belief without being, if not ridiculed, but called on it. Do we think that everyone, friend or foe, should be called on every single misstatement made or every slightly off kilter believe that they hold?
"I like to watch the sunrise." ..... "You realize, you idiot, that the sun doesn't actually rise?"
Or is it merely another version of what Andrew Klaven calls, "Just Shut Up!"?

[Link: americandigest.org...]

This ain't a single spoken tongue slip; this is multiple written columns published in a mainstream media outlet. She needs this cluebat wakeup call before she publicly embarrasses and discredits herself further.

332 barflytom  Wed, May 6, 2009 9:28:38am

re: #305 Salamantis

"no absolute certainties"

Yes, that was rather sloppy on my part. I'm fairly certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, and even more certain that I'm never getting anywhere with the young lady bartender at our local watering hole.

I just meant that there are limits to science, in the sense that "is there a God" can't be settled with a mathematical proof.

I realise now that that's quite different to the ID/creationism non-question.

333 uptight  Wed, May 6, 2009 10:49:14am

re: #324 Salamantis

Incivility is when Pamela called for Charles to be publicly flogged in a post on her site, for exposing the fascist connections of her new best eurofriends.

Yes. In fact incivility can be many, many things that are totally unconnected to the point I was making.

Or is Pamela actually Melanie Phillips in disguise?

334 Salamantis  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:47:53pm

re: #333 uptight

Yes. In fact incivility can be many, many things that are totally unconnected to the point I was making.

Or is Pamela actually Melanie Phillips in disguise?

By letting Melanie know that she is in a stinky hole and that she should stop digging before she sinks herself down in it even deeper, the folks letting her know about her mistakes are actually doing her a valuable service.

335 Yashmak  Wed, May 6, 2009 12:57:01pm

re: #334 Salamantis

By letting Melanie know that she is in a stinky hole and that she should stop digging before she sinks herself down in it even deeper, the folks letting her know about her mistakes are actually doing her a valuable service.

Not to mention the service they're doing to her readers/listeners.

336 Bob Levin  Wed, May 6, 2009 1:22:24pm

#328 Salamantis,

Thanks, it's a start. Now, from what I read, this E8 is like a little sphere either attached to, or floating on some type of connected shape. If I have that correct, you provided info about the sphere, is there any particular description of the thing it's attached to? And, if I've got this question totally out of whack, let me know. Thanks again.

#330 Naso Tang

I'm not talking about the Milgram shock experiment, there was another experiment, to me, equally frightening. Generally, a significant group of people were placed in a room, everyone "in" on the experiment except for one person. On a blackboard or something, several lines were drawn of different lengths, labeled A through, oh, H, let's say. The longest one was, say B, and clearly so. Then the guy in a white coat goes around the room asking which line is longest. Everyone says C. When they finally get to the test subject, he or she also says C, even though he or she knows that B is the longest line.

So, if I think something is wrong, I'm going to stand here and say it, and argue, and if it turns out that I'm wrong, that's okay. You would do the same, right? Stand up against this tough crowd?

337 Bob Levin  Wed, May 6, 2009 9:21:57pm

Conversation over? Time for Wes Montgomery.

338 Bob Levin  Wed, May 6, 2009 9:24:00pm

Conversation over? Time for Wes Montgomery.

Your text to link...


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
1 hour ago
Views: 66 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1