Wow Behe is on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer

[Jabu Khan]

sure says molecular a lot for someone who can't pronounce it. What the fuck is a "Darwinian Biologist". He called the Physicist on the panel a sympathiser not an actual Darwinian Biologist.

[Doubting Didymus]

How does he pronounce molecular?

And I don't see any particular problem with calling people "darwinian biologists". Gould and co did it all the time. He's obviously needs some sort of term to refer to his scientific opponent by.

Tell more! what's he saying these days?

[Monad]

sure says molecular a lot for someone who can't pronounce it. What the fuck is a "Darwinian Biologist". He called the Physicist on the panel a sympathiser not an actual Darwinian Biologist.

Does he pronouce it as badly as Bush pronounces Nuclear? (ie like Homer Simpson - "nucular") - would figure of he did (went to the same school of IDiocy)

[Monad]

And has he got over the fact that all his examples of "Irreducible Complexity" have been reduced? :)

[Jabu Khan]

He mainly just said that during the time of darwin molecules were less understood and the scientific community is now realizing that their interactions are too complex to take place without a designer. His opponent did a good job of pointing out that the scientific community he was refering to consisted mostly of a few engineers and that most of their arguments had been easily refuted.

[MrDarwin]

One thing that came up was how the idea of the "big bang" was initially resisted by scientists, even though it is now the dominant view (Behe's point was that the big bang was accused of having theological implications, the same way that ID is being accused, when all it was doing was explaining the evidence).

His opponent (somebody Krauss?) should have immediately jumped on this to say that the "big bang" became the dominant view precisely because of the research and publications of scientists, and because they accumulated overwhelming evidence for it--a point he did make, but less directly, by saying that the ID people need to get off their butts and do some actual research and publish some actual papers if they want their ideas to be accepted as science.

[Roller]

His opponent (somebody Krauss?)

"Somebody Krauss" is probably Lawrence M. Krauss (http://www.phys.cwru.edu/faculty/index.php?krauss), professor of physics here at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. I heard him debate Stephen Meyer, together with Kenneth Miller, on NPR some time ago. As a matter of fact, here's (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=836932) a link to it.

[Angrillori]

Man, I am so sick of crack-pots using the argument:

"Famous and accepted scientific theory X" was initially opposed, and I'm being opposed,
Therefore my pet crackpot theory is just as valid as "famous and accepted theory X."
What are some good examples of crackpot theories that were exposed, and turned out to be rightly opposed?

This way the argument could be turned about:

Crackpot like Behe: I'm being opposed like Galileo or like the Big Bang theory!
Rational scientist: No, sir. You are being opposed like "looney tunes larry and his theory of gravity fairies."

[RBH]

Angrillori askedWhat are some good examples of crackpot theories that were exposed, and turned out to be rightly opposed?Cold fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion). Same M.O. as ID: Science by press release. N-Rays (http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html): Detectable only if you lived in France. Same subjectivity as ID (Dembski's "specification" is in the eye of the beholder).

RBH

[King of Men]

Unfortunately, we rarely hear about the crackpots - three-day wonders, at most. There's phrenology, healing by magnetism, the healing properties of radium water - but none of these were really strongly opposed at the time, unfortunately.

[viscousmemories]

"Somebody Krauss" is probably Lawrence M. Krauss (http://www.phys.cwru.edu/faculty/index.php?krauss), professor of physics here at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
Yep, it was him.

[Angrillori]

Angrillori askedCold fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion). Same M.O. as ID: Science by press release. N-Rays (http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html): Detectable only if you lived in France. Same subjectivity as ID (Dembski's "specification" is in the eye of the beholder).

RBH
Thanks!

ESP might be a good one too?

[advancedatheist]

Unfortunately, we rarely hear about the crackpots - three-day wonders, at most. There's phrenology,

Phrenology doesn't sound as "crackpot" these days in light of evolutionary psychology. Scientists can seriously propose that a clear complexion, facial symmetry, a 7:10 waist-to-hip ratio in young women and so forth signal reproductive fitness to potential mates, so why not the shape of one's skull?

Of course, the phrenologists made claims that exceeded the warrant of the evidence. But the principle of evaluating people based on the appearance of their bodies does work in other areas.

[Doubting Didymus]

How many ways can you pronounce molecular anyway?

[N.Wells]

Angrillori askedCold fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion). Same M.O. as ID: Science by press release. N-Rays (http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html): Detectable only if you lived in France. Same subjectivity as ID (Dembski's "specification" is in the eye of the beholder).

Using N-rays and cold fusion are problematic because they raise ID to the level of scientists who were doing scientific experiments and who were honestly intentioned, despite being horrendously mistaken. Better analogies might be drawn with Velikovsky, big-foot, flat-earth, many examples of quack medicine (e.g., trepanning) & faith healing, psychics aiding police, and perpetual energy machines (such as Sanjay Amin, http://www.phact.org/e/amin.htm ). UFO's, astrology, and homeopathic medicine have potential, except that too many people would hear them as good examples of truth opposed by science.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling/List_of_crackpot_theories for more info. Skeptical Enquirer is also a great resource.

[Godless Dave]

Man, I am so sick of crack-pots using the argument:

What are some good examples of crackpot theories that were exposed, and turned out to be rightly opposed?


HIV does not cause AIDS.

[Sven]

Man, I am so sick of crack-pots using the argument:

What are some good examples of crackpot theories that were exposed, and turned out to be rightly opposed?

This way the argument could be turned about:

Crackpot like Behe: I'm being opposed like Galileo or like the Big Bang theory!
Rational scientist: No, sir. You are being opposed like "looney tunes larry and his theory of gravity fairies."
May a cite Sagan? "They also laughed at Bozo the clown." :D