ARN Peanut Gallery II [Archive I]

Xeluan

December 3, 2002, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Clutch:
The obvious analogy -- so obvious that someone must already have drawn it -- is to The Emperor's New Clothes.

I think I used this analogy early on in the thread on ARN (I forget the title) now than started the whole mess in regards to Superbrains. Superbrains only response was to try and bait me into a reply that would invoke the wrath of Mod 4. Ignoring him was far more fun.

Martin Garner wrote the following. I'll leave it to gentle reader to work out who this can apply to.

Xeluan

"[M]ost pseudo-scientists have a number of characteristics in
common.

"First and most important of these traits is that cranks work
in almost total isolation . . . in the sense of having no fruitful
contacts with fellow researchers. . . . The modern crank insists
that his isolation is not desired on his part. It is due, he claims,
to the prejudice of established scientific groups against new
ideas. . . .

"The modern pseudo-scientist . . . stands entirely outside
the closely integrated channels through which new ideas are
introduced and evaluated. He works in isolation. He does not
send his findings to the recognized journals, or if he does, they
are rejected for reasons which in the vast majority of cases
are excellent. In most cases, the crank is not well enough
informed to write a paper with even a surface resemblance
to a significant study. As a consequence, he finds himself
excluded the journals and societies, and almost universally
ignored by the competent workers in his field. In fact, the
reputable scientist does not even know of the crank's
existence unless his work is given widespread publicity through
non-academic channels, or unless the scientist makes a hobby
of collecting crank literature. The eccentric is forced, therefore,
to tread a lonely way. He speaks before organizations he
himself has founded, contributes to journals he himself may
edit, and -- until recently -- publishes books only when he
or his followers can raise sufficient funds to have them printed
privately.

"A second characteristic of the pseudo scientist, which
greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward
paranoia. . . .

"There are five ways in which the sincere pseudo-
scientist's paranoid tendencies are likely to be exhibited.

"(1) He considers himself a genius.

"(2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as
ignorant blockheads. Everyone is out of step except himself.
Frequently he insults his opponents by accusing them of
stupidity, dishonesty, or other base motives. If they ignore
him, he takes this to mean his arguments are unanswerable.
If they retaliate in kind, this strengthens his delusion that he
is battling scoundrels. . . .

"(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated
against. . . .

"(4) He has a strong compulsion to focus his attacks on the
greatest scientists and the best established theories. When
Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works
in that science were violently anti Newton. Today, with
Einstein the father symbol of authority, a crank theory of
physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton. . . .

"(5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex
jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he
himself has coined. . . ."

Xeluan

December 3, 2002, 07:01 AM

Principia,

Check your PM's

KC

Principia

December 3, 2002, 10:14 AM

The latest exchange showing the internal strife amongst the Superbrains:
Ian, some things are better discussed in private. For example, you've told me a lot about [redacted] and lamented the fact that as you approach middle age, you're still [redacted]. I think that discussing these things on an open bulletin board is about as appropriate as your trotting out some obscure paper that Chris has never seen, or wanted to see, and demanding that he recognize your "precedence" for his own ideas (and other ideas long since in the public domain), particularly when he was well-known and well-associated with the CTMU long before you even came to our notice.

Chris has already pointed out that you're not really saying anything that can't be trivially inferred from a simplified diagram of any logic lattice. Yet, you refer grandiloquently to your great "model" of "holistic identity" as though it hasn't been presented a thousand times by a thousand different people in a thousand different contexts. It's positively bizarre. But if you really believe that your great logico-theological insights have been ripped off by someone who's been writing about them since the eighties, and whose ideas are far more sophisticated than your own, then why don't you write your congressman? Congress can then hold a national inquiry on your behalf, and we can finally get the straight skinny on who really ripped who off.

Perhaps your confusion becomes a bit more comprehensible when we consider that, having never been a member of any of the groups in whose printed journals Chris published some of his early papers, you haven't seen them. But when it comes right down to it, that's your problem and not ours. If you want to level an accusation, you need to prove your case. After all, Chris already has credit for the CTMU, and you have nothing whatsoever to do with it. (For that matter, why not go after panentheism for "ripping off" your magnificent holistic-identity model? After all, they "ripped you off" a long time before Chris was even born!)

If you have something further to say to Chris, you might just email him privately. As has been pointed out on another thread, Chris has decided to curtail (or at least, severely limit) his time on ARN.
The redacted sections were personal attacks, apparently referring to Ian's various personal problems that were exchanged in private. They are kept out for Ian's benefit. But the post should give a good sense of the extreme double standards employed by Jack Foster. I believe that there were people who were banned from ARN for much less.

Thanks ahead of time to the person who gave me the quote.

EDIT: Apparently, Genie posted this thing twice. First time, the ARN mod erased it. Second time, she edited a few parts out. After that, apparently, the Mod deleted the entire thread. LOL! Damn, she's persistent! :D

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

DrLao

December 3, 2002, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Principia:
EDIT: Apparently, Genie posted this thing twice. First time, the ARN mod erased it. Second time, she edited a few parts out. After that, apparently, the Mod deleted the entire thread. LOL! Damn, she's persistent! :D
I had hoped she had edited it herself, after she had calmed down, realizing she had been hasty with cruel remarks. Guess not. She was just trying to avoid getting caught again. Pure slime.

Clutch

December 3, 2002, 05:56 PM

Oh, man. I went over and read more closely on the CL threads. What a mediocre bullshit artist, enfranchaised with a massive sense of accomplishment. Gardner's list of crackpot attributes fits this guy perfectly.

DNAunion

December 3, 2002, 08:06 PM

DNAUnion: Gee, it's a good thing I'm not still at ARN. Otherwise, Principia would be giving me a hard time!

Principia

December 3, 2002, 08:12 PM

[quote]DNAUnion: Gee, it's a good thing I'm not still at ARN. Otherwise, Principia would be giving me a hard time! <hr></blockquote> Who says you aren't? leonard(e) has you all sniffed out. ;)

scigirl

December 3, 2002, 08:34 PM

[quote]Originally posted by DNAunion:
DNAUnion: Gee, it's a good thing I'm not still at ARN. Otherwise, Principia would be giving me a hard time!<hr></blockquote>

Aww, you like it, admit it...

;)

scigirl

pangloss

December 4, 2002, 06:25 AM

Principia

December 4, 2002, 08:31 AM

From here (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000483;p=5):
mb: ID doesn't even address the origin of observed variation. It is about detecting intelligence.
From this thread, mb tells us yet another natural phenomena that ID does not explain. And ID's explanatory power diminishes at the hands of its proponents yet again...

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]

Principia

December 5, 2002, 07:14 AM

Of course, having too much of 'reality Web' starring the incestuous Chris and Gina Langan will get to anyone's nerves. So, let's not forget some of the acts put up by the veteran IDiots (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000509). Here we read V and L dancing away at the good question: "How does ID explain mous tail genes in humans?" The sample dialogue:

E: So how do IDiots explain it?
I: Genes are multipurpose [Aside: an assertion, which BTW, directly (or indirectly??? can't remember) challenges IC]. Maybe there's really no such thing as a "mouse tail" gene. I don't see how this is a problem for ID.
E: Yeah, so? That's an argument from ignorance. Don't think you answered my question.
I: You're a troll.
E: Buzz off.
I: See, you are a troll. Why take it so personally??
E: Still haven't answered my question.
I: Have too...
E: Have not...
I: Mommirator!!!
:D

December 5, 2002, 07:42 AM

This Wheeling fellow is pretty formidable.

Cheers,

KC

pangloss

December 5, 2002, 08:51 AM

Arrrgh..

And to find out that Genie went to/is at my Alma Mater..

From her pubs, one can see where she spends her time...:

LoSasso GL, Rapport LJ, Axelrod BN, Whitman RD. Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

Neurocognitive sequelae of exposure to organic solvents and (meth)acrylates among nail-studio technicians.
Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 2002 Mar;15(1):44-55.
PMID: 11877551 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2: LoSasso GL, Rapport LJ, Axelrod BN. Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

Neuropsychological symptoms associated with low-level exposure to solvents and (meth)acrylates among nail technicians.
Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 2001 Jul-Sep;14(3):183-9.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: pangloss ]

December 6, 2002, 04:45 PM

To see ARN moderation reach new depths, check this out (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000517).

Mod 4 has decided to delete a long and substantive reply on one of their threads by invoking this clause: "If your style, tone, content or frequency starts to annoy the moderator, then Rule #6 will be invoked." In other words, if the moderator doesn't like what you've said for some vague reason, he can censor it.

I guess it is kind of nice to see an example of how not to moderate a forum. I'll keep it in mind.

December 6, 2002, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by pz:
To see ARN moderation reach new depths, check this out.

Mod 4 has decided to delete a long and substantive reply on one of their threads by invoking this clause: "If your style, tone, content or frequency starts to annoy the moderator, then Rule #6 will be invoked." In other words, if the moderator doesn't like what you've said for some vague reason, he can censor it.

I guess it is kind of nice to see an example of how not to moderate a forum. I'll keep it in mind.

Actually, he left out 'or if it annoys Superbrains and his girlfriend", but that goes without saying.

Cheers,

KC

Dr.GH

December 6, 2002, 09:19 PM

Wes' board is a great alternative fo ID discussion

I have not been posting at ARN for some time. The most recent stupidity by JazzRaptor AKA 'mod4' et al lead me to request to be deleted from their registry. (No, I wasn't that polite about it.)

Antievolution.org Discussion Board (http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi)

I would also keep II as the all purpose YEC splatter machine.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]

Principia

December 6, 2002, 09:36 PM

Given Mod 4's post, how does one unregister and become a normal citizen (non-arn forum member). I prefer to not simply stop posting. I would like to remove my registration. (Don't worry I won't come back as some new mutant RB, but if I did would I be a random mutant or designed mutant)

I tried to post to Feedback, but it didn't work. Sorry to take space here.

Maybe its time for ID critics to leave ARN to the ID advocates, it is after all an ID site. We can then see what happens after a few months of "Great Paper Dr. Dembski", "tell me about those mutant shrimp again Dr. Wells", "That mouse trap is a perfect example Dr. Behe, oh and don't forget to mention the staples"

After awhile, we can then see how the big tent holds up, will the panentheists get hot under the collar with the YECers or other 'traditional' Christians? Will the Raelians join the board? Will ARN continue to attract renegage Hi IQ society members?

Meanwhile we ID critics can have our own party.
It's about time...

Principia

December 6, 2002, 11:04 PM

From same thread, Vividbleau takes a stand:
And this crusade is not going to change...so one group leaves and I guarantee another will show up because thats the nature of "crusaders". Even all of you over at the new quasi infidels site will come over here and monitor what goes on and comment over at youre site....guaranteed!! And sure as hell if a newbie comes in here asking some questions you will be over here in a heartbeat to set him or her straight ala the student from Colorado University the other day. You practically devoured him. Wouldnt want any minds to be contaminated now would we?
And of course he misses the point. ARN has lost all semblance of reputation as a forum for discussion -- with great helping hand from Jack Foster and the ID cLoWnS. The next step in the purification of ARN will be to disallow anyone to 'devour' enquiring minds. And then after that? Why JR will just have to pick an ID variant to support, I suppose. But, there are plenty of Internet websites that are anti-evolution. Do any of them actually matter, with or without a critics presence? Why no, of course. Take Baptist Board. Does anyone seriously go there to learn from Helen about evolution and creationism? Or perhaps Dr.Dino's site? Or AiG?

In Vivid's attempt to save some face for the site, he forgets that it is the critics who give any sense of scientific discussion and who legitimize the notion of a 'controversy.' Yet, as often with free gifts, the critics go unappreciated. Trolls and debunkers, indeed!

Anyway, Vivid did manage one great suggestion. Critics can maintain a permanent boycott on the site through PMs. Let's see how long they can last, bickering amongst themselves for the title of Supreme IDiot.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

Xeluan

December 7, 2002, 01:58 AM

Latest post by "nobody" sez that us ID critics are "are actually frightened by what science is showing us about the incredible design of life. The implications are obvious...."

I tell ya. The scientific discoveries pouring out from ID research programmes have me quaking in my booties.

Xeluan

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Xeluan ]

December 7, 2002, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Principia:
From same thread, Vividbleau takes a stand:

And of course he misses the point. ARN has lost all semblance of reputation as a forum for discussion -- with great helping hand from Jack Foster and the ID cLoWnS. The next step in the purification of ARN will be to disallow anyone to 'devour' enquiring minds. And then after that? Why JR will just have to pick an ID variant to support, I suppose. But, there are plenty of Internet websites that are anti-evolution. Do any of them actually matter, with or without a critics presence? Why no, of course. Take Baptist Board. Does anyone seriously go there to learn from Helen about evolution and creationism? Or perhaps Dr.Dino's site? Or AiG?

In Vivid's attempt to save some face for the site, he forgets that it is the critics who give any sense of scientific discussion and who legitimize the notion of a 'controversy.' Yet, as often with free gifts, the critics go unappreciated. Trolls and debunkers, indeed!

Anyway, Vivid did manage one great suggestion. Critics can maintain a permanent boycott on the site through PMs. Let's see how long they can last, bickering amongst themselves for the title of Supreme IDiot.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Superbrains weren't behind it. We have seen how ANY questioning of their dogma--even from those sympathetic to the theory-- is crushed. Just look at how old Ian Goddard and others are treated when they even mildly stray away from total obeisance. We know they have been working with ARN management on the 'troll' (ie, anyone who disagrees with them) problem. They want a forum in which all opposiion is suppressed. and they now have it.

Cheers,

KC

Principia

December 7, 2002, 07:12 AM

They want a forum in which all opposiion is suppressed. and they now have it. As Jesse pointed out, the walkout needs to be quick and decisive (I see JF has erased the thread). There are always going to be die-hards (e.g. dayton, aptamer, JP, etc.) who won't want to quit. But they have to realize that there is always the option of answering these IDiots from another board. The difference that matters is that they'd benefit much more from the moderation policies at any other critic-sympathetic board than losing the ability to confront the IDiots directly. In other words, since ID critics already enjoy the majority -- why fight the battle on the IDiots' own turfs? I suggest beginning the PM campaign ASAP. Nothing flashy on the main boards other than a gentle reminder to check them...

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

Jesse

December 7, 2002, 11:45 AM

I've decided to quit ARN as well. If any ID critics who still post there read this thread, here was my post from RB's deleted ARN thread in which I suggested some reasons for quitting:

If we could get all the remaining ID critics behind it, I think leaving en masse might be a good idea. A lot of us aren�t happy with the moderation�I, for one, don�t like the fact that non-insulting posts are often moderated, and I also don�t like the fact that by the moderator�s own admission, ID critics are held to a different standard because they are "guests" (I think he picked up this line of reasoning from Mike Gene, who has said the same thing in the past, but to me this is a flimsy excuse�I�m a moderator on the internet infidels Science&Skepticism forum, but I don�t hold people to different standards depending on their ideology). Also, I�ve heard from a number of IDists that they think that critics and people with a "debunking" attitude contribute nothing positive to ARN, and they�d rather we left them alone. As RB said, it would be interesting to see what people would talk about on ARN if no critics at all were around.

Anyway, many of the most interesting and informed ID critics�nic, Matt Brauer, Myrmecos, Art, etc.�have either left completely or post only rarely. There aren�t actually all that many of us left, so it wouldn�t be that hard to finish off this trickling-out process. What do the rest of you think?

Principia

December 10, 2002, 05:56 PM

The latest 'carrot' (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000260):
Let's add one called the ID Upper Room. This will be an invitation only forum. We will select 5 of our best arnies from both sides (based on expertise and ability to conduct a friendly dialog). We may also invite special guests like Mike Behe, etc. to join in and get a thread going. Perhaps we rotate folks out every 3 months or perhaps we just add people to the upper room as they demonstrate their qualifications over time. We can then keep a more balanced, civil dialogue going in the upper room and have a new carrot to encourage better interaction in the regular, open ID forum.
LOL, they're trying (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000259" target=) hard... all for what??? :D

*2nd linked thread shows Genie's latest victim -- another one of their own!

It should be pointed out that Dennis refers to Dennis Wagner, the ARN webmaster, or some irrelevant role like that.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

December 10, 2002, 07:00 PM

I guess ARN wouldn't be a site good enough for Langan if it didn't degenerate into earnest discussions on who should be allowed to join.

Cheers,

KC

Principia

December 10, 2002, 07:23 PM

ARN's host (http://www.paulrpayne.com/). Of note are the following other 'partnerships' (http://www.paulrpayne.com/partnerships.php) that this guy is hooked up with:
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (http://www.narth.com/)

Campus Crusade for Christ (http://www.campuscrusade.com)

Texans for Life Coalition (http://www.texlife.org)

Probe Ministries (http://www.probe.org/)

Principia

December 11, 2002, 06:06 AM

This thread (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000259) is absolutely hilarious. It's like some bad parody of a soap opera:

Vivid: This board is now being boycotted by all the IDCs.PMs have been sent out the last one being to aptamer...evidently he or she doesnt read PMs because one of the boycotters ( who I do respect) had to comeback and ask aptamer to please check PMs.
and like good IDiots trying to draw inferences though their paranoia-tainted glasses, he bungles this one up:
I have been informed by someone I respect that this statement I made in another post in factually wrong.

I retract this statement and apologize to any who were offended by it.
Vivid

And here we see jazz playing the peacemaker:
I agree that joy should NOT leave!

And how about Light Panther as another nominee? I would also think Rock would be great; also Mike B? I think we need one critic and one IDist, and we can throw Rock in as a nuetral party. I'm going to step back some. Maybe I'll get more active when ARN Mod 5 comes back. (<cough> bullshit <cough&gt ;)

I only see Mike B as the critic candidate if he wants to do it, Light Panther and Bilboe as potential IDist canditates. Anyone else? [...] I just got down to mturner's post. How disappointing. Come on, people! We need to get it together here! Joy doesn't leave; Chris and Genie lighten up. Hey, we're all on the same side, here. Let's get respectful. ROTLMFAO

Genie defends her man:
Excuse me, Jazz, but Chris isn't even on this thread (!) and I've said absolutely nothing wrong.

How exactly am I supposed to "lighten up"? I think mturner is acting a little strange and I would appreciate it if you'd give him a warning for his bizarre behavior. Thanks. [...] True, but I hate to see the flamee being singled out. Between the flame-throwing and the flame-fanning, I guess I'd better put on my flame-resistant jammies! (Aside: Ugh, what a most distasteful imagery).

The panentheists fighting for the title of Supreme IDiot: mturner: I don't like being told that I'm too stupid to be able to understand some guy's reconstruction of my religion (panentheism), when he is expressing himself in the most tortured, obscurantist prose imaginable. I too, being every bit as busy as any bar bouncer, have no time to waste playing translator for him.

Superbrains: For example, you write that the term �distributed� means �referring to each individual or entity of a group separately rather than collectively, as 'every' in the sentence - Every employee attended the meeting.� That�s correct, at least as far as it goes. But then you seem to have no idea what this means in relation to what I�ve been saying, despite the fact that it's utterly transparent...

mturner: No, I'm not illiterate, and neither are the two or three dozen other people who have referred to CML's convoluted syntax and neologisms as opaque, not transparent.

And finally, the class act himself: Superbrains: When Genie first told me that I was getting knocked down in the basement here, I blew it off. �So what?� I figured. �It can�t be any worse than it is upstairs.� But now that I�ve come down here and witnessed the bellyaching, complete with allusions to the �favored treatment� I�ve supposedly been getting, I gotta tell you, the exact opposite appears to be true. For weeks, the ID critics were saying virtually anything they liked about me with impunity...and yet, in this very thread, jazz tells me to �lighten up� when I haven�t even been here! Thanks, Genie, for pointing that out to jazz (who usually does a great job, by the way). When it gets this noisy, it can be hard to keep track of what�s really going down.

Incidentally, �DrLao�, I wouldn�t exactly call your own contributions �positive�, either in this thread or elsewhere on the board. So how�s about a brief respite from the complaining? I�m sure the mod would appreciate it as much as I would.

There you have it... the IDiot huddle, and their latest chant: "Please... please... please stop me from complaining..." :D

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

December 11, 2002, 06:43 AM

This was interesting:

CML--
"For example, you write that the term �distributed� means �referring to each individual or entity of a group separately rather than collectively, as 'every' in the sentence - Every employee attended the meeting.� That�s correct, at least as far as it goes. But then you seem to have no idea what this means in relation to what I�ve been saying, despite the fact that it's utterly transparent;"

Langan shouldn't be lecturing people on using terms differently, considering how he uses the term 'random', as opposed to evolutionary biologists.

Cheers,

KC

Principia

December 11, 2002, 06:47 AM

mturner: What a dumb thing to say, Langan, when anyone can easily compare your characterization with my actual post!! Keep on shooting yourself in the foot, gunslinger. It's really comical watching you self-destruct.
Oh the irony...

BTW, for whoever is thinking about joining ARN: please don't. There is just so much entertainment value having the IDiots bickering among themselves, that it isn't fair for the rest of us if you ruined it. ;)

EDIT: OOh... the backlash (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000259;p=2) against the Superbrains has begun. First joy, then jazz, mturner...

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

Principia

December 13, 2002, 07:30 AM

Chris Langan's self-analysis (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000267), in a Bawrbwa-Walteresque interview:
BW: [snip kiss-ass stuff ...] Anyway (yeah, what a preamble!) do people treat you differently AFTER they are informed about your high IQ? What about people who knew you way back when (assuming your intelligence wasn't ALWAYS so obvious to casual observers). In short, how do (how have) people react(ed) to you?

If it is too personal then no problem! (I only ask in the open queue because I thought others might be interested in this too!) [snip brown-nosing stuff]
Superbrains: Hi, [interviewer too paranoid to be revealed]. I usually don�t answer questions like this, but in view of your uncommon congeniality (for ARN!), I see no harm in it. I�d say that the way people react to me is very much a reflection of who they are. I guess it�s mainly a matter of security or insecurity � I get along fine with those who don�t feel threatened by me, and sometimes not so well with those who do. Normal people, e.g. those with whom I've worked in the bar biz, have generally remained on friendly terms with me. That�s probably at least partially because they know from experience that I�m not the kind of person who intellectually bludgeons my conversation partners (at least without dire provocation).

On the other hand, people with insecurities, especially of the intellectual variety, tend to feel threatened even when there�s no need for it. One especially problematic group consists of compulsive, opinionated debate aficionados who are sufficiently intelligent to have had little experience with defeat, and find it very hard to handle when it unexpectedly happens. Another is the rich and/or powerful, many of whom seem to infer from their relatively high levels of wealth and/or influence that they�re on an intellectual par with Einstein despite their relatively unexceptional intellects. While society encourages people to equate intelligence with success, status and prestige, it�s common knowledge that above a certain IQ level, these things tend to correlate negatively with intelligence. In fact, they say that too much intelligence makes it very difficult to communicate with normal and even moderately bright people.

By the way, I too liked the movie �Phenomenon�. John Travolta did have a few problems of the kind you mention, but as I recall, he didn�t exactly downplay his newfound intellectual superiority either. I think that if he�d lived longer, most of his friends and acquaintances would have grown comfortable with him again. After all, he was basically a very nice guy!

I hope this helps assuage your curiosity.
LOL

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

December 13, 2002, 08:31 AM

Just a suggestion...

ARN has become a thoroughly uninteresting forum. Most of the insightful and informed contributors there are abandoning the place to the tedious and ignorant crowd that is taking over.

That leaves me wondering why anyone here should care anymore about the noise and personalities at that site. I'd like to suggest that we all just drop this topic altogether and move on to something more constructive.

I'm not yet proposing to do anything about this as moderator, so don't worry, if you want to giggle over the latest insipidity from one of the megabrains, I'm not going to edit posts or close threads. I would like to encourage more thoughtful analysis of actual creationist/IDist claims, though. If you must drag over something from ARN for consideration because the moderator there is censoring criticism, make it an idea rather than a person.

pangloss

December 13, 2002, 09:45 AM

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000237;p=3

Observe more SUperbarins and cheerleader antics (no wonder nobody takes this schmuck seriously!).

I also like the fact that Jazz is no longer squeemish about the fact that he now wears kneepads and carries a box of Kleenex everytime Langan enters the forum....

Sickening, really.

Principia

December 20, 2002, 01:03 PM

It looks like that Superbrains (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000545) may have been banned from ARN. Details to follow?

Gina: Our accounts have been blocked. We received no email from the moderators. I assumed it was a glitch and I created two new accounts and notified the moderators, but those were deleted.

I'm not sure what forum rules we violated but if anyone can clarify the situation, we'd appreciate it.

Genie
(for Chris also)

EDIT: apparently mturner was suspended too!

EDIT2: An ode from a fellow Chris Langan fan (offsite):
Ode to Chris Langan

He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started

Get this party started on a business day, right!
Everyone was waitin' for him to nosedive
Sendin' out the message to all of his friends
They'll be lookin' trashy in the microscope lens
He got lotsa bile, got his prejudice things
He can go for miles if you know what I mean
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started

Pumpin up the volume, breakin down' to the beat
Cruisin' through the website
He'll be checkin' the scene
Messageboard is freakin' as he's reactin' fast
He'll be burnin' rubber, he'll be kissin' your a**
Pull up to the bumper, get out of the car
License plate says HIQ #1 Superstar

He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
Get this party started

Makin' my connection as he exits the room
Everybody's chillin' as we set the new groove
Pumpin' up the volume with this brand new beat
Everybody's dancin' and they're dancin' with glee
He's an operator, you can tell from his whine
He'll be your connection to the banning line

He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
Get this party started
Get this party started right now
Get this party started
Get this party started
Get this party started right now

EDIT3: I view this latest episode as a slap in the face of ARN Mod 4 (yes, you all know who I am talking about). It took another moderator to do what Mod #4 didn't have the guts to do.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

RufusAtticus

December 20, 2002, 01:22 PM

Like miss manners always says, charm and tact will get you anywhere.

RBH

December 20, 2002, 07:59 PM

Principia wrote [quote]It looks like that Superbrains may have been banned from ARN. Details to follow?<hr></blockquote>It appears that thread's been erased. Anyone archive it?

RBH

Principia

December 20, 2002, 08:07 PM

RBH,

The Gina quote was about all that I caught on that thread. Apparently Chris had a last word for the entire board before the moderator erased it.

The word is that they have been suspended. Mturner (also suspended) was given a chance to return in January, so I'm guessing that's about how long a reprieve the ARN people have from Superbrains...

DrLao

December 20, 2002, 08:54 PM

Gina is still trying to post as askfifi, but she is getting deleted. It's kind of funny to hear Langan rant and whine against the pseudonyms used at ARN when his old lady's first(?) handle there was just that.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: DrLao ]

RBH

December 20, 2002, 09:26 PM

Posted by Leonard on the ARN Humo(u)r Forum in a thread titled The Case of the Invisible Couple: (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000406):
"It's elementary my dear Watson! Two people, walking on the moor can't simply vanish into thin aire! On the contrary I suspect foul play!"

"Extraordinary, Holmes! How, ummm, did you deduct THAT?!"

"Grammatical, my dear Watson! We have the footprints of the two walking side by side, correct?"

"Quite so. Go on."

"Then suddenly, where the bog begins, the footsteps end. What do you deduce from that, Watson?"

"Well, that they fell into the bog, I suppose!"

"Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. See those bent reeds?
What do you suppose they were bent by?"

"Dogs?"

"No. A whirlybird. It was the old mod-ex-machina trick. The kidnappers want us to think that they fell into the bog. In reality, they were whisked away to another message---- I mean moor. Do you see?"

"By Jove, you've done it, Holmes! You've solved the Case of the Invisible Couple!"
;)
RBH

December 21, 2002, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by DrLao:
Gina is still trying to post as askfifi, but she is getting deleted. It's kind of funny to hear Langan rant and whine against the pseudonyms used at ARN when his old lady's first(?) handle there was just that.

Actually, he has said he is OK with pseudonyms if there is a good reason to use one, which is how he rationalizes away Mike Gene. Of course, seeing how the Superbrains treat personal information revealed to them (as in poor Ian Goddard's case), why would anyone in their right mind let them know anything like that?

Cheers,

KC

Principia

December 28, 2002, 01:00 PM

A valiant effort to dismiss (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000264) the Christian Reconstructionist movement behind DI, from PLA:
This is old news. Howard and Roberta Ahmanson's funding of the Discovery Institute has been common knowledge in the ID debate circles for years. Why the Cleveland Plain Dealer just learned about it raises questions about the reporting skill of the PD's staff, more than anything else. I guess by that some token, we ought to dismiss the pro-ID articles that showed up on the Plain Dealer (http://www.cleveland.com/debate/) too.

Dr.GH

December 29, 2002, 01:04 AM

It is very odd to me that anyone posts to ARN at all. But, then I recall that I did for quite some time.

What is also hard to understand is why anyone cares. The Wedge Updates etc. are of some interests, but I see no point in the so called discussion.

Bubba

December 29, 2002, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Dr.GH
It is very odd to me that anyone posts to ARN at all. But, then I recall that I did for quite some time.

What is also hard to understand is why anyone cares. The Wedge Updates etc. are of some interests, but I see no point in the so called discussion.

I agree. The ARN discussion is wildly irrational.

Bubba

Principia

December 29, 2002, 10:46 PM

What is also hard to understand is why anyone cares. I advocate, for various reasons, not directly confronting IDiots on their own turfs. But, imo, it pays to keep up to date on the type of arguments that the people at ARN are trying out. I do it particularly to monitor the arguments of the more well-known ID personalities (e.g. Paul Nelson, Philip Johnson, Dembski, etc.), though most of them haven't bothered to post at ARN in months. But occasionally, the internecine skirmishes are good for a laugh.

Dr.GH

December 30, 2002, 12:52 PM

Principia,

I agree that it is worth the effort to keep informed of whatever ID.Creto BS is the flavor of the month.

I have been reading The Creationists by Ronald Numbers (UC Press 1992). It is a book that should be widely read. I find it both facinating, and depressing that none of the creationist arguments are in anyway new. Most date to late 1800 and early 1900s Seventh Day Adventists.

Scientists have been responding to this crap for over a century.

Xeluan

December 30, 2002, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Dr.GH

I have been reading The Creationists by Ronald Numbers (UC Press 1992). It is a book that should be widely read. I find it both facinating, and depressing that none of the creationist arguments are in anyway new. Most date to late 1800 and early 1900s Seventh Day Adventists.

May I second Dr GH's reccomendation. It is a very good account of the history of creationism.

Xeluan

djmullen

December 31, 2002, 11:18 PM

Chris Langan's genius has finally been acknowledged:

http://www.crank.net/new.html

Go about four pages down and you'll see him featured.
It's two articles past the article entitled "Aurora Borealis a Sign of War?"

Note that this article is essentially the same as the lead article in the current issue of PCID Journal, the flagship journal of the Intelligent Design movement. There's reason to believe that William Dembski himself helped pick this article for the journal.

ID has Social Texted itself!

Principia

December 31, 2002, 11:29 PM

Sponsoring Langan has the feel of a PR maneuver, doesn't it? Ain't too shabby to have the "Smartest Man in America" endorsing a philsophical position. In addition to featuring him on PCID, they also invited him to speak at their last ID orgy (http://www.iscid.org/rapid/schedule.html). But, then the irony of being suspended from one of two Internet forums that the IDiots so heavily depend on for their PR...

djmullen

January 1, 2003, 04:37 AM

I think it has the feeling of a genuine, certified PR Disaster. See this thread on ARN: http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000483

This was where I first called Langan as an unintentional Alan Sokal who has Social Texted ISCID. Amazingly, this charge drew a response from none other than William Dembski, himself! His reply included this paragraph:

"The verdict is still not in with Chris Langan's CTMU, but it was clear to me and
the editors at PCID that Chris had thought deeply about some hard problems.
What's more, it was clear that Chris was largely self-taught and working in
isolation over many years. ISCID therefore wanted to provide a forum for Chris
to disseminate his work, gain feedback, and bring his ideas into the
conversational mainstream. Perhaps it will turn out to be not only a wild idea
but also a misguided idea (I don't think so). But at least PCID is providing a
forum for free inquiry that is blocked by most of the mainstream journals."

So Dembski himself seems to have selected that article to appear in the journal of ISCID, which he clearly is trying to make into the premier professional society of the ID movement. (See his talk at RAPID: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_disciplinedscience.htm ) Note also the lameness of the excuse: he wanted to give Chris a forum to gain feedback and bring his ideas into the professional mainstream. So he made it the lead article and provided no cautionary note? Bah! Humbug!

Disaster isn't a strong enough word to describe this situation. This is the worst possible thing that could happen to ID: Chris Langan gave them enough rope and they hanged themselves on it. The undisputed intellectual superstar of the ID movement got taken in by a crank who couldn't be more obvious if he was wearing a Bozo suit and honking a horn.

The three biggest "stars" of the ID movement now appear to be a lawyer, a Moonie and the man who published Chris Langan. Talk about an intellectual implosion!

January 1, 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by djmullen
I think it has the feeling of a genuine, certified PR Disaster. See this thread on ARN: http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000483

I wonder if Dembski will pay out the thousand bucks he offered to you to Chris Langan, instead. Langan does seem to have sort of sokaled ISCID...with the difference that Sokal knew what he was doing, while Langan seems to take himself far too seriously.

Principia

January 3, 2003, 05:54 PM

From this thread (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000556;p=2):
Joy: "Deal safely and productively" with the world does not actually require being able to calculate the relative masses of planets and/or asteroids unless one is planning on being a rocket scientist or astronomer. Algebra, geometry and trig are not in general use for bookkeeping or household budgeting, or even figuring the interest on one�s credit cards. And a basic understanding of biology is useful to know anatomy and organ system functions, exercise requirements, plan nutritious meals, how sex and reproduction works, how to avoid food poisoning and hopefully some child development and first aid/CPR training. Evolutionary history doesn�t have a whole lot to do with that, at least as it is "safely and productively" dealt with by the vast majority of humans who are not biologists, doctors or even nurses.

If it were evident that public education actually prepared young people for more than digging ditches, flipping burgers or operating an assembly line, there would be more evidence that the things taught last longer than the standardized testing week. But since upwards of 80% of high school graduates can�t find Iraq on a map (half can�t find New York state or the Pacific ocean), and nearly 50% believe God created the Earth and everything in it less than 10,000 years ago, the general effectiveness of education to the contrary is highly questionable.

Those individuals go into business, they farm, work regular jobs, sell cars, have families, drive, vote and do all the normal things normal people do. They know well before kindergarten than if they fall down it will hurt. They know hot stoves are hot. They know clouds can bring rain, plants need water, and that the moon has phases. Most (who don�t live in Buffalo) understand that it gets cold in winter and cold weather mixed with clouds can bring snow. For the vast majority of human beings alive on this planet, the details and minituae of provisional scientific theories doesn�t mean much. If they can read, they can learn what the latest theory is (if they�re interested). If they have the disposable income, they can buy the nifty gadgets offered for sale. But they don�t have to understand any of it to get along just fine in the world, "safely and productively."

Education itself is in dismal shape, but that�s off-topic. Standardized testing of more difficult material has not improved the learning curve, nor has it inspired more young people to go on to technical careers. Advanced biology (with evolution) was an academic elective when I went to school, and I enjoyed it immensely along witih the advanced math and chemistry which were also electives. But only because I was interested. Science taught as a done deal serves no one and is tedious enough to turn a lot of would-be scientists off to the whole idea. No scientific theory needs to be taught as absolute or protected from the shortcomings, holes or alternatives we read about every day in the news. Teach the dominant paradigm, but don�t pretend it�s all there is to it. There�s no reason for that, and I think it�s self-defeating when we are importing engineers and technicians because so few are coming out of our higher institutions.

Just my opinion. No scientific theory is harmed by questions about its adequacy. There would be no advance if there were no questions.

[...]
---------------------
Mike B said: I assume that if you were not trying to be argumentative you could think of applications of Newtonian physics that might have more application to most people's lives than calculating the masses of planets. Driving comes to mind. Algebra is the basis behind all budgeting, even though few people assign variable names to the different factors. Understanding biology, including ToE, gives the reason that THEY, personally, should take the full course of antibiotics when perscribed, and should not take antibiotics for a cold. And all of these subjects, and many others, are needed to make them informed voters.
---------------------

Your basic driver�s education (complete with those gory videos) is far more impressive than extensive diagrams with equations to figure problems of Newtonian mechanics as it applies to cars and trucks, and a lot easier to remember when someone runs a stop sign in front of you. Long pedal = go, short pedal = stop. With a little practice, a 16-year old can get a license, and last I checked, physics wasn�t part of the test (though large, grumpy DMV officers are).

Most budgeting for households and small businesses are basic asset/debit columns complete with income vs. outgo adding and subtracting. Sort of like bank statements. Factory farming and antibiotic resistence bred into genetically engineered crops has done more for bacterial evolution than your last sinus infection, I promise.

We still have punch-cards here in my neck of the woods, so evolution hasn�t arrived at my polling place. If it ever does, it�ll probably be touch-screen computers, which I can likely figure out without too much trouble. I don�t need to know anything about how land mammals became whales in order to choose a new sheriff or tax collector. And if scientific competance in the latest theories were a requirement for political leadership, we would most certainly not be saddled with the leadership we currently have (thanks to the Supremes rather than our votes).

I know this is just plain contrary on my part, but it really is a fact that non-biologists get by in the world pretty well. Even before Darwin came along. What simplistic RM-NS Darwinism tells us is just not all that important outside the basement laboratories of pharmaceutical gigacorps and their underling crop engineers. Dinosaurs make pretty good horror movie fare, but nobody has to know a T-rex from a brachiosaur in order to function in the modern world.
[...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melott said: Joy, do you favor the teaching of astrology in astronomy classes? Would you support a few sessions on Tarot cards when psychology is treated? These alternatives to the dominant paradigm have many supporters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Melott. I don�t know why my opinion that provisional scientific theories do not need to be taught in public schools as Absolute Truth caused you to ask these canned questions. But since you did ask, I�ll answer.

I think that astronomy classes (are those taught in high school, or just in the Astronomy Club extracurricular activity?) should definitely include the history of astronomy as part of a well-rounded introduction to the subject of human beings� interest in the movements of planets and the positions of stars. Astrology is part of that history, and some of the most noted cosmological paradigm-changers practiced astrology. Including Gallileo. Just like some other noted paradigm-changers practiced alchemy. Including Newton.

And any decent course in psychology should include things like Tarot, I Ching, astrology and any other divination methodologies that are demonstrably dependent upon human psychology for their effectiveness. I personally think some of these systems are rather amazing for their insight (all possible combinations relate directly to human psychological states guaranteed to have meaning to the individual). And the traditional practice of these �arts� were by individuals who were often better at real, personal psychological counseling than many of the degreed charlatans practicing individual or group therapy today - mostly with mind/mood altering drugs.

You should not be so quick to discount the various methodologies erstwhile �science� has embraced in its history, because they can be very informative. About a lot of things.

This is an example of why it's worth monitoring ARN from time to time. Joy seems to be complaining about education standards on the one hand, and then implying that an education in the sciences and mathematics isn't really necessary to get by in life. In other words, according to Joy, the real reason people are so ignorant of these disciplines is because noone was as curious, self-motivated, and interested as she was. But, of course, the solution she advocates is throwing a healthy dose of pseudoscience into the mix to churn up some critical thinking skills. :banghead: LOL

wdog

January 3, 2003, 06:50 PM

As someone from the outside looking in, could I please get your comments on the list of attendees at the RAPID conference? Frank Tipler is certainly competent in certain areas of science, what about the others? Does anyone have a feel for the percentage of evolutionary biologists and scientists in general who buy into the notion of ID?

just trying to get a reality check, thanks

Principia

January 25, 2003, 04:07 PM

But this is hilarious. From the same ARNie above:
Mike B said: Have you perhaps noticed a person or two on the ID side of this issue who is not well versed in the science connected with the topic? Those who used the canned "evolution is against the second law of thermodynamics" come to mind, as well as those who seem unable to grasp that stellar evolution and biological evolution are not related phenomina, no matter what Chick says. Shoot, there are those who keep using the phrase "simplistic RM&NS Darwinianism", apparently unaware or uninterested that there has been some 150 years of advance in the theory of evolution.

joy: Gee, Mike! My beef was very specific. No need to get worked up about it. Have you ever browsed just for kicks over at the Infidels� discussion board? They�ve got whole threads discussing posters, policies and arguments from here at ARN. An entire library of arguments contributed by some of the �great thinkers� (mostly lawyers) who run the secular web and recruit the junior Infidels. Lessons on tips and tactics, a real love of juvenile delinquency... It�s a regular �salvation army� over there, and the religion is evangelical atheism. Evolution is just a crutch used to beat theists over the head with. It�s not the crux of the faith, or even something the acolytes know much of anything about.

So when some gung-ho recruit comes looking for me and doesn�t even know what a straw man is (much less anything about science or evolution), I get disgusted pretty quickly. When I am singled out for censorship because I keep calling the fallacy what it is (while the delinquent gets to keep asserting said scarecrow for another week unchecked), I begin to question the wisdom of bothering.

MikeB: You may also have encountered evangelistic YECs (NOTE: I recognize that not all IDists are YECs who, in addition to having little understanding of science, are not well versed in the details about their own beliefs. I recall one young lady who was witnessing to me. When I told her that I had been raised Roman Catholic, she looked puzzled and said, "Oh, are they Christian?" Further discussion revealed that she had no concept of how her religion got from 1st century Israel to 20th century America.

joy: Evangelistic YECs can be evangelistic YECs all they like, I don�t mind. Heck, evangelistic atheists [EAs] can be EAs too for all I care. But when they spout canned spam at me, they�ll find that I don�t eat canned spam. I�m a vegetarian. There are numerous sites on the net where evangelistic YECs can duke it out with evangelistic atheists all day and all night long, and nothing ever changes. The Infidels hang out here and pick their targets for a reason. Nobody wonders what that reason is. At least, I sure don�t. Why, if we were allowed to call their bluff on ridiculous fallacies without being shut down for it, those great secular thinkers (mostly lawyers) might end up having to do their own dirty work, mightn�t they?

MikeB: So I would have to say that the complaints that you stated about those on the TOE side are equally applicable to those on the ID side. If you had acknowledge that in your OP I think it would have provided a balancing flavor that would have made your beef more palatable.

joy: Since I�m not a beef-eater, I really don�t much care whether it�s cooked to your satisfaction or not. It�s my complaint, lodged about particular and ongoing harrassment, that made me mad enough to hang out here in the nether-regions for awhile. The delinquents will eventually overstay their welcome, go back to II for a quick refresher course, then be back with brand new names this time next week no worse off for wear and tear.

It was nice, though, that Mod3 did manage to re-define the parameters over in the �Quantum Evolution� (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000579) thread, when he officially put �simplistic RM-NS Darwinism� in a religious position. My only complaint about that is that after defining it as an ideological/religious position, he placed its canned spam off limits for rebuttal BECAUSE it�s an ideological/religious position. There�s just something fundamentally unfair if my ideological/religious position can be targeted for canned spam, but the canned spam is untouchable.

Hardly a level playing field, now that we know science isn�t the issue, is it?
Now, wouldn't it be really funny when joy finds out which side of the ideological fence ARN Mod3 sits on... It might make for a really vivid awakening! ;) So which one of you bright young Infidels is over there making trouble for the lil' lady? Ain't me.

PS: Apparently the quote in contention on the QE thread was: joy: Yes, I think it�s entirely evident that simplistic RM-NS Darwinism is wrong. A lot of scientists active in the fields have been aware of this for awhile. It�s just the lay-believers who are stuck with a frozen snapshot of where biology was years ago and can�t accomodate the changing paradigm because they never really understood the process of science in the first place. Ah, another IDiot who has a high opinion of herself!

PS2: wdog: Does anyone have a feel for the percentage of evolutionary biologists and scientists in general who buy into the notion of ID? Approximately 0%. If they do, the title of being "evolutionary biologist" or "scientist" is in serious doubt to begin with. ;)

RufusAtticus

January 25, 2003, 05:00 PM

We're nothing but lawyers? Go figure. I always thought we had a large contention of scientists here. Hmm, the things you learn.

Dr.GH

January 25, 2003, 06:40 PM

Lawyers? As in P. Johnson type people?

I don't think there are many lawyers around here, which is too bad. We need some!

All that the IDCs have is a popular political effort to modify laws with few words, but massive interpretations.

These are head games that scientific training does not prepare one to play.

I forget, is Joy one of the "supper dupper brains" or just a Dupe?

Principia

January 25, 2003, 07:11 PM

These are head games that scientific training does not prepare one to play. I agree, but it might pay to learn how to play the game. ;) In fact, I am constantly surprised by how much an IDiot can disguise the weakness of his argument by the amount of rhetorical devices thrown into the mix. So, I think there is merit for head games in the proper forum. Y'know what they say: If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em.
I forget, is Joy one of the "supper dupper brains" or just a Dupe? Joy just wants to belong. She got dissed by the Supes before they were booted out -- all for trying to understand the CTMU, too. Ever since, I think she's just a little bitter. Think mturner, with a tad more education.

pangloss

January 26, 2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Principia
Think mturner, with a tad more education.

You mean Joy has not yet boated of not being able to read, much less understand, the scientific literature?

January 27, 2003, 08:53 AM

joy: Yes, I think it�s entirely evident that simplistic RM-NS Darwinism is wrong. A lot of scientists active in the fields have been aware of this for awhile

So where are they all hiding? Iraq?

Cheers,

KC

pangloss

January 27, 2003, 01:53 PM

My old pals are at it again:

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000577

One making a laughingstock of himself (I wonder if that Chemical Society wishes they could take the award they gave him back?), the other engaging in post hoc aggrandizement (I predited that... after it was discovered....)

It never ends....

Principia

January 31, 2003, 08:30 AM

One making a laughingstock of himself (I wonder if that Chemical Society wishes they could take the award they gave him back?), [...]From this ARN thread (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000595): The report from this meeting is now available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10560.html
Many leaders in biology (not just proteomics) participated in the meeting and helped write the report. The abstract starts:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research in Proteomics is the next logical step after genomics in understanding life processes at the molecular level. In the largest sense proteomics encompasses knowledge of the structure, function and expression of all proteins in the biochemical or biological contexts of all organisms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it is instructive that Darwinian evolution is not a part of the report. It brings home again that evolutionary theory doesn�t play a major role in the life sciences any more. [...] However, where did I mention ID??? Precisely. LOL.

Principia

February 3, 2003, 01:42 PM

From here (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000598):
Apt: If the author thinks that DNA replication = PCR then he may not deserve much futher consideration. This reads like a Popular Science paper.

Nelson: Uhh, PCR is DNA replication. [...] Apt, you're not making any sense. He described PCR as:

"DNA replication can be performed in a cell-free system by adding back just a few components of the replication machinery."

This is PCR. LOL The IDiots now take the word of their "researchers" so literally at its face value that it's pathetic. Let's see how long this is/is not battle will continue before Nelson gets it.

EDIT: Oh, he's getting warmer. Latest question: Nelson: Is PCR DNA replication in a cell-free environment?

EDIT2: Nope, I was too optimistic. He still doesn't get it.

EDIT3: LOL, here's the bio (http://www.masters.edu/academics/profiles.asp?depname=2) of the author in question: Prior to coming to The Master's College, Dr. Francis served one year as a Research Scientist at the University of Michigan Medical School, and taught biology for ten years at Cedarville University. He is a member of the Society for Leukocyte Biology, National Association of Biology Teachers, and the Council of Undergraduate Research. He has served as co-chair and organizer for several conferences including; Discontinuity: Understanding Biology in the Light of Creation; and the Conference on Bioethical Issues sponsored by Cedarville University and Mount Vernon Nazarene College.

Dr. Francis has published numerous scientific articles in medical, biological and creation journals and a widely disseminated booklet entitled "The Biblical Basis for the Sanctity of Life and Inviolability of Man". He has served on several board of directors of Crisis Pregnancy Centers and currently serves on the editorial board for the journal "Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group" a creation journal committed to the literal interpretation of Genesis. He has also published an entire introductory biology course for Christian schools online. His research interests include, microscopy, scientific creationism, cellular immunology, and protein structure.

Dr. Francis and his wife, Rebecca, enjoy teaching their four boys at home and coaching their soccer teams. In his spare time, Dr. Francis enjoys reading history, playing golf, cross country skiing and biking.

pangloss

February 3, 2003, 02:30 PM

It is a shame for Joe Francis that baraminology and discontinuity systematics is a sham...

pangloss

February 3, 2003, 02:35 PM

I did sort of like this:

"A research paper doesn't have to conduct an actual experiment in order to be scientific research."

Looks like Nelson has been taking lessons form the "Book of Gene"...

February 3, 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by pangloss
I did sort of like this:

"A research paper doesn't have to conduct an actual experiment in order to be scientific research."

Looks like Nelson has been taking lessons form the "Book of Gene"...

Or the Book of Wells.

Cheers,

KC

pangloss

February 3, 2003, 02:39 PM

I also find it satisfying that many if not most posters - on both sides - seem to basically ignore Mike Gene (for the most part).

You just know that has to chap his ass....

Principia

February 4, 2003, 09:58 AM

From this ARN thread (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000596):
joy: Then ignore the science I have used to support my points. I can understand that Darwinism has no adequate response to anything that suggests RM-NS is not explanatory anymore. Genomics is a rather new science. It is the science that will finally unseat RM-NS from its position of theoretical dominance. Scientific theory is provisional and subject to radical change as new information becomes available. Theory is changing as we speak, based on new information. That information points to design, not to random chance.

Those who have invested absolute faith in Darwinism will have to adjust to not having scientific support for their faith. Most of us theists learned to live without scientific support long ago, so it can be done. LOL. As I understand it, theists of joy's stripe don't have much requirement for any knowledge at all, except for that contained in one text.

February 4, 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Principia
From this ARN thread (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000596):
LOL. As I understand it, theists of joy's stripe don't have much requirement for any knowledge at all, except for that contained in one text.

Joy is obviously unfamiliar with Lewontin. Someone outta recommend his book 'It Ain't Necessarily So' to her. That will cure her genomics love fest right quick.

Cheers,

KC

Principia

February 4, 2003, 09:55 PM

And here we have the pathetic whine (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000596), after being trounced by 3 evos:joy: Evolution as described by the geneticists in the linked article is not something Charles Darwin hypothesized. What�s the point in calling one�s self a �Darwinist� if evolution does not proceed by Darwinian mechanisms?:boohoo: :D

pangloss

February 6, 2003, 03:26 PM

Archive material (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/newreply.php?action=newreply&threadid=39803&)

This stuff is amazing!

"What's your point? Maybe you should try doing what I do--read, (don't skim), "the rest of the article" for it's *meaning*. "

This is the same guy that nearly boasted of not being able to understand scientific papers - on at least two occasions that I recall, asking posters to "interpret" papers for him!

Another:

"Selection is always negative, subtractive. It can never "put in", it can only "take out". "

Hmmm.... Well, how does one consider those NOT "taken out"? Are they not "put in" if nly by default?

My goodness....

February 18, 2003, 12:35 PM

From the ARN Humo(u)r area:

Heard any (anti)FRENCH jokes lately?

Let me get the ball rolling with the following:

Anyone see the French Military Rifle on ebay?
"Never been shot and only dropped once!"
Rumor has it that those French tanks have 6 gears, 5 reverse and 1 forward.
Just in case they're attacked from behind, that's where the forward gear comes in handy.
How many frenchmen does it take to guard Paris?
Nobody knows, it's never been tried before.
What do you call 100,000 Frenchmen with their hands up?
The Army.
Why did the French plant trees along the Champs Elysees?
So the Germans could march in the shade.
Why don't they have fireworks at Euro Disney?
Because every time they shoot them off, the French surrender

Now don't get me wrong, as an Englishman, I'm no particular fan of the French, but I have to shake my head when I see these kinds of jokes. Ask any German WWI veteran of Verdun or the Marne, and he would take great exception to any suggestion that cowardice was a national trait of the French.

::::gets off soapbox::::

KC

Principia

March 5, 2003, 10:46 AM

Arm is in fact Philip Johnson, and by the looks of it, he was back to preach about how scientists were all positivists :banghead:

Anyhoo, the ARN board is dying pretty fast, given the one-two punch of suffocating moderation and ignorant IDiots who are more interested nowadays in the going-ons of Iraq. So, what are we left with? Well, joy (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000630;p=2)! Turns out she's another Mae-Wan Ho fanatic in the same league as bertvan and mturner. Back from her one month ban, she comes up with: Plant virus is used as a promoter. Are you attempting to assert that the CaMV 35S promoter (Cauliflower Mosaic Virus) is not a plant virus, or that it�s �never, ever, ever� been used in the genetic engineering of plants? That�s a heck of a brave and absolute assertion, Art. I just want to know if you mean it before I start supplying the FDA, USDA, EPA and Patent Office data (on all the current and in-process cultivars). "Plant virus is used as a promoter..." hahaha

EDIT: why is it that verbosity and sheer ignorance of science and pigheaded stuborness are always positively correlated for IDiots??

Jesse

March 5, 2003, 01:45 PM

Principia:
Arm is in fact Philip Johnson, and by the looks of it, he was back to preach about how scientists were all positivists

Where are you getting your info? I haven't been at ARN in a while but I remember Arm from some debates about dinosaur feathers, and based on his writing style I doubt that he is Philip Johnson.

Principia

March 5, 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Jesse
Principia:
Arm is in fact Philip Johnson, and by the looks of it, he was back to preach about how scientists were all positivists

Where are you getting your info? I haven't been at ARN in a while but I remember Arm from some debates about dinosaur feathers, and based on his writing style I doubt that he is Philip Johnson. Jesse, I am basing this on what the people at ISCID are saying. A few of them have resorted to referring to him as "PJ," but maybe this info isn't that accurate either. Let me see if I can dig up the threads at ISCID.

EDIT: for instance, here (http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000153). I would say that there are quite a few coincidences that are a little uncanny. But, I'm not a great judge on writing styles... To what are you referring?

March 5, 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Principia
Arm is in fact Philip Johnson, and by the looks of it, he was back to preach about how scientists were all positivists :banghead:

Anyhoo, the ARN board is dying pretty fast, given the one-two punch of suffocating moderation and ignorant IDiots who are more interested nowadays in the going-ons of Iraq. So, what are we left with? Well, joy (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000630;p=2)! Turns out she's another Mae-Wan Ho fanatic in the same league as bertvan and mturner. Back from her one month ban, she comes up with: "Plant virus is used as a promoter..." hahaha

EDIT: why is it that verbosity and sheer ignorance of science and pigheaded stuborness are always positively correlated for IDiots??

One month ban? LOL!

Art and charlie d pretty much mopped the floor with her. She is pathologically incapable of admitting she made an error.

KC

charlie d

March 5, 2003, 03:41 PM

Boy, dealing with joy is truly exhausting!
I used to think positively about people who try to teach themselves about science issues, but after having argued with mturner, bertvan and joy I am starting to think that ignorance is bliss!
:D

I was also flabbergasted by Mae-Wan Ho's site. I always thought she was just a rather annoying, new-agey kind of person, but actually I think some of the stuff she says borders with the scientific misconduct, in the sense that she is being purposefully misleading. In alternative, she is just plain loony. Check this out:The observation in the FSA report [12] that no transgenic DNA was found in the faeces of the �healthy volunteers�, far from being reassuring, raises the worrying possibility that the transgenic DNA has all been taken up into the intestinal cells and/or passed into the bloodstream. This must be the most efficient DNA uptake mechanism ever!
:rolleyes:

At least, now I know what's in those secret, proprietary, super-expensive and super-efficient bacterial transformation reagents: sh*t. LOL.

March 5, 2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by charlie d
Boy, dealing with joy is truly exhausting!
I used to think positively about people who try to teach themselves about science issues, but after having argued with mturner, bertvan and joy I am starting to think that ignorance is bliss!
:D

She seriously thought that injecting genetic material into a fetus and having it absorbed into various tissues (including gonadal tissue) was the same thing as somatic cells infecting germ cells with genetic material. That, or she was simply throwing abstracts out randomly to impress equally ignorant lurkers.

KC

Jesse

March 5, 2003, 05:02 PM

Principia:
But, I'm not a great judge on writing styles... To what are you referring?

Mainly just that Arm had a tendency to CAPITALIZE and bold every other word in his posts...see this (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000820) thread, for example. I don't think a lawyer could get away with that kind of writing style. Of course, this was a while ago, it's possible that someone different has registered under the name "Arm" since then.

edit: nope, just looked at the thread you linked to, and from the overuse of capitalization it seems to be the same guy I remember.

March 5, 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Jesse
Principia:
But, I'm not a great judge on writing styles... To what are you referring?

Mainly just that Arm had a tendency to CAPITALIZE and bold every other word in his posts...see this (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000820) thread, for example. I don't think a lawyer could get away with that kind of writing style. Of course, this was a while ago, it's possible that someone different has registered under the name "Arm" since then.

edit: nope, just looked at the thread you linked to, and from the overuse of capitalization it seems to be the same I remember.

I don't recall PJ being as particularly interested in scientific minutae as arm seems to be, judging by your link.

KC

Principia

March 5, 2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by KC
I don't recall PJ being as particularly interested in scientific minutae as arm seems to be, judging by your link.

KC Granted, but reading through that link, I don't get the impression that Arm is at all versed in science. At best, he makes a rhetorical case, pointing to pictures and asking incredulous questions. For sure, he is thorough. What makes me suspicious is Arm's tendency to go for philosophical and moral arguments. I remember quite a few (long) threads at ARN about these topics in which he participated.

Then there's the minor stuff like (what used to be Berkeley) CA location; his Churchill quote; his appearance at ARN around the time PJ had his stroke; his "leaving out of town" when PJ is scheduled to give talks. I don't know how much emphasis to put on the way one writes on message boards. His caps and bolds may be a way of carrying over his usual rhetorical style. Anyway, Arm just comes off as "lawyerly" for me.

Principia

March 5, 2003, 05:46 PM

OK, maybe my suspicions are wrong after all. Arm refers to Berkeley as his "alma mater" (which I don't presume a professor would say).
From here (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000907):
Myrmecos, some of your statements and most of your conclusions in this thread have been more than a bit overexaggerated. I think we both should LIMIT ourselves to conclusions that we can validly make from the actual evidence at hand. In my 8/22 post, I made sure to express the opinion that non-human intelligent design is an "alternative explanation" to the totality of the data from the discipline of molecular phylogenetics; I did not say that macroevolutionists who are molecular phylogeneticists (as you claim you are & I have no reason to doubt you) should run for the hills. Your conclusions in here, however, demand a level of EXCLUSIVITY that is not supported by the evidence at hand. For example, you accuse Wells of being either a DISHONEST or INCOMPETENT "CRACKPOT" (your word) because he did not cite one study. That "crackpot" insult was the one crack in your pot of otherwise level-headed & eloquent posts. There is a tendency of macroevolutionists to somewhat arrogantly assume that one cannot be an ID supporter without being either stupid, misinformed, or evil. A Ph.D. in Molecular & Cell Biology from U.C. Berkeley (my alma mater) is not something a stupid or misinformed individual is able to obtain. Are you saying then that Wells is evil? Must we go there? Please do not rely on book "reviews" ("prolonged personal attacks" and "intentional mischaracterizations of the text" are more accurate terms) of the work of ID theorists by folks from thoroughly biased organizations such as the NCSE (e.g. Eugenie Scott); instead, review their work yourself. (Citing to me from biased, offensive websites like the NCSE website carries as much persuasive power as it would to cite to an Israeli from the website of the P.L.O.) I personally have collected a long file or research reports within your field which would throw serious doubts into your conclusions in this thread; this is no great or difficult feat from my part, because practically every issue in journals specifically dealing with the subject discusses new studies showing discrepancies/discordances (some minor, others major) (1)between molecular studies using different genes/proteins and/or (2)between morphology-based and molecular-based phylogenies. However, I would not go around calling you dishonest or incompetent (I certainly would not call you a "crackpot") simply because you did not cite from a single one of these studies; I simply conclude that you are mistaken, and choose not to pronounce judgments on your honesty or competence as a scientist. Although your mistaken assumption that my exposure to molecular phylogenetics is limited to Wells' book is understandable (I am far from being a member of your specialized profession), I am certain that your accusation that Wells went "cherry-picking through the literature for instances of conflict and for cases that he could portray as conflict even if none existed" is very inaccurate and inappropriate. Since you are a molecular phylogeneticist, your burden of modestly LIMITING your pronouncements to what can legitimately be concluded from the actual evidence at hand is higher than the burden by the rest of us mere average Joe's and Jane's, because there are people in this discussion forum like Lizard and niiicholas who will accept wholeheartedly & cheerlead everything you type here (e.g. Lizard's "amen, brother" posts) without checking the matter for themselves in a detailed and objective manner. Because you are a professional scientist, I ask you to please TEMPER DOWN your conclusions when the macroevolutionist case within molecular phylogenetics is far from being conclusive.

pangloss

March 7, 2003, 11:03 AM

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000629

"Ilion, I really wish you'd stay. Bertvan and I get tired of fighting a lonely fight against the forces of Darwinian dogmatism. But everytime we get an ally, like Joy or yourself, they get tired of the 'tag-team' Darwinism, ( very similar, in tone, deportment, and officiating, to tv's, 'professional wrestling') that we get here at ARN, and leave us to carry on alone. Heck, with you and Joy onside, along with our other, non-EAM (Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis), ID supporters, we could mop the floor with these guys."

Interesting, coming from a guy that has admitted on at least 2 occasions that I am aware of that he cannot understand primary scientific literature...

Principia

June 20, 2003, 09:11 AM

OK. I am naturally suspicious of verbose IDiots with arrogant, condescending attitudes and apparent power in IDiot boards. So, previously, I was under the impression that ARM = Philip Johnson, but Jesse and KC were not so sure.

Take a look at this recent ARN thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-000510.html) though:
ARN MODERATOR 5 stated:

"... all Mike B did was parrot back to you your own tone. If you find such forms of discussion offensive, I humbly suggest refraining from that sort of dialogue."

ARN MODERATOR 5:

(1) Can you please point exactly where in my opening post I used the tone and the "sort of dialogue" that Mike B used? Did I use sarcasm-filled diatribes against Darwinism like Mike B did with "churches" and young earth creationists? I find your statement above preposterous and, yes, quite biased. Please stick to actually moderating the discussion instead of arguing for one side. Remember that I know who you are (an often contributing member of this forum on one side of the issue); so, if you insist on using your position as moderator improperly, I'll have to seek your removal from that post.
Capital letterings aside, I think a man from CA, who proclaims Berkeley to be his "alma mater," who has coincidental schedules with PJ's speaking tours, who is interested in defeating "positivism," who defends YECs, and who has immense pull at ARN, rather limits the possibilities, don'cha think?

Principia

June 21, 2003, 11:46 PM

From the same thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000771.html):
ARM:
#1: ID supporters neet not present any "POSITIVE" evidence at all.

My reasoning: When the issue/controversy is whether a phenomenon, structure, or pathway can be explained by purely naturalistic causes (chance plus law) OR by some intelligent causation, the requirement of "positive" evidence from ID supporters is a CATEGORY CONFUSION: the erroneous requirement of "predictive" experimentation to find "naturalistic" causes/mechanisms from ID scientists/theorists proposing "detective" methodology to find "intelligent" causation. If, on the other hand, the issue were which of several possible purely naturalistic mechanisms caused such effects, then positive/predictive/naturalistic experimentation/evidence would be appropriate. Darwinists who demand "positive" evidence from ID supporters circularly apply positivist concepts & terminology (e.g. "positive" evidence; falsifiable predictions) when positivist methodology only applies when the causes of effects have been by certainty determined to be exclusively non-teleological, not when the issue at controversy is whether purely naturalistic causes OR intelligent causation produced the observed effects.
In fact, if Darwinists after much lab/field/theoretical work are incapable of finding purely naturalistic causes/mechanisms for certain phenomena, then ipso facto ("by the fact itself") a justifiable retroduction/abduction ("reasoning 'backwards' from effect to cause") can be legitimately made to intelligent design. A thorough establishment of the negative evidentiary case will in itself suffice empirically in justifying the retroduction to intelligent causation, because a thorough establishment of the negative evidentiary case will in itself empirically (not absolutely or with mathematical certainty, but with strong empirical support) negate the alternate justification for the exclusivity of a purely naturalistic explanation. *Now, I grant you fully that ID scientists/theorists have much more work to do before accomplishing this "thorough establishment of the negative evidentiary case"; but when or if they do so, then the retroduction to intelligent causation can be justifiably made without any need for any "positive" evidence from "predictive" experimentation. Summary: In regard to the issue of origins, the TERMINOLOGY and requirement of "positive" evidence from ID supporters should be completely abandoned because that terminology & requirement involve a category mistake, and because a thorough establishment of the negative evidentiary case against purely naturalistic causes will in itself suffice to justify a retroduction to intelligent causation.
LOL

Well, what can I say about this masterpiece of rhetorical lawyering? This blurb pretty much concedes the ballgame for IDiots -- according to PJ, one has to make a "thorough establishment of the negative evidentiary case" before "intelligent causation can be justifiably made."

Let there never be a CATEGORY CONFUSION that IDiots actually DO SCIENCE. ;)

I think this is perfect material for the Darwin at Trial thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=53023).

Sauron

June 22, 2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Principia
From the same thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000771.html):

ARM:
#1: ID supporters neet not present any "POSITIVE" evidence at all.

(snip)

LOL

Well, what can I say about this masterpiece of rhetorical lawyering? This blurb pretty much concedes the ballgame for IDiots -- according to PJ, one has to make a "thorough establishment of the negative evidentiary case" before "intelligent causation can be justifiably made."

Let there never be a CATEGORY CONFUSION that IDiots actually DO SCIENCE. ;)

I think this is perfect material for the Darwin at Trial thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=53023).

What a bloody zoo. This ARN person sounds like they're on prescription Xanax or something.

1. Start with an unproven assertion
2. Repeat the assertion by tying together a bunch of big words.
3. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along. :rolleyes:

Principia

June 29, 2003, 08:33 PM

From the same thread (http://arn.paulrpayne.net/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000771;p=2) (all emphases retained for the comical effects ;)):
[b]ARM (yup, y'all know who I'm talking about):
VERY IMPORTANT: It is very important that you understand this point, folks; so, please pay close attention. DEDUCTION and INDUCTION are not the sole means of logical inference-making. Only if deduction and induction were the sole means would your conclusions above (that the only way for ID scientists/theorists to establish a thorough negative case against Darwinism is to prove a "universal negative") be correct. All 3 of you have not been apprised of a method of logical inference-making that is today universally acknowledged by logicians: RETRODUCTION (aka ABDUCTION; aka retrodiction). Retroduction is arguing "backwards" from effect to cause and involves a "conclusion to the best alternative explanation." Ignoring retroductive inference-making amounts to sitting on a 2-legged logical stool; you are bound to keel over eventually. Valid/justifiable retroductive inference-making requires the best explanation based on all current knowledge (e.g. all current knowledge of natural mechanisms), not the disproof of a "universal negative." It is this oversight of retroduction that causes ID critics to erroneously charge ID scientists/theorists of making a "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy. Because with retroduction a "universal negative" is unnecessary, a thorough negative case (i.e., a negative case which justifies the making of a retroductive inference) is eminently makable/reachable; all that is needed is the elimination or empirical subjugation of all currently known alternatives. So, the irony is that raising a "god-of-the-gaps" argument against ID theory is itself a logical fallacy! Raising this argument amounts to the fallacy of "arguing from the invisible evidence." In conclusion, please understand that when I propose a "thorough negative case" I refer to the use of retroductive inferences ("conclusion to the best alternative explanation" "from effect to cause"), which does not require such an impossible standard as articulated by djmullen above.

In other words, according to you-know-who, if critics of IDiots reject the notion that "a thorough negative case (i.e., a negative case which justifies the making of a retroductive inference) is eminently makable/reachable; all that is needed is the elimination or empirical subjugation of all currently known alternatives" they are committing a logical fallacy? :confused:

The ID case continues to crumble. "An explanation to the best alternative" which continues to change with our current (he said it, I didn't) knowledge, and where the list of alternatives continues to expand with time, is no explanation at all. But, maybe that's why the IDiots spend most of their time on Internet forums fleshing out their ideas? ;)

RufusAtticus

June 30, 2003, 02:21 AM

Ha ha. An idist is complaining that ID is labeled as deus ex ignoratia. Perhaps he should complain to IDnet which admits openly that it is.

IDnet's response to AAAS (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ResponseToAAAS.htm)
To test whether the apparent design in a biological system is real or just an illusion, ID scientists examine the evidence to determine whether it is more consistent with natural or intelligent causes; they seek to "rule in" or "rule out" natural explanations (i.e., some combination of natural law and chance). If law and chance can adequately explain an apparently specified system, then a design inference is not warranted. However, if natural causes are not adequate to explain the data, then design becomes the best explanation. (emphasis mine)

Principia

July 8, 2003, 04:33 PM

From this delightful thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000787.html)
mturner: I notice that Mr D. is unable to respond, or is afraid to respond, to my posts.
:D

July 8, 2003, 04:40 PM

mturner: I notice that Mr D. is unable to respond, or is afraid to respond, to my posts.

Or maybe he's just ignoring you. Sheesh, what a maroon.

KC

pangloss

July 9, 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Principia
From this delightful thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000787.html)

:D

Is this not the guy that has on at least two occasions (that I have archived :) ) declared that he cannot understand scientific papers?

The guy who has been described as the most consistently rude poster at ARN?

Gee, folks should be falling over themselves to reply to his incoherent posts...

He makes Ilion look like a paragon of virtue...

Principia

July 13, 2003, 07:18 PM

Besides having an obsession with Meyer's demarcation essay (as given on ARN), ARM (yup, y'all know who I'm really talking about) has resorted to citing DI's shameless "bibliography" (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000771-p-2.html) to attack evolutionary theory:
One of the citations RBH completely ignored was the citation of the Meyer bibliography within the post listing several empirical hypotheses and successful observations for ID theory. Before I'm accused of "Pubmed flaming," I will note that every single one of the articles from the Meyer bibliography I discuss below are relevant to RBH's assertion that the test of congruence between morphological and molecular trees "passes with flying colors." The bibliography, the response by the NCSE, and the Discovery Institute's response to the NCSE can be found at the following link:
www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/quesAndAnsNCSECritiqueOfBib.pdf
I recommend you read the whole paper. For those of you unfamiliar with this particular controversy, the Discovery Institute prepared a paper of 40+ refereed papers showing significant weaknesses with the Darwinian Conjecture. In answer, the NCSE sent out a questionnaire to the authors of those papers, inquiring whether they agreed with the characterizations and conclusions of the bibliography. Some of the authors refused to comment, but many did respond; however, (to my knowledge) several of those responses were not made public by the NCSE; namely, the responses from Simon Conway Morris, W. Ford Doolittle, Trisha Gura, Arcady Mushegian, Gavin Naylor, Kensal van Holde, Robert Carroll, George Miklos, Michael Katz, and possibly others in full or in part. QUESTION: Is the NCSE hiding something? Why not make public all the responses in all their entirety?

Some relevant studies/papers from the bibliography are the following: [snip articles, which readers can read for themselves without being biased by PJ's quote-mining techniques]

July 13, 2003, 10:04 PM

"ARM" (on ARN) writes:

Some of the authors refused to comment, but many did respond; however, (to my knowledge) several of those responses were not made public by the NCSE; namely, the responses from Simon Conway Morris, W. Ford Doolittle, Trisha Gura, Arcady Mushegian, Gavin Naylor, Kensal van Holde, Robert Carroll, George Miklos, Michael Katz, and possibly others in full or in part. QUESTION: Is the NCSE hiding something? Why not make public all the responses in all their entirety?

In cheesy courtroom dramas, when the defence is losing badly, they will ty to pin the blame away from their client and on to someone else: 'Plan B'.

KC

Principia

July 16, 2003, 07:43 AM

With the level of discussion about ID resear... <cough> navel-gazing, dropping to record lows over at the IDiot strongholds, atheists -- the mortal enemies of all IDiots -- have recently become quite the subject matter.

Take a look here (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-000543.html):
IDiot #1: Did you catch the evangelistic approach? Spread a new meme. Dawkins has given up on reason and has resorted to doing the very thing he accuses the �unsaved� of doing � spreading viruses.

All of this in the name of science, as such preaching always follows with: Richard Dawkins FRS is Charles Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University

I find this fascinating. If even someone like Richard Dawkins can�t stop himself from falling to the religious mold, perhaps we were hard-wired to be religious.

IDiot #2:Yes, and this is a recurrent theme of the last century or so: scarcely was Marx cold in the ground when his writing began (for the faithful of course)to acquire the weight of Scripture. Ditto with Lenin's writings. And we know the mandatory nature of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book of sayings for hundreds of millions of "good Chinese". These writings weren't merely about how to topple the ancient regime but how to "build a new society", one without all the nastiness of the old one. And all with a flavor of a millennial cult about it. And irresistible to a sub-class of "atheists".

IDiot#3: I know that many make light of people like Dawkins and Dennett but they are two very scary individuals IMO. As has been pointed out already somewhere else these two are the most influential propagandists for their cause. Dawkins in particular is very widely read by the masses and disguises quite well HIS hatefull materialistic philosophy ( note to all materialists...I am not saying that materialist philosophy is hateful) under the disguise of science. Dawkins and Dennett write for the masses and have powerfull platforms to change the minds of many.

If religion is a virus of the mind ( a sickness) and this sickness is being transmitted by their parents infecting the minds of children how should one react to this? Do we not need to protect ( quarantine) these children? Do not the people that are sick ( religious parents) need also to be disinfected? This is scary stuff.

IDiot#4: They already do in China, especially the gifted and athletic. Extras (exceeding the allowed two)are terminated in partial birth abortions.

Dewey felt that parents were a hindrance to child development and that they would be better off in state run schools as soon as they could walk and talk.

And then, Dumbski comes along (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000807.html):
Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins seem quite taken with using the term "bright" to designate atheism (see their op/ed pieces below). They advocate the following use of the term: Dennett is "a bright," Dawkins is "a bright," and together they are "brights." What's more, since an atheistic world view is best nourished on Darwinism (it was Dawkins, after all, who said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist), it follows that "brights," sensu Dawkins and Dennett, are necessarily Darwinists.

This coinage of the term "bright" is yet another one of those bright ideas that goes to prove that the academy houses our brightest intellects. Perhaps in the future we shall see articles and books by Darwinists on "Darwin's Bright Idea."

WmAD [Love ur new signoff WAD]
Sounds like to me the Xian sickness/disease/infection is spreading. ;)

Principia

July 18, 2003, 09:27 PM

Aww... and the Dawkins-bashing part backfired. Ms. Joy-be-naughty apparently got too caught up in implicating Dawkins for all of society's ills, that it caught the attention of ARN Mod #3. Now she has this to whine (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-000518.html):
I thought this was a forum devoted to examining possible ID directions and theory. This is the �off-topic� board, which I thought was for those not-so specific ID vs. Darwinism issues, like Richard Dawkins making a total ass of himself in public. I read over on the Internet Infidels� forum that the recognizable �regulars� there knew all about my unexplained suspension back in April, and they�ve copy-pasted many of my posts and held court on who/what/why I might be. Perhaps all they have to do is click on the �Report Post� button to get a troublesome opponent banned. I�m guessing at least one of the mods here is closely associated with the Secular Web. And why that should be allowed is frankly way beyond me.

Dawkins - and now Dennett too, in the New York Times - have blown it wide open. To shut down discussion of that public faux pas in a supposedly �public� forum is outrageous. I am beginning to suspect that my leanings toward what might have been a most useful paradigm of design over RM-NS Darwinism is sadly misguided. I am beginning to strongly suspect these folks aren�t serious... and never really were. That�s a shame, because I know some things that might have proved useful.

Ooh. Another Mod conspiracy brewing over at ARN... and looky here, the first to jump on the bandwagon is the veteran Mod-sniffer himself, all excited about the possibility of a non-IDiot mod expressing his bias:
Your point about allowing non Id persons to participate as Moderators has its pros and cons although the pros out weigh the cons IMO. I think it�s a good thing to have Mods on a pro ID board that are anti ID. I do agree however that any anti ID Mod should not be closely associated with the Secular Web nor should any Mod share info with others regarding suspensions etc. Do you know this to be a fact? PM me if you like.

Yet, we ought not forget the last time Mod-sniffer announced an amazing discovery (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-17-t-000015.html) ;):
Jazz in the case of ARN Mod # 4 he or she is to busy closing down threads after allowing an anti IDist to get off one last cheap shot off against me on the �guesss the author� thread. Yes, the �guess the author� thread had to be closed . Like rabid dogs a pack of anti Idst has taken a �game show � thread and turned it into a feedy frenzy against a pro Idst. Never mind that not a one of that rabble has been able to substantiate any of their charges that the words I used of Dawkins in any way shape or form misrepresented or misquoted the man.
[...]
Now ARN#4 I don�t know if you�re a pro ID mod that thinks you have to bend over backwards to make sure you are even handed to the anti ID crowd. Or if you�re a anti ID Mod and PZ is your comrade in arms so to speak. But if you really wanted to perform your job you would have been even handed in the matter and you certainly would not allowed PZ make his or her cheap and dishonest shot, laugh about it, then close the thread. I certainly hope you will exercise better judgement in the future.

This oughta be fun to watch. :D