Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Discovery Institute downsizing
73 views
Skip to first unread message
Ron O
Apr 10, 2012, 8:03:54 AM4/10/12
to
Someone over at Panda's thumb noted that Denton had returned as a
fellow of the Discovery Institute. When I went to look into it the
Discovery Institute has changed quite a bit. They no longer have
their very large Russian division and Bioethics seems to be gone.
Their legitimate transportation research division has been pretty much
defunct for years, and seems to be bare bones. They are expanding the
CSC (should be creation science center) and Denton has returned as a
fellow. Denton quit the institute before they started running the
bait and switch scam on their creationist support base, so why he
would return after they have been running the bait and switch for over
10 years is strange. Maybe they promised him that they had quit
running the bait and switch scam on their creationist support base?
We will see the next time the creationist rubes step up and claim to
be able to teach the nonexistent science of intelligent design. The
Discovery Institute is still claiming to be able to teach the junk in
the public schools, but not a single IDiot has ever gotten any ID
science to teach.
http://www.discovery.org/a/3164
There are other changes from years past and more CSC fellows seem to
be Discovery Institute fellows now. The likely reason for this is
that there isn't much left of the Discovery Institute except the CSC.
There are two basic types of fellows at the Discovery Institute. You
can be a division fellow like the ID perps that belong to the CSC, or
you can also be an institute fellow. My guess is that an institute
fellow is more likely to be on salary. Jonathan Wells is no longer an
institute fellow, but is still a CSC fellow. My guess is that they
still pay him because he doesn't seem to have any other job. I don't
know how the stipends work. Maybe the Institute fellows could double
dip?
Discovery Institute web page:
http://www.discovery.org/
Discovery Institute fellows:
http://www.discovery.org/fellows/
CSC fellows:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php
Fellowships are from $40,000 to $50,000, but I doubt that every fellow
gets that every year.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellowshipInfo.php
Dembski has claimed that he used to get the money every year and was
happy about that when he was between jobs. I just can't see the
Discovery Institute putting out that much money to support guys that
basically don't do much except write a few editorials in some
newspaper every once in a while. What has Berlinski done for the
Discovery Institute in the last 10 years? Does anyone have a clue?
Philip Johnson is still listed as an advisor even though he hasn't (to
my knowledge) publically supported the ID scam since he pretty much
admitted that it was a scam and bailed around 7 years ago.
Ron Okimoto
fellow of the Discovery Institute. When I went to look into it the
Discovery Institute has changed quite a bit. They no longer have
their very large Russian division and Bioethics seems to be gone.
Their legitimate transportation research division has been pretty much
defunct for years, and seems to be bare bones. They are expanding the
CSC (should be creation science center) and Denton has returned as a
fellow. Denton quit the institute before they started running the
bait and switch scam on their creationist support base, so why he
would return after they have been running the bait and switch for over
10 years is strange. Maybe they promised him that they had quit
running the bait and switch scam on their creationist support base?
We will see the next time the creationist rubes step up and claim to
be able to teach the nonexistent science of intelligent design. The
Discovery Institute is still claiming to be able to teach the junk in
the public schools, but not a single IDiot has ever gotten any ID
science to teach.
http://www.discovery.org/a/3164
There are other changes from years past and more CSC fellows seem to
be Discovery Institute fellows now. The likely reason for this is
that there isn't much left of the Discovery Institute except the CSC.
There are two basic types of fellows at the Discovery Institute. You
can be a division fellow like the ID perps that belong to the CSC, or
you can also be an institute fellow. My guess is that an institute
fellow is more likely to be on salary. Jonathan Wells is no longer an
institute fellow, but is still a CSC fellow. My guess is that they
still pay him because he doesn't seem to have any other job. I don't
know how the stipends work. Maybe the Institute fellows could double
dip?
Discovery Institute web page:
http://www.discovery.org/
Discovery Institute fellows:
http://www.discovery.org/fellows/
CSC fellows:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php
Fellowships are from $40,000 to $50,000, but I doubt that every fellow
gets that every year.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellowshipInfo.php
Dembski has claimed that he used to get the money every year and was
happy about that when he was between jobs. I just can't see the
Discovery Institute putting out that much money to support guys that
basically don't do much except write a few editorials in some
newspaper every once in a while. What has Berlinski done for the
Discovery Institute in the last 10 years? Does anyone have a clue?
Philip Johnson is still listed as an advisor even though he hasn't (to
my knowledge) publically supported the ID scam since he pretty much
admitted that it was a scam and bailed around 7 years ago.
Ron Okimoto
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 10, 2012, 9:11:09 AM4/10/12
to
What about the Biologic Institute, where the actual
"scientific" "research" "is done"?
Wikipedia: "PZ Myers likens the Biologic Institute's
design research program to cargo cults, [...] pretend[ing]
that they're doing science."
Where does the DI get money from?
"scientific" "research" "is done"?
Wikipedia: "PZ Myers likens the Biologic Institute's
design research program to cargo cults, [...] pretend[ing]
that they're doing science."
Where does the DI get money from?
Richard Clayton
Apr 10, 2012, 11:01:16 AM4/10/12
to
public failures and slinking retreats. ID seems to be on the wane these
days; after the Disastrous Defeat in Dover proved the cdesign
proponentsists just couldn't keep their mouths shut, there's no reason
to pretend evolution denialism isn't religiously motivated. And anyway,
the new "academic freedom!" scam plays better to the
we-Christians-are-SO-VERY-PERSECUTED crowd.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
John Stockwell
Apr 10, 2012, 12:32:15 PM4/10/12
to
of (pseudo)Science and Culture at Southern Evangelical Seminary:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1566534
so, basically, he is fixed for life, though he wouldn't be above
trading up.
>
> Philip Johnson is still listed as an advisor even though he hasn't (to
> my knowledge) publically supported the ID scam since he pretty much
> admitted that it was a scam and bailed around 7 years ago.
need an cash.
>
> Ron Okimoto
-John
RAM
Apr 11, 2012, 11:33:30 AM4/11/12
to
On Apr 10, 8:11 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
Howard Ahmanson a Christian Reconstructionist (i.e. a
theocract) has in the past provided almost all the money
for CSC.
theocract) has in the past provided almost all the money
for CSC.
Ron O
Apr 11, 2012, 6:33:04 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 10, 8:11 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
see that Howard Ahmanson is on the board of directors. He is supposed
to be the major funder of the CSC. The Gates foundation once gave the
Discovery Institute money for their Seattle projects, but those seem
to be defunct. The Discovery Institute used to also have some grants
to do some public transportation work, but it doesn't look like they
are very active in that anymore.
Chapman used to run the Discovery Institute, but he is now just on the
board of directors. The Discovery Institute is heavily involved in
ARN (Access Research Network) and it seems to be where the ID perps
sell their junk. I don't know how much of what is sold goes back to
the Discovery Institute, but the board of directors of ARN are
associated with the DI.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Apr 11, 2012, 6:41:43 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 10, 10:01 am, Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It looks like the only active unit is the CSC ID scam wing. Cascadia
seems to have been downsized for a decade. They used to have a large
Russian studies division, but it is now gone, and so is bioethics.
They have a new unit, but only a couple of people are named as being
associated with it (center of wealth poverty and morality with three
fellows). One of the fellows of the new division is a long time ID
perp (Jay Richards) and another is a relatively new Discovery
Institute fellow (was never a CSC fellow) Michael Medved. I have
never figured out what Gilder does for the Institute except be one of
the founding members.
Ron Okimoto
wrote:
seems to have been downsized for a decade. They used to have a large
Russian studies division, but it is now gone, and so is bioethics.
They have a new unit, but only a couple of people are named as being
associated with it (center of wealth poverty and morality with three
fellows). One of the fellows of the new division is a long time ID
perp (Jay Richards) and another is a relatively new Discovery
Institute fellow (was never a CSC fellow) Michael Medved. I have
never figured out what Gilder does for the Institute except be one of
the founding members.
Ron Okimoto
AGWFacts
Apr 11, 2012, 9:20:02 PM4/11/12
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:
It seems to me the cult needs some fresh ideas, so I am going to
write to the cult and suggest they join the petroleum industry's
denialism propaganda against the laws of physics. ExxonMobil
advertised they will pay $10,000 per article that appears to be
from a scientist or economist that shows "flaws" in the evidence
for human-caused climate change. The Discovery Institute is
perfect for this.
> Ron Okimoto
--
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie
wrote:
write to the cult and suggest they join the petroleum industry's
denialism propaganda against the laws of physics. ExxonMobil
advertised they will pay $10,000 per article that appears to be
from a scientist or economist that shows "flaws" in the evidence
for human-caused climate change. The Discovery Institute is
perfect for this.
> Ron Okimoto
--
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 11, 2012, 9:30:45 PM4/11/12
to AGWF...@1800reality.com
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:20:02 AM UTC+1, AGWFacts wrote:
> "Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie
I awoke one morning and found myself famous. :-)
> "Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie
Ron O
Apr 12, 2012, 7:44:52 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 11, 8:20 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reaklity.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
They have a way to apply for a research fellowship.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellowshipInfo.php
My guess is that they are already paying people to try to find any
scientific peer reviewed articles that support intelligent design.
You just have to look up the kind of junk that they claim supports ID
while never mentioning ID or any ID hypothesis to see that they
wouldn't expect much for the money. They even claim that their own
scam journal is peer-reviewed. I guess that it is, but what kind of
peer review is that? This is the peer group where not a single one of
them resigned in protest when the Discovery Institute began running a
bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base. Did
Michele Bachmann get any of this wonderful ID science to teach in the
public schools? The Discovery Institute is still claiming to be able
to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design in the public
schools, but no one ever gets such a theory to teach.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Ron Okimoto
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellowshipInfo.php
My guess is that they are already paying people to try to find any
scientific peer reviewed articles that support intelligent design.
You just have to look up the kind of junk that they claim supports ID
while never mentioning ID or any ID hypothesis to see that they
wouldn't expect much for the money. They even claim that their own
scam journal is peer-reviewed. I guess that it is, but what kind of
peer review is that? This is the peer group where not a single one of
them resigned in protest when the Discovery Institute began running a
bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base. Did
Michele Bachmann get any of this wonderful ID science to teach in the
public schools? The Discovery Institute is still claiming to be able
to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design in the public
schools, but no one ever gets such a theory to teach.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Ron Okimoto
AGWFacts
Apr 12, 2012, 2:16:59 PM4/12/12
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:30:45 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord:
cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com>
wrote:
> On Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:20:02 AM UTC+1, AGWFacts wrote:
> > "Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie
> I awoke one morning and found myself famous. :-)
LOL! Some times one finds wisdom on Usenet.
--
cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com>
wrote:
> On Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:20:02 AM UTC+1, AGWFacts wrote:
> > "Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie
> I awoke one morning and found myself famous. :-)
--
AGWFacts
Apr 12, 2012, 2:19:41 PM4/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 04:44:52 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:
scholars who are willing to follow the evidence where it leads,
even if it suggests intelligent design."
So, I wonder what evidence suggests ID Creationism? Just how long
do they plan on looking?
> My guess is that they are already paying people to try to find any
> scientific peer reviewed articles that support intelligent design.
There aren't any, so their money is safe.
> You just have to look up the kind of junk that they claim supports ID
> while never mentioning ID or any ID hypothesis to see that they
> wouldn't expect much for the money. They even claim that their own
> scam journal is peer-reviewed. I guess that it is, but what kind of
> peer review is that? This is the peer group where not a single one of
> them resigned in protest when the Discovery Institute began running a
> bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base. Did
> Michele Bachmann get any of this wonderful ID science to teach in the
> public schools? The Discovery Institute is still claiming to be able
> to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design in the public
> schools, but no one ever gets such a theory to teach.
>
> http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
>
> Ron Okimoto
wrote:
> They have a way to apply for a research fellowship.
> http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellowshipInfo.php
I just *LOVE* this part: "....supports scientists and other
> http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellowshipInfo.php
scholars who are willing to follow the evidence where it leads,
even if it suggests intelligent design."
So, I wonder what evidence suggests ID Creationism? Just how long
do they plan on looking?
> My guess is that they are already paying people to try to find any
> scientific peer reviewed articles that support intelligent design.
> You just have to look up the kind of junk that they claim supports ID
> while never mentioning ID or any ID hypothesis to see that they
> wouldn't expect much for the money. They even claim that their own
> scam journal is peer-reviewed. I guess that it is, but what kind of
> peer review is that? This is the peer group where not a single one of
> them resigned in protest when the Discovery Institute began running a
> bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base. Did
> Michele Bachmann get any of this wonderful ID science to teach in the
> public schools? The Discovery Institute is still claiming to be able
> to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design in the public
> schools, but no one ever gets such a theory to teach.
>
> http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
>
> Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Apr 12, 2012, 9:46:44 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 1:19 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reaklity.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 04:44:52 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
Some of them have been looking since the late 1980's if you just
consider the modern ID scam. If you consider the older religious
propositions you'd likely be looking at thousands of years. Hundreds
of years of recorded history with no ID success.
>
> > My guess is that they are already paying people to try to find any
> > scientific peer reviewed articles that support intelligent design.
>
> There aren't any, so their money is safe.
They are already paying even if they never get what they pay for.
What has all the fellowship money gotten the Discovery Institute?
They don't even have a testable hypothesis to put forward at this
time, and the Discovery Institute has had the ID scam wing since the
mid 1990's.
When the rubes screw up in Tennessee and the ID/creationist/switch
scam goes to court some of the ID perps may have to admit that there
are no scientific publications that support intelligent design again.
Both Minnich and Behe admitted that there were no peer reviewed
science journal articles published, that they knew of, that supported
the ID scam notions when they were under oath.
The ID perps do have their own journal that they claim is peer
reviewed for science content, but that probably won't help them much
in court.
The ID perps have a list of "science" articles that they claim support
intelligent design, but the list still has articles from before 2005,
so either Behe and Minnich lied under oath or the list is bogus. Behe
and Minnich would have at least known about their own articles that
make that bogus list. Why don't Behe and Minnich get the Discovery
Institute to take their articles off the list when they know that the
Discovery Institute is lying about the publications?
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Ron Okimoto
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 04:44:52 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
consider the modern ID scam. If you consider the older religious
propositions you'd likely be looking at thousands of years. Hundreds
of years of recorded history with no ID success.
>
> > My guess is that they are already paying people to try to find any
> > scientific peer reviewed articles that support intelligent design.
>
> There aren't any, so their money is safe.
What has all the fellowship money gotten the Discovery Institute?
They don't even have a testable hypothesis to put forward at this
time, and the Discovery Institute has had the ID scam wing since the
mid 1990's.
When the rubes screw up in Tennessee and the ID/creationist/switch
scam goes to court some of the ID perps may have to admit that there
are no scientific publications that support intelligent design again.
Both Minnich and Behe admitted that there were no peer reviewed
science journal articles published, that they knew of, that supported
the ID scam notions when they were under oath.
The ID perps do have their own journal that they claim is peer
reviewed for science content, but that probably won't help them much
in court.
The ID perps have a list of "science" articles that they claim support
intelligent design, but the list still has articles from before 2005,
so either Behe and Minnich lied under oath or the list is bogus. Behe
and Minnich would have at least known about their own articles that
make that bogus list. Why don't Behe and Minnich get the Discovery
Institute to take their articles off the list when they know that the
Discovery Institute is lying about the publications?
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Apr 13, 2012, 7:12:13 AM4/13/12
to
>
> Dembski has claimed that he used to get the money every year and was
> happy about that when he was between jobs. I just can't see the
> Discovery Institute putting out that much money to support guys that
> basically don't do much except write a few editorials in some
> newspaper every once in a while. What has Berlinski done for the
> Discovery Institute in the last 10 years? Does anyone have a clue?
>
> Philip Johnson is still listed as an advisor even though he hasn't (to
> my knowledge) publically supported the ID scam since he pretty much
> admitted that it was a scam and bailed around 7 years ago.
>
> Ron Okimoto
With the reintroduction of Denton as a CSC fellow, Chapman is no
> Dembski has claimed that he used to get the money every year and was
> happy about that when he was between jobs. I just can't see the
> Discovery Institute putting out that much money to support guys that
> basically don't do much except write a few editorials in some
> newspaper every once in a while. What has Berlinski done for the
> Discovery Institute in the last 10 years? Does anyone have a clue?
>
> Philip Johnson is still listed as an advisor even though he hasn't (to
> my knowledge) publically supported the ID scam since he pretty much
> admitted that it was a scam and bailed around 7 years ago.
>
> Ron Okimoto
longer President of the Discovery Institute.
http://www.discovery.org/fellows/
http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php
Meyer is still Director of the CSC, but West (though listed as
associate director of the CSC) is now VP of the Discovery Institute.
At one time Meyer was VP, but he got demoted back to director of the
CSC years ago.
I don't recall hearing about this restructuring. You'd think that
Chapman stepping down would have been big news for the IDiots.
Chapman is still on the board of directors. About all that is left of
the Discovery Institute is the ID scam unit so it makes sense to have
Meyer or West as a VP. Their other VP is a financial officer that
I've never heard of.
We had a thread on how ID was dead, but the Discovery Institute seems
to be trying to keep it alive even at the expense of their
"legitimate" activities.
I can't find a press release on the subject. Does anyone know when
this all happened?
Ron Okimoto
John Stockwell
Apr 16, 2012, 2:31:36 PM4/16/12
to
into being supportive of ID. Loma Linda does that with
Adventist creationism.
> Did
> Michele Bachmann get any of this wonderful ID science to teach in the
> public schools? The Discovery Institute is still claiming to be able
> to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design in the public
> schools, but no one ever gets such a theory to teach.
>
> http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
>
> Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Apr 17, 2012, 7:03:20 AM4/17/12
to
the Discovery Institute has a list of publications that they claim are
peer reviewed and that support intelligent design, but the list
includes articles from before the Dover fiasco and both Minnich and
Behe admitted under oath that there were no such journal articles in
existence that they knew of, and they would have known of their own
articles on the list.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
There are no scientific articles that support intelligent design
because the ID perps do not have a single testable ID hypothesis to
verify in such a paper. What would such a paper be about?
Ron Okimoto
jillery
Apr 17, 2012, 1:11:52 PM4/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:03:20 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:
I love Discotut's hyperbole that 50 articles since 2004 is a boom.
Perhaps compared to what was written before, but still...
Just for fun, I looked at their first cite:
http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Documents/BUMC%20Proceedings/2012%20Vol%2025/No.%201/25_1_Kuhn.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/7wafb36
Both DI and Kuhn seem not to understand that a presumptive lack of
evidence for the origins of life, IrC biological systems and
transitional forms, is neither evidence against evolution nor evidence
for ID. A sentence from the article:
"At an absolute minimum, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA
and the inability to explain the incredible information contained
in DNA represent fatal defects in the concept of mutation and
natural selection to account for the origin of life and the origin
of DNA."
Words like "incredible" and "inconceivable" show the basis of their
argument reduces to personal incredulity. Perhaps the article would
have sounded more authoritive if DI had misrepresented it :)
wrote:
Perhaps compared to what was written before, but still...
Just for fun, I looked at their first cite:
http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Documents/BUMC%20Proceedings/2012%20Vol%2025/No.%201/25_1_Kuhn.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/7wafb36
Both DI and Kuhn seem not to understand that a presumptive lack of
evidence for the origins of life, IrC biological systems and
transitional forms, is neither evidence against evolution nor evidence
for ID. A sentence from the article:
"At an absolute minimum, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA
and the inability to explain the incredible information contained
in DNA represent fatal defects in the concept of mutation and
natural selection to account for the origin of life and the origin
of DNA."
Words like "incredible" and "inconceivable" show the basis of their
argument reduces to personal incredulity. Perhaps the article would
have sounded more authoritive if DI had misrepresented it :)
Ron O
Apr 17, 2012, 6:47:37 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 12:11 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:03:20 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Documents/BUMC%20Proceedings/2012%20Vol%2...
scientists that came before, especially when a lot of them are those
creation scientists that came before the ID scam. Just recall the
stupid April 1st thread where the ICR was endorsing intelligent
design. Kenyon has been an ID perp from about the beginning and was
even responsible for the Pandas and People fiasco.
What they should come up with is the insane probability that any
informed person would still believe the ID claptrap after all the
years that they have run the bait and switch and lied about the bogus
junk. Just because there are the bogus and dishonest doesn't mean
that the probability isn't near zero. Get the alien designers to
calculate the probability based on the bogus antics of the ID perps.
Ron Okimoto
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:03:20 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7wafb36
>
> Both DI and Kuhn seem not to understand that a presumptive lack of
> evidence for the origins of life, IrC biological systems and
> transitional forms, is neither evidence against evolution nor evidence
> for ID. A sentence from the article:
>
> "At an absolute minimum, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA
> and the inability to explain the incredible information contained
> in DNA represent fatal defects in the concept of mutation and
> natural selection to account for the origin of life and the origin
> of DNA."
>
> Words like "incredible" and "inconceivable" show the basis of their
> argument reduces to personal incredulity. Perhaps the article would
> have sounded more authoritive if DI had misrepresented it :)
>
No one is going to say that they were any better than the creation
> http://tinyurl.com/7wafb36
>
> Both DI and Kuhn seem not to understand that a presumptive lack of
> evidence for the origins of life, IrC biological systems and
> transitional forms, is neither evidence against evolution nor evidence
> for ID. A sentence from the article:
>
> "At an absolute minimum, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA
> and the inability to explain the incredible information contained
> in DNA represent fatal defects in the concept of mutation and
> natural selection to account for the origin of life and the origin
> of DNA."
>
> Words like "incredible" and "inconceivable" show the basis of their
> argument reduces to personal incredulity. Perhaps the article would
> have sounded more authoritive if DI had misrepresented it :)
>
scientists that came before, especially when a lot of them are those
creation scientists that came before the ID scam. Just recall the
stupid April 1st thread where the ICR was endorsing intelligent
design. Kenyon has been an ID perp from about the beginning and was
even responsible for the Pandas and People fiasco.
What they should come up with is the insane probability that any
informed person would still believe the ID claptrap after all the
years that they have run the bait and switch and lied about the bogus
junk. Just because there are the bogus and dishonest doesn't mean
that the probability isn't near zero. Get the alien designers to
calculate the probability based on the bogus antics of the ID perps.
Ron Okimoto
Mike Painter
Apr 17, 2012, 10:55:54 PM4/17/12
to
On 4/17/2012 4:03 AM, Ron O wrote:
> There are no scientific articles that support intelligent design
> because the ID perps do not have a single testable ID hypothesis to
> verify in such a paper. What would such a paper be about?
About 50 pages with goddidit as a synopsis.
> There are no scientific articles that support intelligent design
> because the ID perps do not have a single testable ID hypothesis to
> verify in such a paper. What would such a paper be about?
Ron O
Apr 18, 2012, 7:43:55 AM4/18/12
to
The introduction should be fairly short unless they want to review all
the past ID failures (100% failure with no success ever recorded is
pretty much all they need to say). There are no ID successes to build
the paper on so no reason to waste verbage trying to justify what they
claim to be addressing. There would be no problem that they were
working on that ID would generate any type of viable answer for. It
wouldn't be much of a paper to just claim that they speculate that
their designer did something, but they can't figure out any way to
demonstrate that it happened the way that they claim or that they even
have a clue as to how it was designed.
It wouldn't be 50 pages, and likely wouldn't even make a good poster
abstract. Just take the flagellum. What parts were designed and what
parts evolved over the last couple billion years and how would they
determine that? The problem is that they don't want to do the
research it would require to determine that because the 100% failure
rate pretty much tells them what to expect. Both Minnich and Behe
testified that they thought that claiming that the flagellum was IC in
the way that the ID perps required was testable, but it has been 7
years since they made that claim under oath and neither one has even
attempted testing the notion as far as I know. There have been no
press releases by the Discovery Institute that they are funding such
research or that either one got a grant to do the work. You can't
write up the research if you never do the research.
You are correct that goddidit would be the conclusion of the paper,
but it only takes one bogus made up word to get that point across, and
it would be the meat of the paper. Everything else would be idle
speculation by comparison.;-)
Ron Okimoto
0 new messages