12 Responses to “Response to Dover Voters”

1. edarrell Says:
   November 12th, 2005 at 4:31 am

   So, the last, best bastion of defense of ID is illegal action by a school board in Kansas?

   Were ID scientific, the defense would be made in a laboratory, or in field observation.

Comment by edarrell — November 12, 2005 @ 4:31 am

2. edarrell Says:
   November 12th, 2005 at 4:33 am

   Hit the reply key too quickly. You guys deserve points for noting your losses in Dover. Denial runs too deep in most of the ID community to do even that.

Comment by edarrell — November 12, 2005 @ 4:33 am

3. Joe G Says:
   November 12th, 2005 at 8:11 am

   edarrell:
   You guys deserve points for noting your losses in Dover.

   What losses in Dover? Did the judge rule on the case yet?

   edarrell:
   So, the last, best bastion of defense of ID is illegal action by a school board in Kansas?

   What illegal action?

   edarrell:
   Were ID scientific, the defense would be made in a laboratory, or in field observation.

   ID has made its case in the lab & field. Go figure…

   But it should be noted that NDE does not have any laboratory or field evidence that would support it. Why would you hold ID to a different standard than NDE?

Comment by Joe G — November 12, 2005 @ 8:11 am

4. Neil J Says:
   November 13th, 2005 at 12:04 am

   It appears from the comments that you think that the Kansas Science standards mandate the teaching of intelligent design. They do include discussions of scientific criticisims of the theory of evolution, however. The relevant section from the standards follows:

   "We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design, the scientific disagreement
   with the claim of many evolutionary biologists that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. While the testimony presented at the science hearings included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement."

   (I thought I had save the web link. I didn't. I'll put it in the next post.)

Comment by Neil J — November 13, 2005 @ 12:04 am

5. Neil J Says:
   November 13th, 2005 at 12:08 am

   Here is the link.

Comment by Neil J — November 13, 2005 @ 12:08 am

6. Neil J Says:
   November 13th, 2005 at 12:12 am

   Here is the link to the Kansas Science standards:

Comment by Neil J — November 13, 2005 @ 12:12 am

7. edarrell Says:
   November 13th, 2005 at 3:40 pm

   Joe, you need to read a newspaper more often. The ID advocates of the Dover school board were all bounced out of office last Tuesday. The people of Dover appear to have tired of illegal and stupid actions, and they elected the Dover CARES slate to the school board, eliminating every advocate of ID in Dover schools.

   Moreover, since the Dover CARES bunch was identified as Democrat, and the pro-ID guys were touted as Republicans, the fact that people crossed lines to get rid of Republicans while electing Republicans in other offices, demonstrated just how irritated voters were with the ID advocates.

   This is a major embarrassment to ID generally, since most ID advocates claim that a majority of Americans prefer ID as science.

   And surely you noticed, Joe, that the Kansas SBOE had conducted illegal hearings earlier this year, and on that basis, has attempted to change the science standards for Kansas.

   Joe, there is not a single research paper on intelligent design in publication, let alone a thousand or so that would establish it as science featuring observations made in the laboratory and the field. There is not a single research project in ID going forward in any laboratory on Earth.

   You didn't know that? As I noted, you need to read more newspapers.

Comment by edarrell — November 13, 2005 @ 3:40 pm

8. Joe G Says:
   November 14th, 2005 at 1:23 pm

   edarrell:
   The ID advocates of the Dover school board were all bounced out of office last Tuesday.

   So what? Did you notice the very low voter turnout? It pretty much shows the majority just don't care. Also I am very confident had the people of Dover actually took the time to understand ID, as opposed to listening to the lies of the NCSE and ACLU, the vote would have been very different.

   Again what was illegal- in Dover or Kansas? Please be specific.

   It should be illegal to lie on the witness stand as did B. Forest…

   What is the research paper that shows that single-celled organisms can evolve into anything other than single-celled organisms via some blindwatchmaker-type process?

   How about the research that demonstrates that whales evolved from land animals via that or a similar process?

   How about any research paper that demonstrates we know what makes an organism what it is?

   Why ID is scientific

Comment by Joe G — November 14, 2005 @ 1:23 pm

9. DataDoc Says:
   November 15th, 2005 at 6:29 am

   Joe G: It should be illegal to lie on the witness stand as did B. Forest"¦

   DataDoc: What lies did Barbara Forrest say on the witness stand?

   Joe G: What is the research paper that shows that single-celled organisms can evolve into anything other than single-celled organisms via some blindwatchmaker-type process?

   DataDoc: I've been trying to tell you about evo-devo. Have you read those books I recommended yet?

   Joe G: How about the research that demonstrates that whales evolved from land animals via that or a similar process?

   DataDoc: How about those fossils showing whales with legs? Oh, wait, how silly of me. They couldn't have been WHALE fossils because they had legs! Sorry.

   Joe G: How about any research paper that demonstrates we know what makes an organism what it is?

   DataDoc: Now we're back to evo-devo again. Read one of the books on evo-devo I recommended to you, "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carroll. It shows how a fly is made from a single egg, complete with color pictures of fly development. Then read "The Plausibility of Life" by Kirschner and Gerhart for tons of info on the "tool box" of genes that are used to create three dimensional multi-celled creatures from a single egg.

   Don't want to read "enemy" literature? Here's an incentive: it's going to take a decade or three to fill in the details of evo-devo. During that time, you should be able to find dozens of gaps to point at and say, "The Designer Did This!" Honestly, all the time I've been reading those two books, I kept saying to myself, "Boy, an enterprising IDista could have a field day with this information!"

Comment by DataDoc — November 15, 2005 @ 6:29 am

10. Joe G Says:
    November 15th, 2005 at 8:59 am

    Joe G: What is the research paper that shows that single-celled organisms can evolve into anything other than single-celled organisms via some blindwatchmaker-type process?

    DataDoc: I've been trying to tell you about evo-devo. Have you read those books I recommended yet?

    I know more about evo-devo than you do and neither of those books answers the question.

    Joe G: How about the research that demonstrates that whales evolved from land animals via that or a similar process?

    DataDoc: How about those fossils showing whales with legs?

    And again fossils can tell us nada about a mechanism. What is your problem?

    Also how a fly develops does not tell us how the fly came to be in the first place.

    Oh and anyone who attempts to conflate ID with religion or Creation is a liar.

Comment by Joe G — November 15, 2005 @ 8:59 am

11. DataDoc Says:
    November 16th, 2005 at 8:22 am

    Joe G, you said that Barbara Forrest lied on the witness stand, which would be perjury. This is a very serious charge and constitutes libel if it isn't true. I don't think it's true. Please substantiate your charge. What exactly did Forrest say on the witness stand that was untrue?

    On the other topics, I doubt if you know more about evo-devo than my grandmother, and she's been dead for thirty years. I also don't think you've read either of those books. As for your dodges on whale fossils and fly development, look up "vincible ignorance".

Comment by DataDoc — November 16, 2005 @ 8:22 am

12. Joe G Says:
    November 16th, 2005 at 9:29 am

    DataDoc:
    As for your dodges on whale fossils and fly development,

    LoL! It is obvious the "dodges" are all yours. Fossils cannot tell us anything about a mechanism. That is a fact. So when fossils are brought up in a response about mechanisms that is deceitful.

    Also fly develpment does not tell us anything about how a fly came to be in the first place. That is also a fact.

    That's right. Evos usually consider facts as "dodging".

    However if you read the books, as you stated, perhaps you can point out hat either author has to say about what makes a fly a fly (or any organism what it is). If do not it will be obvious that you cannot.

    One lie from B. Forrest- talking about ID- found in two minutes:

    A. It does not require a literal reading of scripture, but it is based on scripture.

    ID is not based on any scripture. Why would she lie like that?

    Further down:

    Q. Now, describing it as creationists, is that your way to discredit the science of intelligent design without actually addressing the scientist claim?

    A. Not at all. I use that term because the leaders, the movement's own leaders have used it. They have used the term creationist themselves.

    Perhaps IDists have used the term but not to describe IDists. That is another lie,

Comment by Joe G — November 16, 2005 @ 9:29 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.