Threatiness vs. Threats
by MikeGeneID critic, John Brockman, informs us of the following:
Moreover, the intelligent-design (ID) movement imperils American global dominance in science and in so doing presents the gravest of threats to the American economy, which is driven by advances in science and in the technology derived therefrom.
This, of course, is propaganda and crack-pottery. Let's see what a real threat looks like.
Anywhere But Britain
Barbara Davies, deputy director of RDS (previously the Research Defense Society), says several companies have decided not to locate new research centers in Britain because of the threat of extremist activity. Two years ago, Cambridge University canceled plans to build a primate neuroscience research center, also citing potential protests against the facility as its reason. Meanwhile, animal rights extremists continue to stage widespread protests to halt the construction of a new research laboratory in Oxford.
Animal rights group claims new coup against Oxford lab
An animal rights group is claiming a coup against the construction of an animal testing laboratory at Oxford University after discovering where the builders working on the site are allegedly being housed.
Speak has called for volunteers to attend a protest on Saturday outside what it claims is the builders' quarters in a Cotswolds village.
"The fact that Speak has managed to identify the precise location of where the workers are being housed will come as a major blow to the whole building project," the group said in a statement on its website.
"The plans by the university to keep secret the workers location has been foiled. Such news will come as a shock to the university.
"Once again we have the university on the run - now is the time press home our advantage. Now it's time to mobilise our resources and bring to an end once and for all, the plans by Oxford University to expand its animal abuse facilities."
Construction of the lab restarted last December after intimidation by extremists had forced work to stop for 17 months. Many of the builders wear balaclavas to protect their identities.
Full extent of lab threats revealed
Contractors working on the new animal labs on South Parks Road have been stalked and spied on by animal rights activists, it has emerged. The Oxford Student has learnt that on thirteen separate incidents in the past five months, intimidation of individuals has been reported. Workers on site have been approached and harassed for details of the companies they work for, and a number of contractors have been pursued at night and photographed by activists in order to reveal their identities.
In one case in January, police intercepted a known activist who had stalked a contractor in a car for four miles. The revelations came in a written witness statement to the High Court of Justice, seen by this newspaper, during the hearing of an application by Oxford University for an extension to their existing injunction against animal rights protesters.
The contract manager for Oxford University, said, "It is clear that animal rights activists are taking considerable steps to find out who the contractors are and I fear that if and when they do so a massive campaign of criminal damage may be directed at them." The contract manager said that all firms and suppliers were already working in fear of being identified.
May 31st, 2006 at 11:24 am
Interestingly, the final essay in this Brockman edited volume disagrees with Brockman that religious fundamentalism has anything to do with the real problem.
To relate this to the OP, the recommended solution is more ecoliteracy and more evoliteracy. One can only wonder at the levels of evoliteracy and ecoliteracy of these activists. Do they need more education, or less?
How many chimps would you have to save in order to make it worthwhile to lay down your life? How many rabbits?
Comment by Mung — May 31, 2006 @ 11:24 am
May 31st, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Re: John Brockman, I have 7 patents, and two in the oven. I am one of the technologists creating the technology that endangered by ID. Ops, I am an IDer. Now what!
Comment by bFast — May 31, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 1:08 pm
MikeGene,
We can argue about the relative degrees and means by which intelligent design, animal rights groups, and others, pose threats to science, and you may have a point. However, these threats are distinctly separate and unique from each other - the animal rights' groups are actively trying to block research (occaisionally by violent means), while groups like the Discovery Institute take a more subtle approach, undermining and distorting the scientific method itself, the evidence for theories, etc. In effect, groups like the Discovery Institute are waging a propaganda war, facilitating debasement of intellectualism and stifling science literacy.
This represents a much broader and fundamental threat to science, not just blocking progress at Oxford, but undermining science as a discipline.
Yes, I realize that you're views are more sane than those of most IDers (and DI fellows in particular), but the threat posed by the "Wedge Strategy" is profound.
Comment by Daniel — May 31, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 1:13 pm
At the risk of appearing anti-science I might point out that scientific and technological advances are a trade-off at best. I don't believe that creationists, IDist, or tree huggers are any real threat to science but I think it would be hard to argue that science and technology is not a real threat to humans.
Comment by samohth — May 31, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 1:41 pm
How does one define "scientific literacy" in a manner other than "lockstep agreement with the majority of current NAS members"
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 31, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Daniel: "This represents a much broader and fundamental threat to science, not just blocking progress at Oxford, but undermining science as a discipline."
Get real, "the intelligent-design (ID) movement imperils American global dominance in science and in so doing presents the gravest of threats to the American economy, which is driven by advances in science and in the technology derived therefrom." is a radical globalization. I point to my own technology derived therefrom — my technology derived therefrom was derived by an IDer.
Most medical doctors have not bought into NDE. I bet most medical researchers are of the same school. I recently heard a woman presenting her work in extracting stem cells from human skin. She prefaced her presentation on public television by stating that she did not believe that NDE can account for it.
I repeat, "the intelligent-design (ID) movement imperils American global dominance in science and in so doing presents the gravest of threats to the American economy" is the product of the anus of the male bovine.
Comment by bFast — May 31, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Damn good question - as the AAAS and NAS describe, definitions of science literacy vary somewhat, but contain a number of themes.
Foremost among those themes are (1) a basic understanding of the core concepts in each of the major disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.); and (2) behaviors that serve as guidelines for interpreting the functions of science/technology. I'm of the opinion that #2 is by far the more important, and I tend to label such behaviors the habits of mind that facilitate the derivation, understanding and acceptance of strong scientific arguments based on evidence. The core of these Habits are a strong sense of "informed skepticism." (yes, I'm quite sure some truly inane IDer will come along and misrepresent that term, to which I'd like to emphasize that I'm not talking about uninformed skepticism based upon incredulity or philosophical conviction).
Incidentally, in addition to the AAAS's and NAS's projects on this topic, Columbia University has an excellent course that all incoming science majors are required to take. I only wish that this course could be offered to the general public.
Comment by Daniel — May 31, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 2:41 pm
bFast said:
First, a question - are you an engineer, or a scientist? (do you apply science, or do you study science?)
I'm sure IDers are quite capable of building and assembling things, but if the person's interest in his or her perception of a supernatural and purposeful entity supercedes their ability to evaluate, study and advance science, then they could contribute to the future technological stagnation of our society.
And what is NDE? Neo-Darwinian Evolution?
If by "most" you mean less than 0.1%, then yes, that might be true (judging from the number of "Dissenters from Darwin" [including all of the non-biologists on the list] versus just the number of biologists in the US alone according to the NAS).
LOL
Comment by Daniel — May 31, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I had been wondering just how you combatted brain freeze way up north there, now I know.
Comment by Mung — May 31, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Hi Daniel,
How? By supporting exploration of the inference of design in nature? By publicly questioning a flawed RM + NS paradigm? By exploring teleology in biology? Terrifying. Horrifying. I can see why scientists would be terrified of this. ID'ers might end up getting some of their grant money!
Why doesn't SETI cause people as much concern for the "debasement of intellectualism" Here is a large-scale exploration (that incidentally is being offered as a curriculum in public schools with the help of NASA) based on the theory that space aliens are sending radio communications. (a theory tested by intelligent design inference that has produced no positive data!! - outrageous!) How about the scientific mainstream's darling Carl Sagan telling a whole generation that because there are billions and billions of galaxies that there simply must be life on other planets? (argument from incredulity, anyone?)
Where is the widespread outrage at SETI and Sagan stifling our literacy?
Oh yeah. They have limited appeal to the evangelicals. So they are free to explore. But those ID'ers are dangerous. They must be stopped! Science is under siege!! Oh the humanity!
Comment by chunkdz — May 31, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 3:00 pm
If I understand Daniel correctly, he is claiming that one group attempts to block the practice of science and the other group attempts to change the practice of science, and he thinks the latter of the two poses the greater threat to the practice of science. For what should be obvious reasons, I am sceptical of his claim.
For one, ID does not attempt to make the practice of science more restrictive. So it's not going to influence science in a way that won't allow science to proceed, which is what the first group actually is doing.
What ID attempts to do, is have science recognise the legitimacy of intentional causes. Scientists resist this for very unscientific reasons.
Comment by Mung — May 31, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 3:10 pm
That would be nice, but the DI has never given out any grants for conducting research, to my knowledge.
Yes, by publicly questioning RM+NS without any supporting evidence - yes, I believe that making baseless claims for an agenda is (loosely) the definition of propaganda.
Also, did you notice that the Discovery Institute's PR firm is the same group that ran the original Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign?
Ah, the SETI analogy again. That's been brought up by ill-informed IDers and debunked time and again… way to make a mockery out of astrobiology!
Comment by Daniel — May 31, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Sorry for the many posts, I'm just really caught up and interested in this topic…
True, but ID is trying to change the definition of what is permissible in science, blurring the lines between science and theology. (see the Wedge)
No, we scientists resist because we're waiting to see the empirical support behind the claims of intentional causation - and we haven't seen such supporting evidence yet.
Comment by Daniel — May 31, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 3:38 pm
It is difficult to believe that such weenies as the IDers could hardly threaten the monolithic and magnificent enterprise of modern science and all it accomplishments (all it achievements so near and dear to our lives)"¦ One feels threatened when a vulnerability is exposed. Why do some (self-appointed) spokesmen for "science" seem to feel so threatened"¦
The IDers are absolutely no threat to science!"¦ They can't be! They don't even (or hardly even) do any science!
Who, what, when, where, and why a "threat"?
What "threat"
I don't feel threatened.
Comment by Rock — May 31, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Hi Daniel,
In one sense you are right about the IDM and animal rights movement being "distinctly separate and unique from each other." The latter successfully uses blackmail and terrorist-like tactics to force their extreme agenda on others, while the former unsuccessfully uses the political system. But you are not correct in portraying the animal rights movement as relying solely on their unethical and violent tactics. They too have an extremely well-funded PR machine (ever hear of PETA) that lobbies Congress (and others) with the notion that animal testing cannot be scientifically extrapolated to humans.
I tend to take a more scientific approach about this and rather than relying on speculations, I consider the data. Now, according to most critics, the DI is just a new front group for the Creationists, which means we're talking about a "threat" to science that has been around for decades. You talk about "facilitating debasement of intellectualism and stifling science literacy," but that's just philosophy. Where is your data? After decades of this threat failing to destroy the fabric of Science and America, all the threat talk is becoming increasingly hard to distinguish from Chicken Little talk.
On the other hand, I can indeed point to real world data. For example:
Oxford had to delay the construction of a new science lab for 17 months! And look what it is having to go through right now just to build one. One has to wonder if this will be the last new animal research facility Britain will ever see for the next few decades.
Or check this out.
Has ID caused anyone to halt construction of a science lab? No. Has ID causes top scientists to seek police protection for their families? No.
So you see, the threat from the animal rights movement shows itself in real world consequences. The threat from ID? For 20+ years now, it has existed largely in the mind and rhetoric of the ID critics.
Comment by MikeGene — May 31, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Daniel
I didn't make that claim, and were it true, would you really think it was 'nice'?
I've seen some of the supporting evidence. Lot's of people have. It doesn't appear 'baseless'.
And your point is…?(logical fallacy alert…)
I am actually cool with SETI and Carl Sagan. I just think that exploration should not be dismissed just because some evangelicals support it.
Comment by chunkdz — May 31, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 4:07 pm
MikeGene,
Fair points about the animal rights' PR activities, and PETA in particular. The chicken-little comment is also quite relevant, but I would argue that the sky hasn't fallen because scientists aren't just sitting there and accepting it, they're fighting back and correcting the distortions of science that some IDers are perpetrating.
As for data supporting my argument, I'm specifically thinking of Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology, by Liza Gross in PLoS Biology:
True, the results from such studies support a static view of science literacy, and the paper is about science in general terms, but many of the other statistics referenced in that paper range from ambiguous to mildly worrisome.
But still, you ask:
And again, I say that the fate of one research lab, or even one research institution, is of relatively little consequence to the Wedge being put to science as a social enterprise.
True, as Rock says, science has weathered the storm thus far, and will likely continue to do so, but only because scientists aren't remaining passive. And the threat? That our progeny might grow up with a dismal level of science literacy.
Comment by Daniel — May 31, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 4:14 pm
bFast said:
bFast,
You have incited my curiosity. What kind of patents do you have and how do they relate to ID? Also, what kind of threat (if any) do they pose to current science?
– Joey
(If you feel more comfortable emailing me this info, send it to jccampana at gmail dot com.)
Comment by Joseph C. Campana — May 31, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Daniel:
It's not just one lab.
The Animal Zealotry That Destroyed Our Lab
Comment by Guts — May 31, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Daniel:
I am an engineer. Alas, the claim of the quote was that all of engineering was the direct result of evolutionary science, and potential victim of ID.
Daniel:
Daniel, cut the sloppy BS! I referred to medical doctors, not biologists. Further, your approach to gathering a statistic is a display of your intelligence.
Daniel:
You write this, then you immediately suggest that any skepticism re: NDE is invalid. This is two-faced.
Daniel, you haven't left me one bit impressed with your intelligence.
Comment by bFast — May 31, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Hi Daniel,
You write, "but I would argue that the sky hasn't fallen because scientists aren't just sitting there and accepting it, they're fighting back and correcting the distortions of science that some IDers are perpetrating."
Yes, and that's how it will always be. But this highlights another reason why the animal rights movement is a more serious threat. The scientific community largely does not "fight back" and "correct distortions" when it comes to this movement. Consider that one of the most famous defenders of science is housed at Oxford University. I just did another Google News search and here are the results: "Your search - richard dawkins animal rights - did not match any documents." In fact, it seems like most of the "pro-science" blogs out there are following Dawkins lead on this one.
As for the PLoS article, I offered another interpretation.
Comment by MikeGene — May 31, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 4:53 pm
LOL!
And yet SETI is brought up (at least) twice by the "scientists versus intelligent design" propaganda piece Intelligent Thought as a valid enterprise for detecting intelligent design! What a mockery!
Let me tell you how to make a mockery of astrobiology. In assuming that there is intelligent life "out there" somewhere, when the only evidence we have of intelligent life is right here. Wasn't it Proxmire who said he had trouble finding intelligent life in Washington, or something to that effect?
Comment by Mung — May 31, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Scott D. Sampson
Evoliteracy
Comment by Mung — May 31, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 6:41 pm
bFast, if you're going to miss the point or drastically misunderstand me as you did in your reply to me, or otherwise discard rational thought in your responses, I'll have to pass on responding to you.
MikeGene - reasonable points, that I'll take into consideration. Indeed, I'm not trying to deny that the animal rights' attacks are serious - they are. So, I think I'll accept your points and partially concede the fact that ID may be a greater threat, in favor of the stance that they're apples and oranges.
For Liza Gross's article, thanks for the reference to your reply, I must've skipped over that when you originally wrote it. I won't go into detail on it for now, but I disagree that it's all "doom and gloom" - I happen to find it very convincing that while ID may not have succeeded in bringing down science literacy, it has succeeded in promoting confusion in the public sphere (for the purposes of this discussion, that was the point I felt Gross successfully made).
Mung - Yes, I see that you clearly do not understand the difference between rigorously searching for evidence of intelligence, and claiming intelligent causation without evidence.
I have recently finished Intelligent Thought however, and don't quite understand how it qualifies as propaganda - every fact it asserted can be verified by a search through the scientific literature (unless I missed something).
And what's the point of your quotation of Sampson's essay? (which, incidentally I have had on my mind quite a bit during this discussion). It sounds quite reasonable to me.
Anyway, like bFast, I'm not sure I'd like to give you the pleasure of any more response than that…
Ciao.
Comment by Daniel — May 31, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 7:59 pm
So you checked avery fact against the scientific literature? Or you believe this on faith?
Cite from the scientific literature that ID has or even can damage the mind.
Comment by Mung — May 31, 2006 @ 7:59 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Thanks Mung - spoken like a true ignoramus.
Comment by Daniel — May 31, 2006 @ 8:46 pm
May 31st, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Obviously (well, not for Brockman and some others maybe) technology develops in moral, political, social environments; reducing everything to Darwinism is absurd"¦
Mary Tiles says:
"Historical studies of past technological developments suggest that there is no consistent pattern… Although some technologies have arisen out of fundamental scientific work, many did not and even in those cases where the path from pure theory to practical outcome was most direct, as in the case of the development of the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project, much more than pure science was involved."
And from the same essay (the philosophy of technology)
"In short, technical inventions, like the first occurrences of scientific ideas, may be the product of all sorts of circumstance."
As a prophet of doom John Brockman doesn't really need to back up his claims, i know "“ but we should get to stone him at lest"¦ it's only fair.
Comment by de_nacisse — May 31, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
June 1st, 2006 at 12:54 am
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...:
"The scientific basis of its operation [the steam engine], however, was almost nonexistent even after all this time. In 1824, the principle of conservation of energy was still immature and controversial, and an exact formulation of the first law of thermodynamics was yet over a decade away. The mechanical equivalent of heat was still two decades away. The prevalent theory of heat was the caloric theory which supposed that heat was a sort of weightless, invisible fluid that flowed when out of equilibrium."
An intelligently designed system (the steam engine) precedes/leads to our understanding in science of thermodynamics"¦
Comment by de_nacisse — June 1, 2006 @ 12:54 am
June 1st, 2006 at 5:56 am
There are good reasons that makes SETI analogy relevant to the ID. If there exists extra-terrestrial intelligence somewhere in our universe, it's limits and capabilities are yet to be found. There is no rule to limit or draw a boundary for what extraterrestrial intelligence can do or can not do. Now assume in future millenniums our knowledge in biotechnology will become so advanced that we will be able to go beyond and seed life on other planets. There is no scientific rule against this way of reasoning. Therefore it also opens a door to possibilties that extra-terrestrial intelligence might have interacted intelligently with our biotic reality on earth somewhere in the past.
Comment by Farshad — June 1, 2006 @ 5:56 am
June 1st, 2006 at 8:46 am
Brockman: "the American economy, which is driven by advances in science and in the technology derived therefrom."
Tiles: "In short, technical inventions, like the first occurrences of scientific ideas, may be the product of all sorts of circumstance."
It does seem like Brockman has a narrow view of what drives the American economy which is the product of all sorts of circumstances. Maybe Brockman has it backwards.
Comment by samohth — June 1, 2006 @ 8:46 am
June 1st, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Brockman seems to be rather selective in where he sees threats:
"Moreover, the [the pseudo-intellectuals concentrated in the Liberal Arts wing of every major American university] imperils American global dominance in science and in so doing presents the gravest of threats to the American economy, which is driven by advances in science and in the technology derived therefrom."
Brockman, impresario to the stars, ain't so stupid as to insult his customers. He knows who signs the checks.
These very people: "Who are the third-culture intellectuals? ["The third culture consists of those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are."] The list includes the individuals featured in this book, whose work and ideas give meaning to the term: the physicists Paul Davies, J. Doyne Farmer, Murray Gell-Mann, Alan Guth, Roger Penrose, Martin Rees, and Lee Smolin; the evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins, Niles Eldredge, Stephen Jay Gould, Steve Jones, and George C. Williams; the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett; the biologists Brian Goodwin, Stuart Kauffman, Lynn Margulis, and Francisco J. Varela; the computer scientists W. Daniel Hillis, Christopher G. Langton, Marvin Minsky, and Roger Schank; the psychologists Nicholas Humphrey and Steven Pinker.""”From the Introduction of "The Third Culture" (John Brockman, Ed.)
All very interesting people, no doubt, as all people are"”very interesting. But notice something"¦ that "through their work and expository writing" these people are redefining "who and what we are"! No they're not! Mostly all they are doing is "redefining" who and what we think we are. Because that's mostly all the work they do"”write about who and what they think we are. Popularizing their opinions via the services of promoter, John Brockman, they may actually be able to do that, change our opinions about "who and what" we think we are.
Who are the people who are actually changing, materially, who you are, whether you think so or not?!
Here's my list of unpromoted "intellectuals" who have significantly, materially changed who and what you are and who and what you think you are: Tadahiro Sekimoto, Andrew Grove, Donald Pederson, Alfred Cho, Robert Noyce, Earle Vaughn, Harold Wheeler, Frederick Termin"¦
Obviously that's not Brockman's A-list of "intellectuals." Their not his clients. He's not their agent. Uh, ya can't be an "intellectual" if you are a "nobody." Ya can't actually change anyones life if no one's ever heard of ya! Can ya? (How many of these people have you ever heard of?)
Maybe it's possible to materially revolutionize your world, and have zero effect on who and what you think you are. It's a possibility… Think about it.
There is a greater threat to the advancement of American society on all fronts, scientific, technological, cultural, and political, lurking in the teachers' lounges of the high schools of America than one will find in all the fundamentalists' tent meetings that will occur over the summer. There is a greater threat to the intellectual and material advancement of America to be found in Hollywood-style promotion of pseudo-intellectualism than there is in the kind of anti-intellectualism one may find in the average third-grade Sunday school class.
Science has its origin in "anti-intellectualism." It has its origin in the rejection of the authority of those who styled themselves the intellectuals of the age (Indeed, of all ages!) "Intellectuals" often, not so surprisingly, fail to understand that. They ain't that "bright" are they? A little bit dull in some ways, but postively briliant in self-promotion. (Or, at least brilliant in their choice of promoter.)
Because they aren't really "intellectuals" at all. They are "authorities." Not on any basis of their intellectual merits or achievements (not to deny that they do have merits and acheivements), but on the basis of… slick promotion.
Probably none of men I listed aspired to being recognized as "intellectuals." They didn't need a promoter. There is a difference between those who aspire to change the world in a positive way and those who aspire to be recognized as "intellectuals" and in fact receive recognition based more on their aspirations than their actual accomplishments.
My mom calls "˜em "phonysonsabitches." (She's not referring to anyone in particular. And I think she picked up that unfortunate phrase from her own literary agent. I think she means that real people with real accomplishments don't feel the need for PR agents.)
IDers have a problem. It's obvious to me. You got the wrong agent! As I understand it, Brockamn ain't cheap. But he is for hire. Scrape together some cash and pretty soon you'll be the "intellectuals." (And non-threatening also.)
Comment by Rock — June 1, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
June 1st, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Speaking of threats! This insidious ID threat was uncovered @ARN years ago:
Rock (on 08-16-2001 11:51 PM 08-16-2001 11:51 PM): IDers don't perform experiments? Au contraire! I've uncovered evidence that they are conducting bizarre (illegal?) human cloning experiments!
Check this out:
http://www.arn.org/authors.htm
Michael Behe and Mark Hartwig are obviously CLONES!
Lizard: Hey! check it out. So are DeWolf and Feucht! It's obvious they are the same person, just with hair combed differently and the addition of a pair of glasses!
PJ, of course, is one of a kind.
Rock: Obviously their strategy is to clone the Fellows of the Discovery Institute until the world is overrun with IDers!
JP: Actually, this might not be far from the truth. At least one branch of IDers are conducting human cloning experiments. I wonder if these IDers fall under the "big tent" as well:
http://www.rael.org/int/englis...
Dayton: And why are Campbell, Gonzalez, and Thaxton missing pictures? Because they all are really the same person? Looks very suspicious to me!
On the other hand, Nancy Pearcey is the only woman. Are women harder to clone? Maybe they are more intelligently designed?
Rock: Women are more intelligently designed. Just ask one.
Bertvan: absolutely!!
Bertvan: You don't see many women sitting around quibbling about the definitin of terms
julbon1: You don't see many men posting one minute apart, either.
Rock: Has anyone seen all of these people together at one time? I don't think so…
[Insert ominous background music here.]
Comment by Rock — June 1, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
June 1st, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Hey Rock!
Why do ya think the computer scientists are not represented in the current volume from this same editor?
Comment by Mung — June 1, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
June 2nd, 2006 at 7:49 am
Mung says:
Bollocks. Science is perfectly capable of recognising intentional causes as long they can be repeatably tested.
Comment by Odd Digit — June 2, 2006 @ 7:49 am
June 2nd, 2006 at 9:39 am
Hi Odd Digit,
"Science is perfectly capable of recognising intentional causes as long they can be repeatably tested."
Don't forget: You need to have experiences with the designer.
Comment by Krauze — June 2, 2006 @ 9:39 am
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:31 am
I really don't know, Mung.
Maybe they were invited to contribute but declined because they can think of a billion better things to do than argue endlessly with creationists.
Or maybe they weren't invited at all because they're an embarrassment to associate with. Computer scientists have a richly deserved reputation of being nerdy crackpots. (Take moi, e,g.!)
Or it could be because computer science is "Biblical Science." "And the Computer Scientist said, "˜Let us make machine in our own image and after are own likeness"¦'" LOL
Comment by Rock — June 2, 2006 @ 11:31 am
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:10 pm
LOL! Rock.
Make a good story line, perhaps. Will artificial life deny that there was any designer?
Comment by Mung — June 2, 2006 @ 1:10 pm