nice icon. Seasonal. You’re basically giving me credit. And it’s no form of credit I’m oging to answer to.

At worst, ignoring your most recent statement would make me you. I’m not about to entertain it, or this discussion. I’ve got an Econ final in 9.5 hours, the people on this board have answered to virtually everything you’ve posted, and you insist on asking questions of everyone else. Remember saying Behe and Dembski weren’t fundies? Remember the claims about irreducible complexity that they made? Remember how they were debunked? Remember reading the use of circular logic in Behe’s testimony? Okay, so we’ve decided that Behe and Dembski have been not only unscientific, but motivated primarily by a desire to see religion forced into science classes. Remember the Wedge Document? That grades them as fundies. Also, based on what we’ve presented, collectively, that we have not mischaracterized it at all, but revealed it to be the weak fraud that it is. That sums up all of your initial concerns, unless you care to correct me.

by the way, responding to questions by asking more questions, IS dodging them. Just so we’re clear. I can at least say “No, I’m not going to answer it”. Doing research so that you can continue to beg the questions of me is a waste of my time. You can learn on your own time; not on mine.

Remember saying Behe and Dembski weren’t fundies?

No.  What I remember was saying they were not ignorant fundies.

Remember the claims about irreducible complexity that they made? Remember how they were debunked? Remember reading the use of circular logic in Behe’s testimony? Okay, so we’ve decided that Behe and Dembski have been not only unscientific, but motivated primarily by a desire to see religion forced into science classes. Remember the Wedge Document? That grades them as fundies. Also, based on what we’ve presented, collectively, that we have not mischaracterized it at all, but revealed it to be the weak fraud that it is.

No need to keep poisoning the well, everybody did that the minute I mentioned their names, remember?  And you can’t brag when I have countered every claim with links to articles that refute the links that were provided.  And that whole line of reasoning trying to make a statement about astrology did not address the full context.  Behe was addressing the historical aspect of the definition of what constitutes science:

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that—which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other—many other theories as well.

I’ve read quite a bit of the trial transcripts.  The entire line of questioning was an endless string of semantic antics, trying to play on Behe’s words and trap him into saying something that could be critiqued to death.  A poor excuse for scientific inquiry, for sure.  In fact, it very much resembled what goes on here.  The irony of it is that someone at one point accused me of parsing!

by the way, responding to questions by asking more questions, IS dodging them.

And asking questions about one’s position when they clearly stated it upon first post is dodging debate, comprende?  I know of no logical reason I should be required to repeat myself for those who can scroll up as easily as I can and read it for themselves.  In fact, I’ve posted my position twice now, and I’m still being hit with the same stubborn refusal to accept the answer except on someone else’s terms.  To quote a famous scientist, “Shit or get off the can.”

Just so we’re clear. I can at least say “No, I’m not going to answer it�.

Well, maybe “nyaah nyaah” works for you, but it is not exactly intelligent debate.  But to be truthful, it’s no better or worse than resorting to ridiculou reductions and pointless jokes.

Doing research so that you can continue to beg the questions of me is a waste of my time.

Well, actually you stepped in and chose to address them, they were not aimed at you.  Elwed would be a better recipient, but he doesn’t seem to have the answer either.  Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve seen anyone here who can answer it. 

But the plain fact is, no one asked you to do any research, I just asked you to answer a simple question.  Everyone who has responded has told me “You’re an idiot, you don’t know science, you don’t know jackshit about the relevant studies, science verifies its claims by testing.”

So all I’m asking is, put up or shut up on the “this has been proved by testing” point.  You have not established this point, nor has anyone else.  If you wish to claim testing to prove your point, then supply evidence of it and save your breath trying to convince me or anyone else with straw man arguments based on speculation.

What I remember was saying they were not ignorant fundies.

So you’re admitting that they ARE fundies? That doesn’t seem to me like it would help your case a whole lot.

About them not being ignorant fundies - to start at science (which I’m going to be kind enough to assume that they were on that track at the start), and move elsewhere when you have a Ph.D., and to be fair, probably a very, very good idea of what science is, then deviate from it in pursuit of an ideology, despite whatever reprecussions there might be.. well, you can certainly contest it, but I call it ignorance. It was a certain attempt to disregard science in the pursuit of an end. (the contest here is usually that ignorance is natural, and not a choice.. I use the term naivety for that)

As for it not being directed at me...actually, no, you’re wrong there. “ That’s where science comes in, tests it, and finds that it isn’t entirely coincident. . .” is MY quote, and pointing “you” references me. And yes, asking if there are any other reports in the context you’re after means searching for them unless I have them on-hand, which I don’t.

I’m dodging debate on any further grounds because your original grounds (from which these others have spread) have been settled. You have yet to present a further case in your defense, or that of ID rather than finding new reasons to keep the rest of us answering your questions (that is, in all the posts you aren’t complaining that we aren’t answering your questions).

Nobody’s jabbered on about “X has been proven” especially about proving intelligent design wrong. That’s been the thing with why so many people here don’t want it in schools. We’ve been there.

I’ll be around, but don’t expect to find me knee-deep in Google results. If other people don’t answer you, it’s far more likely that you’re the 103rd person who’s come in with answers that beg the question of their own validity rather than standing on their own grounds. Consi was likely your strongest (and on this turf) your most credible ally. He already laid out what you had to do. you haven’t done it, and that’s why you’re getting told to shit or get off of the can.

oh, I missed one. About Behe and the scientific inquiry, that’s kinda the idea. The way he went wrong on that is that science (theory) has to account for all known data and explain it, and being testable to verify that the data is accurate as well as coincident. With that in place, you can make predictions that will test the idea in it’s extremity some years down the road. Behe left the testing part out of his explanation, and actually, the whole part about explaining all the data (although an invisible omnipotent, mysterious god could certainly do that).

Convenient that a man with an agenda leaves out the testing part - the critical difference between his notion of science and ours - when trying to reconcile them.

Haha zilch - I thougt she was a fine example of the impossibility
of ID and a good example of SD - Stupid Design! 

So you’re admitting that they ARE fundies? That doesn’t seem to me like it would help your case a whole lot.

How so?  I don’t recall my “case” being contingent on their religious preferences at all.  And why do you treat this as though it’s a sudden “admission?” The original claim that “not all fundies are ignorant,” pretty much presupposes that they’re fundies, wouldn’t you think?  I’ve actually met some sharp fundies, but admittedly they seem to be a rare breed.

As for it not being directed at me...actually, no, you’re wrong there. “ That’s where science comes in, tests it, and finds that it isn’t entirely coincident. . .� is MY quote, and pointing “you� references me.

I’ll give you that one.  My reply was in reference to the string of repeated questions from elwed (which, by the way, I have answered, that was what the return to the original post was for, to show that my position had been laid out from the start), which led to my repeating the question which now remains unanswered and basically unchallenged.

(that is, in all the posts you aren’t complaining that we aren’t answering your questions).

Well geez, we know who started that inane line, don’t we?  The difference is, the many questions asked of me were already answered earlier, the one simple question I have asked has yet to be answered, and your response was the first post to even acknowledge that the question had been asked.  Nobody here has any room to bitch about avoidance.

I’m dodging debate. . . .

Finally....an admission.

. . . . on any further grounds because your original grounds (from which these others have spread) have been settled.

earlier you said:

there’s an old joke that pretty much sums up what’s happened here if Myxi’s decided to back up to her original assertion.

I suppose the joke now applies to you since you’ve decided to back up to my original assertions as well?

Convenient that a man with an agenda leaves out the testing part - the critical difference between his notion of science and ours - when trying to reconcile them.

And even more convenient that when someone comes here and questions your own claim of “testing” that supposedly disproves Behe’s claims, you start dodging.  You claim, of course, that answering would take too much of your precious time having to do “research.” Well, I for one am not buying it.  A person who makes claims that something has been shown by “testing,” automatically implies (1) that said testing has been done, and (2) that he/she him/herself has actually seen the reports and the results of that testing. 
So if you had really seen what you claimed, you’d be a poor researcher indeed if you did not print a hard copy, save a copy in your computer or on a disk, and/or bookmark the link for easy return.  After all, if you have seen any details of actual testing and results of the testing, it would be an incredible find, since evidence of what you claim is apparently non-existent except for the flawed study mentioned by Ken Miller in Finding Darwin’s God.

Haha zilch - I thougt she was a fine example of the impossibility
of ID and a good example of SD - Stupid Design!

“She?” That’s been a good little private joke I’ve shared with a few friends.  All these brilliant scientific minds coming to the wrong conclusion, and then accepting whoever’s diagnosis that was without question.

And I’m surprised Sadie continues to have anything to do with any of you. (Hey, I could be wrong too, after all, “Sadie” certainly sounds female, but I haven’t actually seen her.) The remark someone made when they first made that claim was pretty disparaging of women.  Unless, that is, you have some kind of scientific evidence showing that a generalization about women’s logic has any real merit?

Myxi, I don’t imagine anyone here gives two shakes of a Galapagos finch tail what your sex is.  Can’t speak for arc, but your comment on the quote from Spocko is revealing:

{Spocko}Haha zilch - I thougt she was a fine example of the impossibility
of ID and a good example of SD - Stupid Design!

{Myxi}“She?â€? That’s been a good little private joke I’ve shared with a few friends.  All these brilliant scientific minds coming to the wrong conclusion, and then accepting whoever’s diagnosis that was without question.

It seems to have escaped your notice that not every exchange here is centered on you.  The “she” to whom Spocko was referring was a deranged fundamentalist Christian woman caught on film screaming at her hapless family; not you, Myxi.

It’s not the first time you’ve come to a wrong conclusion by not understanding the context.  But you disarmingly admit that you’re not a scientist, so I forgive you.  Cheers, “someone”.

questions your own claim of “testing� that supposedly disproves Behe’s claims

This has been covered. For Behe to properly deduce that the only way things could be the way they are is if they are intelligently designed, his bedrock is irreducible complexity, which you realize, is a simple way of saying, “I don’t get it, therefore X”. The argument from incredulity (already covered). Even if it weren’t an incredulous argument, showing that a single, other possible outcome exists (for which systems are not irreducibly complex where the claim has been made) then his efforts are trumped anyway, since he argues that there ARE no other possibilities. Proving him wrong isn’t necessary, testing or not. Only the creation of a hypothesis which contradicts that (so that he is forced to test to show that his data is true, which he won’t do, or at least has shown no intention of doing). Besides which - complaining that testing can’t be done on the idea that God created the universe is moot - I covered that too, remember?

I suppose the joke now applies to you since you’ve decided to back up to my original assertions as well?

No, I’m simply not going to do your research for you - there isn’t a ground you’ve presented that hasn’t been debunked, and lacking that, an action you’ve taken that isn’t either complaining about procedure or trying to shift the burden of proof onto the other side. In general I used the hunter/bear example because the bear hasn’t changed grounds. You have. Very very often. And we met you on those grounds every time. Until they were exhausted and all you had left was for us to prove you wrong (even though we don’t have to). By going back to your original assertions (from which the rest of this has come) and showing that they’ve been covered, I’m forcing you to take the truncated carcass you left behind and either make something of it or bury it.

You claim, of course, that answering would take too much of your precious time having to do “research.�

Go ahead and deny that a student during finals week doesn’t have time during the cramming hours to do research for someone else who won’t do their own research to defend their own claim. After all, that’s a nutty idea and I’m a liar to suggest it!

As for the he/she thing, I have a cousin named Mysti, so it’s the first thing that comes to mind.

Anything else for me? Cause I repeated myself from end to end this time. We can go over any other things you want buried too.

It seems to have escaped your notice that not every exchange here is centered on you.  The “sheâ€? to whom Spocko was referring was a deranged fundamentalist Christian woman caught on film screaming at her hapless family; not you, Myxi.

Bingo!  He gets one right!  Enjoy yourself, that’s worth celebrating. 

No, I’m simply not going to do your research for you - there isn’t a ground you’ve presented that hasn’t been debunked, and lacking that, an action you’ve taken that isn’t either complaining about procedure or trying to shift the burden of proof onto the other side. In general I used the hunter/bear example because the bear hasn’t changed grounds. You have. Very very often. And we met you on those grounds every time. Until they were exhausted and all you had left was for us to prove you wrong (even though we don’t have to). By going back to your original assertions (from which the rest of this has come) and showing that they’ve been covered, I’m forcing you to take the truncated carcass you left behind and either make something of it or bury it.

A rather verbose way of saying “I don’t have an answer,” don’t you think?

Go ahead and deny that a student during finals week doesn’t have time during the cramming hours to do research for someone else who won’t do their own research to defend their own claim. After all, that’s a nutty idea and I’m a liar to suggest it!

Easier just to say, “It ain’t there so I ain’t looking.”

So much more succinct, saving you time to study for those finals.  And more honest, to boot.

This has been covered. For Behe to properly deduce that the only way things could be the way they are is if they are intelligently designed, his bedrock is irreducible complexity, which you realize, is a simple way of saying, “I don’t get it, therefore X�. The argument from incredulity (already covered). Even if it weren’t an incredulous argument, showing that a single, other possible outcome exists (for which systems are not irreducibly complex where the claim has been made) then his efforts are trumped anyway, since he argues that there ARE no other possibilities. Proving him wrong isn’t necessary, testing or not. Only the creation of a hypothesis which contradicts that (so that he is forced to test to show that his data is true, which he won’t do, or at least has shown no intention of doing). Besides which - complaining that testing can’t be done on the idea that God created the universe is moot - I covered that too, remember?

Nice little bait and switch, but apparently shell games aren’t your forte.  Your claim, in the context of an argument against Behe, was:

“ That’s where science comes in, tests it, and finds that it isn’t entirely coincident. . .�

You clearly implied that, re Behe’s argument, it was “debunked” because science “came in,” “tested it,” and “found it not entirely coincident.”

The comment had nothing to do with your straw man suggestion of “testing to see if God created the universe.”

The question still is being avoided, and still stands as it was:

You have claimed repeatedly that Behe has been refuted, you have not offered anything to corroborate it which has not been refuted.

You strongly implied that testing had shown Behe wrong.  You consistently refuse to cite one “test” that was done. 

No one is asking you to test what God has done.  Just provide one whit of support for your claim of testing that counters Behe. 

“I don’t get it, therefore X�.

Another straw man, Behe comes nowhere close to making that kind of claim.

Proving him wrong isn’t necessary, testing or not. Only the creation of a hypothesis which contradicts that (so that he is forced to test to show that his data is true, which he won’t do, or at least has shown no intention of doing).

I see.  So you want to butter your bread on both sides again?  Some time ago, when I stated Behe’s position, I was told, and pardon me if it wasn’t you who said it, that Behe’s position wasn’t worthy of consideration because it was only a hypothesis and did not even qualify as a theory.  Now when it’s science’s turn, suddenly the rules change and all they have to do is come up with a hypothesis to shift the burden of proof back to Behe?  Then if that’s the case, there are even more things you claim to have refuted that we’re going to have to revisit.  Namely, those places where it was claimed Behe’s position was only a hypothesis, which apparently was a much stronger position than was acknowledged at the time.

Nice little game science has going for it, to claim to have sufficient evidence to go ahead and presume something to be true on the one hand; and on the other, when it’s convenient for them, to back up 180 degrees and say, “But science is not about proof, it’s only theory anyway.”

These guys missed their calling, they shoulda been politicians.

A rather verbose way of saying “I don’t have an answer,� don’t you think?

When referring to either of us, that’s the case. Unfortunately, if you want to contest a case, the burden’s yours, remember?

You clearly implied that

Nice try, but I don’t imply shit. Don’t bother trying to use terms like “imply” and “undercurrent (although you haven’t used the latter) to try and tell me what I told you. The meaning is very specific, and where it’s important, it has to be. I did not say testing was done to prove Behe wrong. I explicitly said it wasn’t necessary, and listed my reasons.

Behe comes nowhere close to making that kind of claim.

But he does. His argument is the argument that there’s no other possible way of things being the way they are, and obviously not because he’s done research to establish it. It’s making the claim of incredulity, afore stated.

Nice little game science has going for it

Not really, no. See, science is designed so that not just any nutjob can come in, make a claim, then waste scarce resources working to verify it. that’s why science has standards, and (conjecture:) I would wager that’s part of why it took so long for science to make an appearance with explicit standards. In any case, it IS up to Behe to make his case, and if it actually stands up to proper scrutiny once it makes the grade to be called scientific, then it takes a few decades for people to start really trusting it. Scientists are a skeptical bunch, but primarily for humanitarian reasons. To that end, science isn’t actually about proof - it’s being extremely cautious and considerate of new, proposed truths, and running them through a rigorous gauntlet to make sure that we aren’t building vehicles on prayer and watching millions of people get killed on them. Richard Feynman said something to the end of “I’m not afraid of not knowing the answer; I’m afraid of getting it wrong”. To my mind, that sums up why science is the way it is, regardless of whether or not it seems justified in your mind.

Next?

let me revise a quickie.. the scientific community doesn’t have to waste resources.. so if Behe wants to back up that god created the universe, it’s up to him to get funding and materials to work it out - not everyone else’s.

This thread is evolving in a particular direction, and intelligent design cannot reasonably be invoked.  Somehow this quote from Adam Gopnik seems apposite:

...the enthusiasts are so busy chortling and snickering as their man throws another right hook at the rationalist that they don’t notice that the rationalist isn’t actually down on the canvas; he and his friends have long since left the building.

As already noted, you dance divinely.  You insist the proof is in the pudding that “science comes along and tests it,” yet you still fail to produce the test.  So far, as well as can be ascertained, there was only one real test conducted, and the researcher skewed the result by “helping” it along (Hall, noted by Miller, Finding Darwin’s God).  Behe made his claim about irreducible complexity, Miller came to him and presented the idea of a challenge to him, asked whether it would be a fair test.  Miller said the “true acid test” was to use:

the tools of molecular genetics to wipe out an existing multi-part system and then see if evolution can come to the rescue with a system to replace it. (Finding Darwin’s God, p. 145)

Miller described a test conducted by Barry Hall, U. of Rochester, gave his conclusion of the test:

No doubt about it--the evolution of biochemical systems, even complex multi-part ones, is explicable in terms of evolution.  Behe is wrong. (FDG, p. 157)

Behe replied:

I disagree.  Leaving aside the still-murky area of adaptive mutation, the admirably-careful work of Hall involved a series of micromutations stitched together by intelligent intervention.  He showed that the activity of a deleted enzyme could be replaced only by mutations to a second, homologous protein with a nearly-identical active site; and only if the second repressor already bound lactose; and only if the system were also artificially supported by inclusion of IPTG; and only if the system were also allowed to use a preexisting permease.  Such results are exactly what one expects of irreducible complexity requiring intelligent intervention, and of limited capabilities for Darwinian processes.

Behe added further:

Miller strongly implies that natural selection pieced together the whole pathway in Hall’s experiments, but in fact it only replaced one component (and even then it could only replace the component with a spare near-copy of the original component).  When two or more components were deleted, or when the bacterium was cultured in the absence of an artificial chemical (called IPTG), no viable bacteria could be recovered.  Just as irreducible complexity would predict, when several steps must be taken at once, natural selection is a poor way to proceed.
Since Miller calls this work the “acid test,â€? that of course means that other examples he discusses in his book are not “acid testsâ€?; they are at best indirect arguments.  The more indirect the argument, the easier for Darwinists to overlook or conceal difficulties. ("A True Acid Test”: Response to Ken Miller)

You made insistences about “tests”:  this appears to be about the sum total of any testing, unless you know of more, which you seemed to indicate you did, but which you now back away from and claim instead, “I’m not doing your research for you.” And apparently, given your lack of knowledge of any tests to support your claim concerning “tests,” you’re not doing any research for yourself, either.
The fact is, that is a non-claim, you don’t have to do my research for me, nor am I asking you to.  I have already presented the case from my own research once, now I have presented the same case again. 
My challenge to you, since you continued defending the indefensible and claiming the backing of science because of unspecified “tests,” and since the only test I could find had failed, was to back up your case with something solid, rather than a general claim, even after I presented this case before, that
“That’s where science comes in, tests it, and finds that it isn’t entirely coincident.”
Well, perhaps in some cases they do, but in this case they did not, has been my assertion.  And though you lay claim to having responded to everything, you have yet to directly address what I have presented concerning this particular test, nor to present any tangible evidence of any other tests having been reported.  The main response (by all, not just you) to what I posted about it was only further poisoning of the well with assertions the papers presented at the site were outdated--which I refuted by following suit and showing the dates were comparable on both sides of the issue. 
Both Miller and Behe had agreed this was a fair “acid test,” and when conducted, it did not produce as Miller claimed. 
Give this some time:  please don’t feel there is any insistence on my part that you respond immediately, and by all means devote your attention to your exams.  I don’t wish to distract from that.  As one who began the higher education 15 years after high school, I am not very far removed from the memory of how extra tough it was, so I can relate. 
A cease-fire appears to be in order anyway, for the time being.  This has turned into a pissing contest more than anything, as zilch is perhaps reminding us..

You insist the proof is in the pudding....seemed to indicate...claiming the backing of science

Stop putting words in my mouth. I have never claimed the backing of science; I’ve claimed that adherence to scientific process is necessary when introducing new inforamtion into the systemm which it has not been. I’ve also made many statements saying that “proof” is not always necessary to debunk a particular viewpoint, and Behe’s hypothesis of intelligent design is no exception. His whole hypothesis rests on a refutation of all other possibilities, therefore ID is the only option. Ergo, if alternate possibilities can be produced, the hypothesis is invalid.

yet you still fail to produce the test

“That’s where science comes in, tests it, and finds that it isn’t entirely coincident.�

Well, perhaps in some cases they do, but in this case they did not, has been my assertion

You fail to produce the test. It’s your claim, bring your evidence to the table in favor of ID and Goddidit. (I’ll cover why your last statement doesn’t cut it shortly) That’s been my beef is that Behe hasn’t been testing it; he’s begging everyone else to prove him wrong rather than coming to the table with valid data, and that’s why the Templeton Foundation stopped funding him and the Discovery Institute! Behe’s strategy, of course, hasn’t been to show that Goddidit, so much as it’s been to try and disprove or devalue evolution on the basis that IC means it’s not easily explained (or hasn’t been explained) on the basis of mutation/natural selection (which is only a small portion of modern biology), and then, by forcing a dichotomy (forcing that there are only two options) to show Goddidit.

I have no problems with testing extended claims of Evolution (which is what your paper presents), but that is still not a case for goddidit, dude. And, if what you say is correct and the predictions made by traditional biology were not correct, then it’s time for revision, further study, and development of something that encompasses this new phenomena. Welcome back to science. However, that is not a backing for the “alternate theory” (as quoted by those stickers in the texts… I still can’t believe they did that). This goes way back to Elwed, with “make the case for ID”. There IS no case for it; not yet. At best it’s a glancing criticism of evolution; certainly, nothing that shakes the theory to it’s core, at least that’s been presented. It’s like trying to claim that Newton’s notion of gravity didn’t work well when considering the physics of interstellar bodies. Einstein comes along and says “nono, it works like this”, takes everything Newton did, adds to it, and boom, you’ve got Einstein’s gravity, which still shows that what Newton said is true, but also shows a bunch of other things, too. That doesn’t mean that it’s all garbage. However, that’s where ID proponents head. They try to say that Evolution doesn’t work at all because, at worst, it doesn’t explain some things. It’s normal for theories to face that problem, and that’s why they get revised to encompass the known data. There’s nothing wrong with that.

I will grant Evolution one mark against it, though. IMO, if evolution were purely mathematical, it would be a lot tougher for the ley-man to call it into question.

By the way, my record for pissing is ~30 seconds. I think I scared the guy in the next urinal. Top that.

actually, y’know what, I retract that remark about Evolution and mathematics - you can refuse to trust that and anything else as long as you like (not you personally, just a person in general).

klt:

The main “dancer” here is you. It is Behe’s job to present evidence for his hypothesis - no one else’s. It is his responsibility to write technical papers for peer review and to show how others may test his ideas after he has done the testing himself and finds positive results. It is not up to “science” to prove or disprove his ideas until he has made an honest presentation of his research and evidence.

Natural Science is not about proof anyway, it is about finding evidence for or against an idea and discarding any idea that fails to produce evidence to support it. Science is about “shades of gray” not black and white “truth”. Theories become “darker” as evidence, increasingly, supports it - IC and ID are currently, blindingly, “white”.

The evidence of evolution pours in, not only from geology, paleontology, biogeography, and anatomy (Darwin’s chief sources), but from molecular biology and every other branch of the life sciences. To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write. Doubts about the power of Darwin’s idea of natural selection to explain this evolutionary process are still intellectually respectable, however, although the burden of proof for such skepticism has become immense.”

-- Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

The only “evidence” for his idea that I’ve seen is that “if it appears designed it was designed”, which is, of course, complete nonsense and certainly not a scientific theory or evidence at all. Snowflakes appear designed as do many things we find in nature.

What research papers has he written and in which scientific journals have they appeared? I’ll answer my own question - none.

Where are his research labs and what results have they produced? (nowhere and nothing)

What has been developed from this research? (nothing)

Exactly how did the “designer” do “his” work and how can we replicate it? That’s what science seeks most. Interestingly, Dr Buhu provides the only answer…

At Hillsdale, after his public lecture, I challenged Behe in a small-group discussion to give us a positive statement of exactly how the “Intelligent Designer” creates bacterial flagella. As usual, he was evasive. But I didn’t let him get away. And finally, he answered: “In a puff of smoke!” A physicist in our group asked, “Do you mean that the Intelligent Designer suspends the laws of physics through working a miracle?” And Behe answered: “Yes”.

-- Larry Arnhart, reporting on a lecture by Behe at Hillsdale in 2002

He whines that there’s a vast scientific conspiracy against him and anyone that dares to mention ID will lose their jobs and “be cast out”. Bullshit. If anyone could actually “disprove” evolution, or find significant evidence for an alternate theory, they would win the Nobel Prize, which comes with a big ol’ bag of money. Oh yeah, I forgot, these evil scientists don’t want money they just want to continue the “Empire of Materialism”.

I find it very amusing, as do many others, that the ID supporters continually bring up the story of the development of Big Bang theory and how no one, in the scientific community, including Einstein, would accept it or take it seriously. “Our plight is the same”, they claim, “and now most everyone accepts the Big Bang theory”. They, conveniently, skip over the fact that the scientists involved then proceeded to look for and find evidence that, indeed, supported the Big Bang theory. They presented their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific journals and other scientists were able to check their methods, find the same evidence, and come to the same conclusions. They did the work! This is how science is supposed to work. These scientists did not go to local school boards and appeal to their superstitions to get their ideas taught to children. They did not bypass the process of scientific verification. Again, they did the, honest, hard work that is expected by science!

Dr Buhu is a con-artist, a snake-oil salesman, nothing more. I would not be surprised to find out that he knows everything he says is bullshit. He commands thousands of dollars to speak to the sheep in this country and they gladly pay it to have a “scientist” support their little fantasy world of super-beings that can create people out of dirt. Secretly, he’s laughing all the way to the bank!

The idea of IC and ID is nothing more than illogical drivel.
If “irreducible complexity” requires an “intelligent designer” then would not this designer itself be the ultimate example of irreducible complexity? Who, then, designed the designer? Rubbish!

I guess it’s just “turtles all the down”.

What arc, spocko, and zilch said.

Ah, Deoxy, if you’re still here - here you have a small version of the big picture. Any questions?

Oh rats, I meant “turtles all the way down” - I hate when I do that! 

Hi elwed! Been missing all you guys, working major overtime this year, hardly get a chance to stop by.

Happy Krimble!

By the way, my record for pissing is ~30 seconds. I think I scared the guy in the next urinal. Top that.

I’ve got that beat pretty easily, although I’ve never really timed it.  My guess was somewhere around two minutes on my longest, based on the fact that when I started (in a public restroom), no one was present, and by the time I had finished, four other people had entered and left consecutively.  But critics have quickly pointed out that I have no verifiable evidence other than my own observations.  And I’ve been criticized in past pissing contests for not submitting anything for peer review.  I told them I would be happy to do so, just give me one of those little jars.

Yo Spocko! I haven’t been around much myself for a long time; sometimes everything conspires against you.

Happy whatever you care to celebrate

I once drank a 12pack of Old Style tallboys, a Milwaukee brew, without heading for the latrine once. Man I bet that piss lasted 5 minutes! Read quite a few articles in a newpaper above the urinoid while I was at it.

Spocko, that’s Little Legue pissing. Go to the Oktoberfest to observe the masters at work.

wow… if there was penis envy, but just for pee, I’d have it. Clever one, Myxi; I like it. I find it safe to assume that your pissing several minutes poses no danger to anyone, so I won’t be needing to take it seriously. Although I could contest that Spocko’s allegedly massive pee, and those of almost deific grade at Oktoberfest, are so powerful that time warps just so that they can be that long. I don’t know all the details, but man, a piss that lasts longer than five minutes! I mean, how else is it possible?

Er, much as I like to go with the flow, I’m going to buck the current here and try to get us back into the main stream of this issue.

If “irreducible complexity� requires an “intelligent designer� then would not this designer itself be the ultimate example of irreducible complexity? Who, then, designed the designer? Rubbish!

Aha, the venerable Argument from Ignorance, Spocko!  Just because you don’t know who designed the designer, doesn’t mean that no one knows.  I happen to know, and I’ll tell you.

It was Mrs. Tibbit.  Mrs. Tibbit is from the universe “Unka’s Caws”, where life evolved without irreducible complexity or skydaddies, just as some impious biologists claim it happened here on Earth.  Well, they’ll soon have imps enough- in Hell!

Anyway, that’s how it is- Mrs. Tibbit is the Bottom Turtle for us Earthies.  The biggest unanswered question for ID: why did She leave us in charge of her Son, Who is obviously not up to the job?