NationStates Jolt Archive

I found this great post (http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/12/the_year_in_id.php) on the 'Stranger Fruit' blog and I thought I'd share it with you. The article is very good and includes quotes from prominent IDers but I'll only post the conclusion and a particularly stupid quote from Dembski:

Quite a year, eh? It's worthwhile meditating on what we did not see:

-A peer-reviewed paper by Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Meyer ...
-Or for that matter, a single peer-reviewed article offering either (a) evidence for design, (b) a method to unambiguously detect design, or (c) a theory of how the Designer did the designing, by any fellow of the DI.
-An exposition of Nelson's theory of "ontogenetic depth" (promised in March 2004)
-An article by Nelson & Dembski on problems with common descent (promised in April 2005).
-Nelson's monograph on common descent (currently MIA since the late 90's).

Way back in January, Dembski predicted "greater heights ... intellectual vitality and ultimate success". You be the judge.

The pressures directed against frontline ID proponents are real. From your armchair, it is easy enough to say that we need simply to get to work. But families and livelihoods really are under threat by these Darwinian fascists, and when our days are spent trying to shore up the latter, the former does not get done.

Combined with the multitude of supposedly non-existent transitional fossils which were unearthed in 2006 do the IDers and their YEC allies have any chance of getting their pseudoscience past a judge in the near future or will their humiliating tract record be too much?

I wish the UK had a separation of church and state to keep this nonsense out of our schools. :(

Add the fact that their elected supporters are going to be gone within 11 days. ID is screwed. Good riddance.

Poor, poor dembski. All those nasty "Darwinists" are making him justify diluting science standards around the country and keeping him from performing any "real" science.

How convenient.

All I have to do is bring out the Poo Cannon if anybody wants to see unintellient design. :)

After reading Dumbski... I mean Dembski, I have to say there is no "intelligent" in the design.

All I have to do is bring out the Poo Cannon if anybody wants to see unintellient design. :)

The scary thing is that LG probably does have a poo cannon. :p

The scary thing is that LG probably does have a poo cannon. :p

What's scarier is that with his knowledge of physics it's probably very well designed, with impressive accuracy and range. And he does currently have two babies in his house, so ammo is plentiful.

ID is screwed. Good riddance.

but they won't learn their lesson - creationism hasn't had a nub of a leg to stand on in over 100 years. id was just creationism in a cheap suit. since the cheap suit alone didn't work out for them, they'll probably just put on a bow tie and try again.

but they won't learn their lesson - creationism hasn't had a nub of a leg to stand on in over 100 years. id was just creationism in a cheap suit. since the cheap suit alone didn't work out for them, they'll probably just put on a bow tie and try again.

I fear the day when the put creationism in lacy lingerie and have another go.

I've just looked up the abstracts of two articles mentioned in the New Scientist, both by Douglas Axe, both supposedly disputing evolution. The science from the results, it has to be said, is sound otherwise they would never have passed peer review. However, the conclusions drawn from them are terrible.

The first shows that making major modifications to a given protein (1 in 5 exterior residues changed, albeit to similar residues) causes it to lose its function. This supposedly shows that protein structure is far too conservative to be changed adequately by evolutionary processes. Which is a stretch, to say the least. It shows a basic misunderstanding of current evolutionary theory, most notably suggesting that protein structure always changes drastically in a short time space, as well as suggesting that all major changes to a protein structure result in complete inactivity. Neither are the case.

The second article again relied upon changing large sequences of residues, this time decapeptide regions within similar domains of homologous proteins. Amazingly the prevalence of functional proteins was incredibly low, again suggesting that current evolutionary theory could not occur in such a short time. Except that domains show progressive similarity, and large random changes in residue sequence will of course result in very low chance of functionality. The point of evolution is that although it involves random elements, the overall process is governed by rules and proceeds through similarities.

If this is some of the best science ID has to offer, I worry about their credibility as researchers.

I, for one, am proud to be a baby-raping cannibal darwinist.

I fear the day when the put creationism in lacy lingerie and have another go.
I don't. If God is a woman and people were created in God's own image, I wanna see a hot God in a skimpy Agent Provocateur number :D

I've just looked up the abstracts of two articles mentioned in the New Scientist, both by Douglas Axe, both supposedly disputing evolution. The science from the results, it has to be said, is sound otherwise they would never have passed peer review. However, the conclusions drawn from them are terrible.

The first shows that making major modifications to a given protein (1 in 5 exterior residues changed, albeit to similar residues) causes it to lose its function. This supposedly shows that protein structure is far too conservative to be changed adequately by evolutionary processes. Which is a stretch, to say the least. It shows a basic misunderstanding of current evolutionary theory, most notably suggesting that protein structure always changes drastically in a short time space, as well as suggesting that all major changes to a protein structure result in complete inactivity. Neither are the case.

The second article again relied upon changing large sequences of residues, this time decapeptide regions within similar domains of homologous proteins. Amazingly the prevalence of functional proteins was incredibly low, again suggesting that current evolutionary theory could not occur in such a short time. Except that domains show progressive similarity, and large random changes in residue sequence will of course result in very low chance of functionality. The point of evolution is that although it involves random elements, the overall process is governed by rules and proceeds through similarities.

If this is some of the best science ID has to offer, I worry about their credibility as researchers.

Tribes! haven't seen you around in some time. Welcome back.

I don't. If God is a woman and people were created in God's own image, I wanna see a hot God in a skimpy Agent Provocateur number :D

Yeah, but like the Fundies think of God as a hot woman. They think of God as an old man. So they'd get some old guy with a white beard to do it.

I, for one, am proud to be a baby-raping cannibal darwinist.

You are making the baby jesus cry.

You are making the baby jesus cry.

I just saw the words "baby raping" and "baby jesus" in the same post. :(

Tribes! haven't seen you around in some time. Welcome back.
Hey dude. I've been knocking around a bit but uni commitments and some other, slightly more fun demands mean I'm MIA. Didn't actually think I got noticed on here, tbh.
Yeah, but like the Fundies think of God as a hot woman. They think of God as an old man. So they'd get some old guy with a white beard to do it.
...

*faps*

Hey dude. I've been knocking around a bit but uni commitments and some other, slightly more fun demands mean I'm MIA. Didn't actually think I got noticed on here, tbh.
:fluffle:


...

*faps*

Good old Tribes.

I found this great post (http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/12/the_year_in_id.php) on the 'Stranger Fruit' blog and I thought I'd share it with you. The article is very good and includes quotes from prominent IDers but I'll only post the conclusion and a particularly stupid quote from Dembski:

Combined with the multitude of supposedly non-existent transitional fossils which were unearthed in 2006 do the IDers and their YEC allies have any chance of getting their pseudoscience past a judge in the near future or will their humiliating tract record be too much?

I wish the UK had a separation of church and state to keep this nonsense out of our schools. :(
Oh ye of little faith......

Oh ye of little faith......

*waves*

Hi there! :)

You are making the baby jesus cry.

GOOD! Let the little poo-machine SQUEAL!!!!

I, for one, am proud to be a baby-raping cannibal darwinist.
+
You are making the baby jesus cry.

= :eek:

LMAO! This is no surprise because you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. Intelligent Design was screwed from the git go because of that scientific fact.

Hopefully this will open the eyes of some of those stupid ass fundamentalists in Kansas. I'm not going to hold my breath though since they have bought the lie hook line and sinker.

I fear the day when the put creationism in lacy lingerie and have another go.

Now I have to go bleach my brain.