Print
God seekers go public
by New Scientist
Thanks to Graham Dolby for the link.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/05/god-seekers-go-public.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt11_head_ID%20goes%20public
God seekers go public
Over a year ago I visited an organisation called the Biologic Institute, then a shadowy outfit devoted to the search for scientific evidence for Intelligent Design.
When I finally found the lab in Seattle, Washington, the scientists would not talk to me. The next day, when I showed up at Biologic's second office in nearby Redmond, I had the door slammed in my face.
Now however, it seems that Biologic has had a change of heart: it has gone public with a website telling the public all about what it is doing:
When I visited, I was told the reason for the secrecy was that Biologic's scientists were simply not ready to discuss their science. But now Biologic has a whole list of papers that they claim contain evidence for ID. Some are dated 2008 and 2007, others are much older.
Furthermore, according to a press release announcing Biologic, which was sent out by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has provided the funding to get Biologic up and running, "scientists have been quietly and patiently working in the laboratory to test the predictions of intelligent design".
I imagine that almost all scientists will continue to be highly sceptical of the idea that ID can be proved in the lab. For a start, the list of papers reminds me of at least two papers written by Douglas Axe, the director of the Biologic Institute, in 2000 and 2004. Those papers were peer-reviewed, made no mention of ID but were subsequently quoted as being "evidence for ID" by ID proponents. Other biologists have since said that this is most certainly not what the papers showed.
Secondly, in December 2006 I spoke to two researchers who previously worked with two of Biologic's scientists. One of them, Larry Goldstein, now at the University of California, San Diego, supervised Ann Gauger's post-doc at Harvard University. He expressed surprise when he learned of her association with the anti-evolution movement.
Meanwhile Alan Fersht, whom Axe worked for at the University of Cambridge in the 1990s, was less surprised. But he cited previous attempts by Axe to interpret results from their lab as evidence for ID, which he said were not the scientific interpretation for those results. Both Goldstein and Fersht are among the authors of the papers now listed on Biologic's site. I haven't yet had a chance to talk to either of them but hope to soon.
All of this points to the conclusion that, rather than having new evidence for ID, Biologic is far more likely to simply be interpreting scientific papers, and whatever other science its researchers have been doing since it opened in 2005, not in the way most mainstream scientists would, but to fit with the ID agenda.
After all, ID was dealt a significant blow in December 2005, when parents in the Dover school district of Pennsylvania successfully challenged the right of school board officials to introduce pro-ID material into high school biology classrooms. The judge ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach ID in public schools because it would violate the separation of church and state as laid out in the First Amendment.
Going public with Biologic seems to be an attempt to produce science in the face of this, in order to prove that ID is science, and not religion.
As Ronald Numbers, a historian at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has studied creationism, said when told about Biologic in December 2006: "It will be good for the troops if leaders in the ID movement can claim: 'We're not just talking theory. We have labs, we have real scientists working on this.'"
Celeste Biever, New Scientist biomedical news editor
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/05/god-seekers-go-public.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt11_head_ID%20goes%20public
God seekers go public
Over a year ago I visited an organisation called the Biologic Institute, then a shadowy outfit devoted to the search for scientific evidence for Intelligent Design.
When I finally found the lab in Seattle, Washington, the scientists would not talk to me. The next day, when I showed up at Biologic's second office in nearby Redmond, I had the door slammed in my face.
Now however, it seems that Biologic has had a change of heart: it has gone public with a website telling the public all about what it is doing:
"The scientists of Biologic Institute are developing and presenting the scientific case for intelligent design in biology. Biologic brings together experts in molecular biology, biophysics and biochemistry, bioinformatics and genomics, astrobiology, and engineering and information science in order to examine the question of design from all angles, the aim being to build a comprehensive and coherent picture."
When I visited, I was told the reason for the secrecy was that Biologic's scientists were simply not ready to discuss their science. But now Biologic has a whole list of papers that they claim contain evidence for ID. Some are dated 2008 and 2007, others are much older.
Furthermore, according to a press release announcing Biologic, which was sent out by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has provided the funding to get Biologic up and running, "scientists have been quietly and patiently working in the laboratory to test the predictions of intelligent design".
I imagine that almost all scientists will continue to be highly sceptical of the idea that ID can be proved in the lab. For a start, the list of papers reminds me of at least two papers written by Douglas Axe, the director of the Biologic Institute, in 2000 and 2004. Those papers were peer-reviewed, made no mention of ID but were subsequently quoted as being "evidence for ID" by ID proponents. Other biologists have since said that this is most certainly not what the papers showed.
Secondly, in December 2006 I spoke to two researchers who previously worked with two of Biologic's scientists. One of them, Larry Goldstein, now at the University of California, San Diego, supervised Ann Gauger's post-doc at Harvard University. He expressed surprise when he learned of her association with the anti-evolution movement.
Meanwhile Alan Fersht, whom Axe worked for at the University of Cambridge in the 1990s, was less surprised. But he cited previous attempts by Axe to interpret results from their lab as evidence for ID, which he said were not the scientific interpretation for those results. Both Goldstein and Fersht are among the authors of the papers now listed on Biologic's site. I haven't yet had a chance to talk to either of them but hope to soon.
All of this points to the conclusion that, rather than having new evidence for ID, Biologic is far more likely to simply be interpreting scientific papers, and whatever other science its researchers have been doing since it opened in 2005, not in the way most mainstream scientists would, but to fit with the ID agenda.
After all, ID was dealt a significant blow in December 2005, when parents in the Dover school district of Pennsylvania successfully challenged the right of school board officials to introduce pro-ID material into high school biology classrooms. The judge ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach ID in public schools because it would violate the separation of church and state as laid out in the First Amendment.
Going public with Biologic seems to be an attempt to produce science in the face of this, in order to prove that ID is science, and not religion.
As Ronald Numbers, a historian at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has studied creationism, said when told about Biologic in December 2006: "It will be good for the troops if leaders in the ID movement can claim: 'We're not just talking theory. We have labs, we have real scientists working on this.'"
Celeste Biever, New Scientist biomedical news editor
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 96 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #179358 by wiz220 on May 13, 2008 at 6:53 am
Oh dear... These guys just don't quit! I suppose they see now how they must manipulate the public which generally has a very shoddy understanding of science.Other Comments by wiz220
3. Comment #179360 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 6:56 am
Fill in the usual comment:____________ Other Comments by irate_atheist
4. Comment #179361 by bugaboo on May 13, 2008 at 6:57 am
"scientists have been quietly and patiently working in the laboratory to test the predictions of intelligent design".What predictions?
This is getting tiresome.
Other Comments by bugaboo
5. Comment #179363 by Tyler Durden on May 13, 2008 at 7:01 am
"The more we learn about the organization of life, the more clearly it reveals design."
www.biologicinstitute.org
Muppets!
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
6. Comment #179367 by Tyler Durden on May 13, 2008 at 7:10 am
If Darwinism really is plausible, it must instead be the case that Darwin leapt to something of substance - something that really explains how, contrary to our intuitions, the remarkable gadgets we see in biology can be chalked up to mindless inevitability.
http://biologicinstitute.org/2008/04/03/perspectives/#more-13
False Dichotomy.
Do these guys really believe they're scientists? Just because they have a website and can spell b-i-o-l-o-g-y
"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken."
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
7. Comment #179369 by SPS on May 13, 2008 at 7:12 am
My question for the believers is:What difference is there between a belief in god/design and the imagination?
Other Comments by SPS
8. Comment #179371 by Eventhorizon on May 13, 2008 at 7:14 am
This just proves what a brick wall science is to their theories and its one that they'll never scale.
It seems a good thing that they realise the only way they'll ever be taken seriously is if they find scientific evidence for a creator. The ball is well and truly in our court and they're having to jump the net to get it!
Let them waiste their money looking for something they'll never find. Ha!
Other Comments by Eventhorizon
9. Comment #179372 by Forti on May 13, 2008 at 7:15 am
Why would they need 'labs and real scientists' anyway? They should have more faith.
Other Comments by Forti
10. Comment #179373 by annabanana on May 13, 2008 at 7:18 am
I really wish that all of the religious whackos would quick hijacking words that are associated with rationality and reason and morphing (and possibly coining) them into words that would cause a novice to believe the associated subject to be something other than rubbish. "Biologic", "Scientology", "Intelligent Design"... Other Comments by annabanana
11. Comment #179377 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 7:23 am
10. Comment #179373 by annabanana -
Hear hear!
This month's oxymoron award goes to "Christian Science Monitor".
Other Comments by irate_atheist
12. Comment #179378 by BW022 on May 13, 2008 at 7:23 am
In science extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even the general public now requires more than normal evidence when folks make claims such as cold fusion, cures for X, etc. Ordinary folks didn't really buy relativity and atomic theory until the atomic bomb was set off. Most folks didn't really get how much biologists understood about genetics until we sequenced the human genome.So how big of a discovery does one think scientific proof of God would need to be before anyone will scientifically accept it? Perhaps praying makes Higgs particles appear and disappear?
Do they think that real scientists won't shred any weaker evidence in seconds? Do they think scientists won't point out that in science you have to prove the positive and that disproving other ideas doesn't make yours any more valid? Don't they understand that that in science (or court) your background, sources of funding, previous claims, secrecy, sources of publications, lack of peer reviews, etc. are all going to be dragged over the coals?
Do they honestly think that more selective quoting from science papers is going to get them through the next Dover trial? That teachers, parents, and school boards who aren't already in Jesus-land are going to buy any of this when a real scientists -- with real accomplishments -- call this stuff nonsense? Do they really think they can find some unknown process and claim God is doing it, in which the real scientists won't figure it out in a few months or else be able to say "And how does that prove God did it?"
Other Comments by BW022
13. Comment #179379 by The Reverend Dark on May 13, 2008 at 7:24 am
I have to wonder what percentage of their budget is for research and what percentage is for advertising/outreach.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
14. Comment #179382 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 7:30 am
What the fuck....?Is their idea of "Peer Reviewed" just some red stamp on the paper saying "Goddidit"!
I would REALLY love to see these idiots provide the justification for some magnificent "Intelligence" arsing around throughout the ages thinking "Yes, another Ice Age will do, I can kill off so many animals, make way for some new ones that are more likely to survive in the freezing conditions then I can kill those animals by drought, mwhahahahahahaha!"
What utter dribble, the more I learn about evolution the more I think these guys are that word that Irate wishes us to fill in his comment section! :)
Other Comments by Philip1978
15. Comment #179384 by TheSwede on May 13, 2008 at 7:32 am
"scientists have been quietly and patiently working in the laboratory to test the predictions of intelligent design".They've been sitting for over three years now doing nothing but staring into an empty container... waiting... waiting...
*POOF* and something appears out of thin air! A brand new animal created by an intelligent agency, with its distinctive features already intact �" its a fish with fins and scales, but looks like a bird with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc!
It has been proven scientifically! Hallelujah!!
Other Comments by TheSwede
16. Comment #179386 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 7:33 am
Philip-
technically Dembski and Behe WOULD qualify as peers.
And what Ice Age? Everyone knows the evidence for Ice Ages is a lie created by Satan to make us believe that the world is older than 6,000. Open your eyes, man!
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
17. Comment #179388 by Philip1978 on May 13, 2008 at 7:41 am
QuetzHave I been channeling Satan again? I guess that accounts for all the bad language and want to discover more about evolution!
If Dumbski and Behehehhehehhehe....no really...hahahhahahaha.....remember the Dover trial..hehehhehehhehe! ever qualify as peers I will have to call upon your services and unleash the army! :)
Other Comments by Philip1978
18. Comment #179390 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 7:45 am
Philip-
I'm afraid you have been channeling Satan. You forgot what we were taught in school- "Kids! Say no to Satan!"
Or something like that, anyway.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
19. Comment #179393 by annabanana on May 13, 2008 at 7:47 am
You forgot what we were taught in school- "Kids! Say no to Satan!"
Damn! All this time, I thought it was "Say no to drugs". I didn't know we were supposed to say no to satan. I've been saying yes to him for years...I guess I have to switch up my routine...yes to drugs...no to satan...
Other Comments by annabanana
20. Comment #179395 by SilentMike on May 13, 2008 at 7:55 am
This will never be over. You have to figure with all that money and public support they'll eventually win and achieve their goal of dragging the US back into the dark ages.Wouldn't that be a lot of fun?
Other Comments by SilentMike
21. Comment #179398 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 7:58 am
Annabanana-
you mean you're not already on drugs? Huh. You learn something new every day.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
22. Comment #179399 by EvidenceOnly on May 13, 2008 at 7:59 am
The behavior of all these GodDidIt IDiots is proof of evolution :)Each time they run into the brick wall of reality we call scientific evidence they morph their story to keep their nonsense alive longer.
First creationism, then intelligent design, then blaming Darwin for all evil in this world, then expelling all intelligence from their own ranks, then claiming freedom of opinion in science class for teachers and students, then setting up false biology research centers. What's next?
For the pious who claim patent rights to morality, they obviously belief that the highest level of morality is lying for Jesus.
Should we call this the Lying for Jesus Disorder (LJD)?
Could science come up with a cure for this terrible disease?
Other Comments by EvidenceOnly
23. Comment #179403 by black wolf on May 13, 2008 at 8:03 am
So, a group of great expert scientists from different fields work together for at least 2.5 years to develop a single testable hypothesis based on undefined predictions (or make predictions based on an untestable hypothesis). And deliver neither of the two to the public because they're still 'not ready'. I wonder what their funding from the DI actually is, 150 bucks a month? Probably their lab work is so irreducibly complex and utterly unevolvable that they actually have no idea what it is. Other Comments by black wolf
24. Comment #179404 by annabanana on May 13, 2008 at 8:03 am
Quetz,you mean you're not already on drugs? Huh. You learn something new every day.
No, despite my ranting and flailings when participating in these threads, I am not currently on drugs, but now since I know that it's ok, perhaps my arguments will be improved.
Other Comments by annabanana
25. Comment #179408 by konquererz on May 13, 2008 at 8:08 am
I'm actually curious as to WHAT they can do in a lab at all. What predictions can you make in a lab regarding intelligent design? Other Comments by konquererz
26. Comment #179409 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 8:13 am
Konquererz-
I agree. It's hard to imagine what experiments you could do to confirm that something is irreducibly complex, and therefore designed.
Annabanana-
I'll keep my fingers crossed. ;)
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
27. Comment #179410 by black wolf on May 13, 2008 at 8:15 am
I'm actually curious as to WHAT they can do in a lab at all. What predictions can you make in a lab regarding intelligent design?
I guess something like 'we should find things we can't explain in the light of evolution that could only have been put together by the designer'. Then they examine a bacteria culture under the microscope and go, 'I have no idea what that stuff is, but it's clearly alive. Since I can't explain it, it's designed'.
Therefore a design hypothesis must be: 'whatever I can't explain because I'm too lazy to read the papers already published is designed'.
Predicting, defining and explaining ID in a nutshell.
Other Comments by black wolf
28. Comment #179411 by Darwin's badger on May 13, 2008 at 8:15 am
What predictions can you make in a lab regarding intelligent design?"We predict that when you look at the inner workings of a biological organism, it'll really, really look like it was designed by an intelligent being."
Along those lines, I expect. Should be a good exercise in spotting the logical fallacy.
Other Comments by Darwin's badger
29. Comment #179414 by annabanana on May 13, 2008 at 8:19 am
I'm actually curious as to WHAT they can do in a lab at all. What predictions can you make in a lab regarding intelligent design?
Good point. If all organisms are intelligently designed, what will tinkering around in a lab do to show this without the designer showing up and saying what he/she/it did and how he/she/it did it?
Other Comments by annabanana
30. Comment #179415 by Shaden on May 13, 2008 at 8:19 am
konquererz,
I'm sure they just ordered one chicken and one egg to be delievered to their lab. A full report of which one came first to follow...
Other Comments by Shaden
31. Comment #179417 by huzonfurst on May 13, 2008 at 8:21 am
Hi Forti, loved the "Lack of Faith" pic!Other Comments by huzonfurst
32. Comment #179418 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 8:21 am
22. Comment #179399 by EvidenceOnly -Should we call this the Lying for Jesus Disorder (LJD)?The cure is the Hitchens Enema Kit(TM).
Could science come up with a cure for this terrible disease?
Other Comments by irate_atheist
33. Comment #179419 by HandyGeek on May 13, 2008 at 8:21 am
They are like cockroaches! It seems no matter how many you squash, four more appear. Other Comments by HandyGeek
34. Comment #179423 by Frankus1122 on May 13, 2008 at 8:30 am
Do they think that real scientists won't shred any weaker evidence in seconds?
This is what I can't understand. There seems to be no realistic self-reflection or critical analysis. All critical evaluation seems to be done through a 'design-coloured lens'.
Looking at the world in this way leads to the conclusions that they come to. Or is it the case that the conclusions preceed the investigations?
That is, of course, the problem.
I don't understand why it is that they can't see this about themselves.
Other Comments by Frankus1122
35. Comment #179430 by Diacanu on May 13, 2008 at 8:39 am
They're probably going to try to devise a way to prove that science is actually anything you can make up.The Christian Science loons have been barking up that very tree for a good long while.
OTOH, they haven't been trying to worm their way into the classroom (as far as I know), they tend to keep their stuff in their little cult/sect.
Other Comments by Diacanu
36. Comment #179432 by clunkclickeverytrip on May 13, 2008 at 8:40 am
The monotheist "God" is nothing more than a hypothesis, as is commonly understood by objective scientists. Four and a half billion years ago the earth formed, and four billion years ago bacteria formed to seed all subsequent life on earth. The "God Hypothesis" is not necessary to explain any of the evolutionary events over the last four billion years.The ID people are taking the "God Hypothesis" and trying to find data to fit that hypothesis - scientifically speaking, it is a forgone conclusion that they will fail. Legitimate evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, archeologists, physicists and chemists have already shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the "God Hypothesis" is not valid or relevant to the truth of how life on Earth evolved.
But, legitimate science can easily be swept under the carpet in the next 100 years if religion wins out over reason. The number of people on Earth who understand the scientific explanation pales in comparison to the number who don't, or don't want to.
Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip
37. Comment #179438 by PJG on May 13, 2008 at 8:44 am
This is what I can't understand. There seems to be no realistic self-reflection or critical analysis. All critical evaluation seems to be done through a 'design-coloured lens'.
Looking at the world in this way leads to the conclusions that they come to. Or is it the case that the conclusions preceed the investigations?
That is, of course, the problem.
I don't understand why it is that they can't see this about themselves.
Because they are.... cue Irate.
Other Comments by PJG
38. Comment #179439 by Tyler Durden on May 13, 2008 at 8:45 am
Why not email the good people at the Biologic Institute with a question or two: info@biologicinstitute.org
I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear from us :-)
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
39. Comment #179440 by Jack Rawlinson on May 13, 2008 at 8:48 am
What predictions does ID make? That they'll find a cell with a logo or "GodBrand Inc." on it? I guess something like that might persuade me.
Sadly, I suspect their idea of a "prediction" is more like, "We'll find a structure that's so clever, ooh, we just can't imagine it wasn't designed!"
Then it'll be Nobel prizes all round!
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
40. Comment #179442 by SteveN on May 13, 2008 at 8:50 am
I had a quick look through their list of selected publications. The first thing that I notice is that none of the papers (judging by the titles, at least) have anything to do with ID. The second is that they have listed papers by scientists that were produced when working elsewhere. For example, there are seven papers listed by G. Gonzalez, but if you check his bio, he is presently a prof at Ohio State University.Oh, and one of the few people listed as actually employed at the institute is the infamous Richard von Sternberg who was responsible for the shameful peer-reviewed ID paper scandal and who is featured in 'Expelled'
What a bunch of tossers. All bluff with no content.
Other Comments by SteveN
41. Comment #179444 by LaTomate on May 13, 2008 at 8:53 am
Hmmm, interesting initiative. I can't wait to see what they'll come up with.I love a good laugh.
Other Comments by LaTomate
42. Comment #179449 by Diacanu on May 13, 2008 at 9:01 am
Well, we should be heartened by all of this because it just shows again and again that the ONLY tricks religion has up its sleeve are dirty ones.That's all they have.
That's all they'll EVER have.
We know it, they know it.
All we have to do, is wait for the right moment when they've weaved enough rope to hang themselves with, and then everyone will know it.
Other Comments by Diacanu
43. Comment #179453 by Tyler Durden on May 13, 2008 at 9:10 am
The whole site looks like a game of "Spot the logical fallacy":
Personal Incredulity - "The more we learn about the organization of life, the more clearly it reveals design."
In other words: "I just can't believe we evolved from lower forms of life, we MUST be designed. Designed I tells ya!"
False Dichotomy and Poisoning The Well - "If Darwinism really is plausible, it must instead be the case that Darwin leapt to something of substance - something that really explains how, contrary to our intuitions, the remarkable gadgets we see in biology can be chalked up to mindless inevitability."
Argument ad Populum - "Everyone agrees that life is full of systems and structures that have an appearance of intelligent design."
I like this one - "Everyone agrees..." Did they conduct a global poll while I was out? How do they know what "Everyone" agrees on?
Argument ad ignoratum - "We think life looks designed because it was designed, and we think that careful science is backing this up - not just in one field, but in many."
IDiots!
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
44. Comment #179454 by polishrequiem on May 13, 2008 at 9:12 am
They'll pony up or they won't. If it's good science, then it will pass. If it's not, it won't.Other Comments by polishrequiem
45. Comment #179456 by Diacanu on May 13, 2008 at 9:15 am
clunkclickeverytrip-
But, legitimate science can easily be swept under the carpet in the next 100 years if religion wins out over reason. The number of people on Earth who understand the scientific explanation pales in comparison to the number who don't, or don't want to.
That is the one thing to worry about, isn't it?
And I agree.
But knowing is half the battle.
We know they're weasels, and what they're up to, we can start there.
And we know they want us to fear that.
I've observed there's an ingredient of intimidation to this whole Expelled thing.
The implied subtext message sent to atheists seems to be "yes, on your side you have evidence, you have logic, you have fair play, you have rule of law, you have modernity, you have church/state separation, but WE control the PEOPLE, that's what religion does, that's its job, and THAT'S the real power, and if you push us too hard, we'll tear this world you've built down around your ears if we have to, so don't push us".
But, scary as that is, we see it, and we know it.
All we have to do, is put the "They Live", glasses on everyone, and let them see it too.
And like I said in post 42, all they have, or ever will have up their sleeves are dirty tricks.
And people who only have dirty tricks at their disposal have the moral low ground, and people who have the low ground WILL fuck up royally.
We just have to exploit it when they do, and it won't be hard, we just have to passively point it out whenever it happens.
Other Comments by Diacanu
46. Comment #179461 by gr8hands on May 13, 2008 at 9:32 am
Diacanu, "they" have more than dirty tricks . . . They have:lies
rumors
hallucinations
wishes
massive amounts of willful ignorance
stupidity
herd response
apathy of the masses
"tradition"
sloppy science
boredom of things not immediately/easily understood
inertia of the unschooled
home schooling to prevent real education
weekly indoctrination in their thought camps
extreme peer pressure from family and community
tons of funding from the bush administration
years of "do not question us" mentality fostered in the followers
"anything is moral if we believe god would want us to do it" mindset
the ends (theocracy) justifies the means (see all above)
demonizing of science, reason and rationality as heresy/blasphemy
squelching of curiosity
denial of facts
promotion of faith over reality
There are many others, of course, but certainly more than mere dirty tricks.
Other Comments by gr8hands
47. Comment #179462 by Geoff on May 13, 2008 at 9:35 am
anna, I suggest you start your new drug regime with caffeine and alcohol.Have an Irish coffee.
Other Comments by Geoff
48. Comment #179464 by Geodesic17 on May 13, 2008 at 9:40 am
"Biologic", "Scientology", "Intelligent Design"...
That gives me an idea...
Bioscientologic Designology.
This sounds technical enough to confuse the common moron, right?
Other Comments by Geodesic17
49. Comment #179467 by Diacanu on May 13, 2008 at 9:47 am
gr8hands-And all of those are dirty tricks.
They certainly aren't clean tricks, are they?
All we have to do is get everyone to see that.
And it's not as hard as it may seem.
I honestly believe people know in their deepest heart of hearts those tactics are wrong, and these things they believe are a tapestry of lies.
They know in their heart of hearts it can't be true.
And not just religion, but the whole American propaganda mess.
We just have to tap into that.
People despise being lied to more than they want to hang onto the lie.
The hard part is breaking their deathgrip from the security blanket of lies.
And that comes right back to, we gotta let them see the security blanket is dirty.
And it is.
We don't have to lie to show it.
It's caked in puke, and cumwads, and dog period, and bullshit, and batshit.
We just have to unplug their noses.
There's hard work ahead, but it's not pyramid building.
We just have to shoot the right torpedo into the right exhaust port, and the Death Star will blow.
I think it can be done.
Freedom is humanity's natural state.
You can't crush that for eternity.
We're the side of opening minds, not closing them.
All we need do is remember that, and everything I've posted above will follow.
Other Comments by Diacanu
50. Comment #179473 by nalfeshnee on May 13, 2008 at 9:53 am
My favorite comment on all of this is the following link, to "Resources" on the Uncommon Descent web page:http://www.uncommondescent.com/resources
"Coming soon" is the title of the otherwise blank page.
Jesus would have loved that slogan.
Other Comments by nalfeshnee
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg
"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion."
Richard Dawkins
"It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe.."
Richard Dawkins
"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
Richard Dawkins
"Who needs Satan when you have a God like this?"
Robert M. Price
Other Recommended Reading
Freedom Evolves
Daniel C. Dennett
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
Under the Banner of Heaven
Jon Krakauer
God Is Not Great
Christopher Hitchens
Read the 1st Chapter!
Pale Blue Dot
Carl Sagan
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #179357 by Mbee on May 13, 2008 at 6:53 am
Other Comments by Mbee