1. Comment #182672 by dazzjazz on May 20, 2008 at 8:29 pm

So glad these people are on the tails of these IDiots.

Darren

Other Comments by dazzjazz

2. Comment #182678 by Big City on May 20, 2008 at 8:40 pm

See also:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1847,Judgement-Day-Intelligent-Design-on-Trial,NOVA-PBS

(I've been a fan of the graph at 2:00 since the first time I saw it.)

Other Comments by Big City

3. Comment #182679 by Count von Count on May 20, 2008 at 8:42 pm

If there's something weird, in the neighborhood, who ya gonna call?

NCSE!

(I ain't afraid 'a no ghost.)

Other Comments by Count von Count

4. Comment #182682 by HourglassMemory on May 20, 2008 at 8:58 pm

For me, that was the best part of the whole trial.
"cdesign proponentsists".
It's brilliant how "our side" just pointed it out and pretty much won the case.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

5. Comment #182688 by mindpath on May 20, 2008 at 9:18 pm

That is brilliant. The NCSE was more than ready to make the case without that sloppy copy and paste, but it made things quite a bit easier.

Yay science!

Other Comments by mindpath

6. Comment #182695 by Tetsujin on May 20, 2008 at 9:41 pm

I can understand that one would rewrite a book with the intention of modifying an idea to perhaps take into account new data or new information you come across.

There's simply no integrity in this. How does one come across when you've pointed out that the whole fabrication was a simple "Find" -> "Replace All".

I can almost feel hatred for someone like that.

Other Comments by Tetsujin

7. Comment #182696 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Not sure why this stuff is being rehearsed, Josh and Wayne.

What am I missing? Is this for the newbies only?

No comprende.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

8. Comment #182706 by obscured by clouds on May 20, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Not sure why this stuff is being rehearsed, Josh and Wayne.

What am I missing? Is this for the newbies only?

Eugenie Scott posted this thread, on the forum. It's new video and a new site, http://www.expelledexposed.com/ , just getting the word out there.

Other Comments by obscured by clouds

9. Comment #182709 by Andrew Stich on May 20, 2008 at 10:25 pm

I do not completely agree. Of Pandas and People is ID, and is quite obviously poorly disguised creationism as well. This doesn't necessarily make the entire ID movement creationist (although its founders, main proponents and the majority of its followers are creationists). An intelligent agency could also mean extraterrestrials (not that this hypothesis would be of any parsimonious value. It would require rather serious evidence).

I understand that I am somewhat being a nitpicker, but, well, there it is.

Other Comments by Andrew Stich

10. Comment #182716 by William Wallace on May 20, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Wow, Richard Dawkins dot net (didn't Richard Dawkins used to work at Berkley) coordinating with the NCSE. Say it isn't so...(and the NC"S"E claims they're not about atheism). LOL.

Other Comments by William Wallace

11. Comment #182717 by William Wallace on May 20, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Andrew,

I agree with you.

Other Comments by William Wallace

12. Comment #182720 by mordacious1 on May 20, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Doesn't matter. No one wants ET taught in the classroom unless there is scientific proof thereof.

I wonder what the next re-write will look like. I'm sure this textbook will reappear soon.

Other Comments by mordacious1

13. Comment #182723 by Mbee on May 20, 2008 at 10:42 pm

Here's that 'Grand Old Designer ' at work again...

Other Comments by Mbee

14. Comment #182724 by scooternyc on May 20, 2008 at 10:42 pm

Eugenie Scott spoke at the AAI 2007, she had one of the more interesting and useful talks and this video is a great compilation of her work and research.

Other Comments by scooternyc

15. Comment #182726 by scooternyc on May 20, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Two things you can always count on:

Those who endorse Intelligent Design, are not

Those who are Liberal, are anything but

Other Comments by scooternyc

16. Comment #182727 by scooternyc on May 20, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Andrew Stich - I believe in the book, 40 Days & 40 Nights, this hypothesis along with others was explored when Ken Miller was on the stand, additionally when Michael Behe was cross examined.

What came of it was the obvious agenda of the ID movement to invoke a "god" like figure, even though ET's and other potential designers were discusses. It ended up making the case look even sillier than it was, even to the extent that, if I recall, Behe believed that astrology was legit science - unbelievable! : ) LOL

Check out the book if you get a chance, Chapman writes it like a movie script and its terribly entertaining.

Other Comments by scooternyc

17. Comment #182729 by b0ltzm0n on May 20, 2008 at 10:50 pm

and the NC"S"E claims they're not about atheism

Well, I would hope they're "pro-science" and anti-non-science (aka creationism aka ID). If the NCSE being anti-non-science makes them "about atheism" to you, then so be it. But that's your correlation, not mine. And it's a telling correlation indeed. Cheers!

Other Comments by b0ltzm0n

18. Comment #182738 by Raiko on May 20, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Andrew Stich, in principle, ID could not be creationism, but all evidence points towards the fact that the term was invented and is usually used in creationist context - to the point where it would be absolutely misleading to use this term for anything, but a religious context. In any case, we should keep on mind that whether or not it is religious doesn't stop it from failing as a theory.


William Wallace, maybe this would be a novel concept to you, but generally people can collaborate if they agree on some aspect, even without having all their views matched by 100%. This website and the NCSE both have an interest in removing unscientific hogwash from schools and exposing ID for what it is. Unlike many religious people, rational ones are not likely to automatically refuse cooperation when agreeing to disagree.

Other Comments by Raiko

19. Comment #182751 by Count von Count on May 20, 2008 at 11:58 pm

William Wallace-

"Richard Dawkins dot net...coordinating with the NCSE. Say it isn't so..."

I have not heard much about the NCSE. Is there a serpent under this innocent looking flower? Do tell.

Other Comments by Count von Count

20. Comment #182843 by Geoff on May 21, 2008 at 3:17 am

Old news to most of us, I guess, but the more ways this gets publicised, the better.
They could have mentioned the wedge document, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Other Comments by Geoff

21. Comment #182926 by Andrew Stich on May 21, 2008 at 6:02 am

scooternyc: Behe is a creationist, but I didn't know he was an astrologist, too! But while Behe and the founders and main proponents and majority of supporters of ID may be creationists, there are those hypothetical few who are not religious and simply believe that we have been intelligently designed by aliens, a few who would have isolated themselves from the main ID movement but whose beliefs would still be called ID. But this form of intelligent design, while slightly better than theistic forms, still is a bad idea, yes. I just wouldn't want to mislabel anyone. Thanks for the book recommendation!

And Raiko, yes, the alien design is a bad theory as well. And I agree that the word(s) ID is a word that has been twisted and turned to have a religious connotation. But what, then, do we name those who believe in intelligent design and not Intelligent Design?

Other Comments by Andrew Stich

22. Comment #182990 by headcold on May 21, 2008 at 7:37 am

She's hot!

Other Comments by headcold

23. Comment #182993 by Jamie Walton on May 21, 2008 at 7:40 am

Wow, I want more videos from Anne Holden please. Who's with me?

c-assholes-ists

Cheers

Jamie Walton

Other Comments by Jamie Walton

24. Comment #183080 by Border Collie on May 21, 2008 at 11:02 am

No matter ... the YEC's will fight evolution forever ... I know, from having been one as a child ... that they're searching for something, anything ... because religious fundamentalism engenders such an abysmally bleak, fearful and constricted life outlook ... the fights and the media attention make them feel alive ... the best thing we can do is simply continue to do good science ... I am truly grateful for Dr. Dawkins, Dr. Dennett, Mr. Hitchens, Mr. Harris and all of you other science and rational guys and gals out there who keep this light flickering in the darkness.

Other Comments by Border Collie

25. Comment #183215 by robotaholic on May 21, 2008 at 2:14 pm

I'm amazed there are people who have weighed the evidence and don't believe in evolution.

Other Comments by robotaholic

26. Comment #183252 by SilentMike on May 21, 2008 at 3:49 pm

cdesign proponentsists

Other Comments by SilentMike

27. Comment #183255 by Lucas on May 21, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Good video. Never hurts to hear more detail and have more ammo.

One thing, though - and I mean no disrespect to anyone here - but I'm getting really sick of the use of the word "IDiots." It annoys me almost as much as "New Atheists" and is equally useless as a descriptor. Really. Sort of clever to begin with, not so much anymore, and it seems to often take the place of saying something substantive. And its a lame insult at that. Anyone with me on this?

Other Comments by Lucas

28. Comment #183256 by SilentMike on May 21, 2008 at 3:58 pm

27. Comment #183255 by Lucas

I've never used "IDiots" as far as I can recall. Never really took to it. I don't think it's quite like "new atheists". "IDiots" is meant as an insult and not as a neutral descriptor.

If people want to insult them, let them have their fun.

Personally I like cdesign proponentsists better.

Other Comments by SilentMike

29. Comment #183263 by cjnkns on May 21, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Smart and cute... nice

Other Comments by cjnkns

30. Comment #183273 by Shrommer on May 21, 2008 at 5:27 pm

"Proving Of Pandas and People is Creationism" is what the title of the thread should read. No serious ID person claims that species appearing intact is a key intelligent design idea, yet the book Of Pandas and People made it THE key definition. Dr. Behe believes in common descent with a very gradual evolution from a single or several few ancestors.

Imagine a textbook that came out and said that "Evolution means that all species went through an algae-covered blender powered by lightning and oil in exactly the year 3,040,678 BCE." I suppose that we would all be fighting a battle to get evolution out of our schools and calling evolution junk science, based on that one book's definition.

Other Comments by Shrommer

31. Comment #183317 by Andrew Stich on May 21, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Yeah, you're right, Lucas.

Other Comments by Andrew Stich

32. Comment #183322 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 9:39 pm

People are catching on. Here is two minutes on the subject by Henry Rollins. It is spot on.
Enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QMFQ22erKI&feature=related

Other Comments by MaxD

33. Comment #183629 by Big City on May 22, 2008 at 11:45 am

I'm with you there, Lucas. I feel like, when people use it, they're just hoping that someone who hasn't seen it before will congratulate them on how clever they are.

Other Comments by Big City

34. Comment #183813 by Inferno on May 22, 2008 at 10:21 pm

cdesign proponentsists

lol, love it! This is how I'm going to refer to ID'ers from now on!

Other Comments by Inferno

35. Comment #184084 by Nephite on May 23, 2008 at 2:38 pm

I've heard it all before. I know it really does a number on Pandas, but where did the rest of these guys come from, like Behe, Dembsky, and Johnson. A little more in-depth discussion on the origins of the ID movement and its relationship to earlier creationist movements might be interesting

Other Comments by Nephite

36. Comment #184161 by Laurie Fraser on May 23, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Lucas: I'm with you. We should call them by the technically correct name: Fuckwits.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser