Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Valentine Pontifex · 04-07-2002, 08:34 PM

I recently posted a bit about the DI doing more quote mining. Well the NCSE nailed them even worse for making false and contradictory claims:

<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2002/OH/60_crsc_claims_intelligent_design_4_7_2002.asp" target="_blank">CRSC Claims Intelligent Design Scientists Author Bibliography Papers</a>

They simply can't seem to keep their story straight. Oh what tangled webs we weave when we first practice to deceive.

pseudobug · 04-08-2002, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LordValentine:


They simply can't seem to keep their story straight. Oh what tangled webs we weave when we first practice to deceive.

If you truly want to see some ID bobbing, weaving and lying, check out <a href="http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSCstories&command=view&id=113 3" target="_blank">this link</a> that was contained in the NCSE link you posted.

The ID'ers are living in some fairytale land of their own making.

Douglas J. Bender · 04-08-2002, 05:33 AM

LordValentine,

Here's a quote from the link you gave:

Quote:

Now, if you're starting to wonder whether the intended purpose of the bibliography is to support intelligent design, or demonstrate "problems with evolution", you're going to be even more confused if you read the article the CRSC posted on its web site, again dated March 11th, by Fred Hutchison.

Hutchison writes that "[Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells] offered to the board a list of forty papers (sic) written by intelligent design scientists which had been published in peer reviewed journals." [emphasis added]
See Design and Evolution at the CRSC web site.

Whoooopeee. All that shows is that Fred Hutchison was unclear about the bibliography - perhaps he never even looked at the bibliography. The quote from Hutchison is taken from an article he wrote which is devoted to addressing the general "flow" of the debate, not to addressing "technical matters". Hutchison's article was concerned with "debating techniques and 'points'", primarily, as though he was analyzing a high school or college debate. If that is the strongest "evidence" the NCSE can come up with, they're "straining at gnats".

In Christ,

Douglas

Quetzal · 04-08-2002, 05:58 AM

Let me make it easy for you Douglas. <a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp" target="_blank"> Here</a> is a link to the full text of NCSE's point-by-point analysis of the famous "bibliography". It seems to be just more creationist quote mining and deliberately misleading citations. Now, if you want to prove ID, all you need to do is show the hard evidence and scientific papers they are basing their utter pseudoscience on. The entire "bibliography" is nothing more than political shenanigans and intellectual dishonesty in action. Just what is expected from your pals at the Discovery Institute.

Once more, creationists would rather confuse the public than examine countervailing claims on their individual merits. Once more you would personally rather obfuscate an issue with your own silly "debating techniques and 'points'".

You want an honest debate? Try going back over the posts in this forum (since about last January at least) and defending some of your own pseudo-intellectual assertions with real evidence instead of sophmoric handwaving.

pseudobug · 04-08-2002, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Douglas J. Bender:
LordValentine,

If that is the strongest "evidence" the NCSE can come up with, they're "straining at gnats".

Douglas, evidently you have a problem with reading comprehension. While what you say is true in that Hutchson ill-written and tortuous apologetics re: the debate was primarily an analysis of the debate's outcome (from his twisted perspective); a substantial portion focused on the lack of literature in the peer-reviewed journals for ID. In Hutchinson's "apologetic", he says that they (the 4o papers) are from and by intelligent design scientists.

The point of the NCSE article is that the ID'ers at CSRC are so f---ed up that the left hand doesn't even know what the right hand is doing. Why do I say that? Because of the "disclaimer" noted by NCSE in Lord Valentines post and its direct disagreement with Hutchinson's apologetic.

I won't even go into details regarding the lame bit in Hutchinson's article regarding Newton and Galileo. There were not many journals--if any--being published in their day. Furthermore, Hutchinson was dead wrong about Darwin first notifying the scientific world of his findings in book form. Darwin and Wallace c0-presented a paper outlining evolution theory to the Royal Society prior to the publication of "origin of Species".

Furthermore, Hutchinson alludes to an outright lie later on in his pitiful "apologetic". That lie is that "...mutation in genes---is the greatest weakness in evolution theory". In saying that, Hutchinson demonstrates his total and outright ignorance of the subject of molecular genetics. The advances in molecular biology have done nothing but further strengthen the case of evolution by giving Darwin's theory a mechanisms of mutation, heritability and increase in "information" and "complexity" that the bungling idiots at CRSC and Creationists in generally deny the existence of. Moreover, comparative molecular gentics directly demonstrates the common descent and divergence of species predicted by Darwin.

In short, Douglas, you know not of what you speak.

Seth K · 04-08-2002, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pseudobug:


If you truly want to see some ID bobbing, weaving and lying, check out <a href="http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSCstories&command=view&id=113 3" target="_blank">this link</a> that was contained in the NCSE link you posted.

The ID'ers are living in some fairytale land of their own making.

GAAKKKK! The is one egregous example of post-debate spin. Don't care about how your side really did, just proclaim a resounding victory regardless. Here's an example of perverication:

Quote:

The [DI] team deftly responded that Darwin submitted all his new ideas through self-published books which were written entertainingly in laymen?s language. He did this in spite of the fact that there were academic journals he could have published in.

Darwin published extensively in academic journals on numerous subjects. His theory of evolution through natural selection was presented as a paper to the Linnean Society and published in that society's journal one year before the publication of The Origin of Species. I also gravely doubt that the layman was the intended audience for the book. Darwin was laying out a large and complex case, and answering objections from other scientists conserning the theory.

hezekiah jones · 04-08-2002, 12:04 PM

Ha! - the DI has just added the following "disclaimer":

Quote:

Editor's note: This is a personal report from a writer who attended the hearing before the Ohio State Board of Education on March 11, 2002, and is not the Discovery Institute description of the event. It contains at least one error. The author writes: "The positive team offered to the board a list of forty papers written by intelligent design scientists which had been published in peer reviewed journals." This is incorrect. This bibliography, as Steve Meyer described it in an opinion column for the Cincinnati Inquirer, referred to articles that "raise significant challenges to key tenets of Darwinian evolution."

What a bunch of weasels.

hezekiah jones · 04-08-2002, 12:13 PM

This is roughly on par with a "retraction" a friend and I wrote when we were editing our college paper. We had run a culinary review of one of the college's eateries, and had referred to a bacon omelette "that would gag a coroner."

Needless to say we received several angry letters and a personal visit from a couple of the chefs, who claimed that they didn't even make bacon omelettes.

So naturally our "retraction" repeated the "gag a coroner" line and apologized instead for misidentifying the dish as a bacon omelette.

Seth K · 04-08-2002, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
Ha! - the DI has just added the following "disclaimer":

What a bunch of weasels.

Interesting. It wasn't there less than hour ago when I visited the page.

pseudobug · 04-08-2002, 12:21 PM

The DI is filled with a bunch of incompetent boobs, IMO.

Check out their disclaimer to Hutchinson's fabrication...er, essay:

Quote:

"This bibliography, as Steve Meyer described it in an opinion column for the Cincinnati Inquirer, referred to articles that "raise significant challenges to key tenets of Darwinian evolution."

.

The very same batch of articles that was "presented" at the meeting in March and was shown to be a misrepresentation of the work according to NCSE's survey of a majority of very people that wrote the erroneously labeled "significant challenges to key tenets of Darwinian evolution."

Unbelielavable. Now the DI weinies are even resorting to putting erroneous crap in their "cover your ass" statements.

What a bunch of disingenuous tools. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]

04-07-2002, 08:34 PM	#1
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	NCSE Nails DI Even Worse This Time I recently posted a bit about the DI doing more quote mining. Well the NCSE nailed them even worse for making false and contradictory claims: <a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2002/OH/60_crsc_claims_intelligent_design_4_7_2002.asp" target="_blank">CRSC Claims Intelligent Design Scientists Author Bibliography Papers</a> They simply can't seem to keep their story straight. Oh what tangled webs we weave when we first practice to deceive.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2002, 05:58 AM	#4
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Let me make it easy for you Douglas. <a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp" target="_blank"> Here</a> is a link to the full text of NCSE's point-by-point analysis of the famous "bibliography". It seems to be just more creationist quote mining and deliberately misleading citations. Now, if you want to prove ID, all you need to do is show the hard evidence and scientific papers they are basing their utter pseudoscience on. The entire "bibliography" is nothing more than political shenanigans and intellectual dishonesty in action. Just what is expected from your pals at the Discovery Institute. Once more, creationists would rather confuse the public than examine countervailing claims on their individual merits. Once more you would personally rather obfuscate an issue with your own silly "debating techniques and 'points'". You want an honest debate? Try going back over the posts in this forum (since about last January at least) and defending some of your own pseudo-intellectual assertions with real evidence instead of sophmoric handwaving.

04-08-2002, 12:13 PM	#8
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	This is roughly on par with a "retraction" a friend and I wrote when we were editing our college paper. We had run a culinary review of one of the college's eateries, and had referred to a bacon omelette "that would gag a coroner." Needless to say we received several angry letters and a personal visit from a couple of the chefs, who claimed that they didn't even make bacon omelettes. So naturally our "retraction" repeated the "gag a coroner" line and apologized instead for misidentifying the dish as a bacon omelette.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.