Quetzal

Umm, leonarde, I have to ask what your point is. I read the famous thread through. It appears to me that someone purporting to be William Dembski posted a cut-and-paste job (as a first-ever post on ARN, btw) of a letter from Dr. Barbara Forrest to another scientist trying to dissuade him from attending an ID-sponsored conference that took place two years ago. The post was (apparently) an attempt to show how "academia" is deliberately stifling ID "scientific inquiry". The only commentary provide by the poster was a short diatribe against "leftist propaganda", and an intimation that the letter proved academics (evidently members of the Vast Evilutionist Conspiracy) are somehow suppressing ID research. There are a few things fishy with the whole setup.

1. It doesn't read like something Dr. Dembski would have written. Although I confess I'm not intimately familiar with him, I have read a fair amount of his writing, and I have strong doubts that he would have made his first-ever post on an internet board supposedly supportive of ID with something like this.

2. The poster didn't bother to substantively address any of the issues brought up in the letter. This is highly unlike Dr. Dembski's other responses to criticism that have been posted on other websites. He is quite a good writer - and never seems to miss an opportunity to respond to critics, especially if it provides another platform for him to forward his views.

3. The poster never responded to any other thread on that page of the ARN forum - including one that called into question Dr. Dembski's motivations and even common sense concerning the recent Baugh-Dembski symposium in Texas.

In conclusion: It is my opinion that the post was made by a creationist troll pretending to be William Dembski, and not Dr. Dembski himself. As such, it doesn't merit even the two pages of limited discussion the post engendered.

So in answer to your question as to whether it is more significant to respond to the evidently spurious ARN thread or to a legitimate question on II from an evolutionist wrestling with the subject of how to respond to a fellow science teacher who espouses creationism - my take is the TA thread is more important.

[Edited to add: Or, now that I think about it, it's more likely to have been an atheist/anti-ID troll. The entire text of the letter, with website links and references, was posted. It's really pretty damning by exposing the political motivations of the ID movement and Dembski and CRSC/DI in particular. It would be extraordinary for Dembski to publish something like this without at least trying to shred it or provide counterpoint. Just like he normally does, come to think...]

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

pangloss

So sayeth the cheering section.

I suppose it all depends on what one's idea of well-educated is.


A BS in computer science (or whatever it is) doesn't seem to me to garner a 'well-educated' accolade when the topics here almost never touch on computer science.

Like Johnson, Dembski, etc., he is just another layman on the issues here.

pangloss

Yeah... I especially like this informative section:

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=14" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=14</a>

I mean, the amount of clear, reasoned discussion there just boggles the mind.

Of course, if one wants to see a legitimate chemist-turned-evangelical-IDCist (RFH) make a fool of himself, one can always read:


<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000030" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000030</a>

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000039" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000039</a>

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000039;p=" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000039;p=</a>


Or, of course, one can always read those fact-filled posts by 'nobody', or 'creationist', or 'bertvan.'

Yes, much higher quality than here.

Or, better yet, one can always read the latest arm-chair psychoanalysis of anyone that doesn't agree with him by 'Mike Gene.'

You are so right, leonard...

So so right....

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: pangloss ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Hey Leonarde, why don't you start a thread on something intellectual here then, and raise the level? Or join in with something substantive? I take it you could post something substantive in this forum...?

TTFN, Oolon

Peez

Why are there only one species of wolverine but a lot of species of bird, insect, mammals, etc. Why only one species of wolverine?

Why are there only one species of bald eagle but a lot of species of bird, insect, mammals, etc. Why only one species of bald eagle?

Why are there only one species of hissing roach but a lot of species of bird, insect, mammals, etc. Why only one species of hissing roach?

Yes, it is a stupid question. Even ignoring that there have been other species that could be called human (and if you restrict "human" to Homo sapiens then you are making only one species of humans by definition), the question is just as silly as those that I have posed above. Humans are mammals, just like wolverines. There are lots of species of mammals, but just one of wolverines and one of humans (and one of red fox and one of moose, and one of blue whale and one of echidna...). To put it simply, there is one species of each species. D'uh. The teacher is apparently being criminally ignorant.

Peez

Oolon Colluphid

Aren't wolverines fabby creatures?!



Amazing what natural selection can carve out of the weasle 'kind', isn't it!

Oolon

Peez

Yup, though I wouldn't want to meet one in a dark alley. Actually, it is amazing how kinds can weasel out of natural selection.

Peez

Principia

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Damned weasel words!

(Note to self: read it before posting, even if it's only a few quick words )

Oolon

leonarde

Posted by Oolon: No, I'm a complete scientific illiterate: I'm one
of the Humo(u)rist clowns of ARN. But I know that
Dembski is far more important a poster than anyone
that has posted here since I've been a member.

Funny thing though: I DID get in on one pretty long thread a while back in the "Existence of Gods" forum. It had to do with the Shroud of Turin
and involved a somewhat cursory perusal of studies
done by forensic pathologists over several decades of the Twentieth Century to determine whether the image on the Shroud was indeed than of a crucified man.

What did all the "scientists" here like Scientiae know about it? Well aside from the fact that ALL of those forensic pathologists were "prejudiced" by their hands-on Shroud experience, it turns out not a whole lot: Koy and Boro Nut and company did ALL the heavy arguing-----or what passes for it here---guess all the "scientists" were busy curing
cancer for a couple weeks. But Scientiae himself
managed to do some "cheer-leading" for Koy: turns
out Koy has some VERY, VERY scientifically weighty
theories:

1) a human body bleeds like a gallon of milk empties its contents: continuously, relentlessly.

2) Jesus died from blood loss which emptied ALL
the blood from his body and completely disproved
the Shroud's authenticity.

3)dead bodies don't bleed (oops that theory was
held by another poster and Koy MAYBE agreed with
him; it's tough to say because Koy's arguments
changed from page to page and sometimes from post
to post).

But Koy's perspicacity was not limited to biological matters alone!!!! Nooooooo!!!

He is an expert, don't you know, on:

1)the personal theology of Joseph of Arimathea.

2)the duties of an archaeologist.

3)the import of koine Greek translations

4)many, many other things (too numerous to mention
for they change from moment to moment).


I was the real stinker on that thread: I actually
checked a forensic pathology text or two. Apparently all of my 30 or so opponents thought this was dirty pool: don't bother us with all that scientific mumbo jumbo (to me, a Humo(u)rist!!!)!!
WE KNOW you're wrong cause, cause, we KNOW you're
wrong!!!! I guess it was II's finest hour.

Perhaps some of you missed the eighteen (18)pages
of the thread since it was overshadowed for SO long by the very last trash-Douglas thread (17 pages and it wasn't all math by a LONG SHOT!!). ARN hasn't had such a trash-Douglas thread since Scientiae got banned under that particular name at ARN. All 4 of his trash-Douglas threads were
closed on March 15th.

As the scientific illiterate that I am, I could
just BARELY understand the scientific need to
denigrate Douglas' intellect, education, and status of mental health for seventeen (17)pages on this forum. Of course that was AFTER the 5 page
trash-Douglas thread was closed.

I guess the OTHER scientists who weren't curing
cancer the last two weeks or so of the Shroud of
Turin thread's run were helping to "shut down the
Baptist MB (yea haaah!)". There are a lot of such
threads in the archives here: didja hear how I got
banned by the Xtian fascists???

So I guess I'll just have to get by in that vastly
inferior ARN forum for the most part: we are so
naive there that when a poster identifies himself
as William Dembski, we think it highly likely that
it is the truth. Funny thing about honesty though:
it grows on you......