RufusAtticus

Pangloss,

If you have a friend who is a lawyer, I suggest that you get him to send a stern letter about this libel. In their stupidity, they have publically accused you of doing something that you didn't do. Don't let them get away with it.

It's funny how they banned you for pointing out that Behe has done no research into ID, yet they allow every nutcase to missrepresent science and the evilutionist consipracy.

~~RvFvS~~

WinAce

Or do what the Stooges did--make up a fake law firm named something like 'Dewey, Fleecem and Howe', use MS Word to design a convincing-looking stationary and avoid the legal fees. God knows the Baptist Board admin probably isn't smart enough to see through it.

RufusAtticus

I wouldn't trust the BB admins to determine the accuracy of any scientific claim.

Notice how they neglected to provide any references to papers in which Behe provides evidence for ID.

If they had any scholasic integrety, they would have atleast gone to <a href="http://www4.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi" target="_blank">Entrez-Pubmed</a> and checked Behe's scientific publication history.

I suggest everyone who reads this thread, including you BaptistBoard admins, follow the above link and put "Behe MJ" into the search window to pull up his papers. There is not a single paper dealing with IC or ID. (Although, there is a letter that appeared in Science as a response to the review of his book, I think. It's been a while.)

Needless to say, BaptistBoard's "evidence" against Dr. Page is hardy compelling and only an excuse to get rid of him and further insulate the creationists from real science.

~~RvFvS~~

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

One of the last sane

<a href="http://www.ratbags.com/legal" target="_blank">Use these guys</a>

pangloss

Thanks, Rufus.

In an email to the administrators - sent to me apparently while they were in the process of concoting their libel - I in fact sent them a complete list of Behe's scientific publications and asked them which ones dealt with the things he claims provide evidence for ID.

Strangely, I have not heard from them all day.

Also of interest, I noticed a pattern of odd censorship issues with hem, that makes me suspect that certain individuals are working behind the scenes. I think it is pretty obvious that they have been wanting to get rid of me for some time, and decided to break the law - and bear false witness - in an attempt to placate these individuals and/or prop up their scientific shallowness and their flimsy faith.

RufusAtticus

I noticed the same thing, when I was still posting. It seems to me that responses to certain indivuduals (like Helen) get screened more heavily than others. They also are unwilling to defend their actions or appologize when they are mistaken. Another problem is that they have multiple people acting as filters, some might be active on the Board and thus have a conflict of interest. Thus their quality varies widely. Furthermore, this arrangement also makes it unlikely that the admin who reads any response to editorial actions is also the one who originally did it. From what I have been able to gather, BB admins are not likely to tell other admins that they have wronged a poster, specifically a non-Baptist or evolutionist.

~~RvFvS~~
P.S. This is probably a losing battle since one of the BB "science" admins told me that the E/C board wasn't about science, but a place where people can "freely" exchange ideas. What a crock!

RufusAtticus

Another thing to add:

I don't understand why the BB admins are in such a rush to defend Behe. Afterall, he's a dirty catholic and not a True Christian (TM). They wouldn't even let him on the board if he wanted to join.

I guess they're just trying to use the lesser of the two "evils" to defeat the greater one.

**Sigh** Is just a little consistancy too much to ask for?

~~RvFvS~~

NeilUnreal

As an umpteenth-generation Baptist I can vouch for this. What can I say? It's just one of our quirks... like some kind of strange family, we actually find hard-headedness endearing in one another. My advice to non-Baptists is not to take it too seriously.

It's a wonder more Baptists aren't evolutionists, since some of our congregations seemed to have developed a meme for reproduction by binary division!

-Neil, Mutant Baptist

p.s. Of course, legal libel is inexcusable -- but only pangloss and his attorney are equipped to make that decision.

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: NeilUnreal ]</p>

pseudobug

I'm sorry Mr. Darwin, but I must disagree with you on this point.

If one has not presented their "evidence" to the scientific community, it is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent.

I have read many of Behe's peer reviewed research papers. They have ZERO to do with ID. His ID "defense" is simply handwaving as Scott claims above (and I know you don't disagree).

I know one of Behe's and other IDiots complaints is that they cannot get published in mainstream journals. That is a BS excuse. They cannot get published because their work/ideas do not withstand scrutiny and because it is founded upon untestable (maybe non-existent is better) hypotheses. If they WEREable to come up with something that could pass muster, they have a large enough audience that it would be accepted were it to provide either a.)reproducible methodology and results, or b.) were founded upon reasoning consonant with current historial and theoretical understanding of the applicable fields.

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

Albion

Do the mods over there get in such a froth about protecting the scientific integrity of researchers like Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge when creationists start lying about their work or quoting them out of context to make it appear that they don't believe their own research?