Page 1 of 2

Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:40 am
by Dardedar
Passed along from Randall Fleck:

*******
Rogers group is trying to get the word out on this... It may be newsworthy enough to merit a media comment from us.
------------------------------
Randall "Doc" Fleck
Fayetteville, AR

Announcing a new Meetup for The NW Arkansas Atheists Meetup Group!

What: The Positive Scientific Case for Intelligent Design (and more)

When: Thursday, February 11, 2010 5:00 PM

Where:
Union Theatre
536 North Leverett Avenue
Fayetteville, AR 72701

From: http://www.discovery.org/e/1651

Ben Stein's Expelled Screening for Academic Freedom Day

At 5pm, there will be a showing of Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

Q & A about the movie with Casey Luskin, Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs at the Discovery Institute, will follow.

"The Positive Scientific Case for Intelligent Design and Why it’s being Expelled from Academia," by Casey Luskin, Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs at the Discovery Institute.

For anyone who thinks for themselves, this show will be like going to the circus. Ben Stein's movie has been debunked by skeptics since it came out, but still the religionists want to believe every work Stein mutters. Check out http://www.expelledexposed.com/ for details (and notice none of the people interviewed in the movie were actually fired for the reasons Stein states).

There are carpool discussions and we might check out a CAT camera and do interviews (see Bruce for details).

Learn more here:

http://www.meetup.com/FreethoughtNWA-Ro ... /12570596/

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A TODAY

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:08 pm
by kwlyon
I will go If I can come in AFTER the showing of expelled...that movie is hella-awful. I don't think I can handle sitting through it again. I am, however, rather familiar with Luskin. He is the most blatant of liars and a very real possibility to succeed VFX for the title of "poster boy for creationist stupidity". Here...I will post a luskin link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nL0T_yS ... re=related

This REALLY pissed me off. And if you have ever heard him speak, he is your typical intentionally obtuse creationist fucktard.

Sincerely, Your lord and Savior,

Kevin

(I get accused of being arrogant allot by people like Luskin no matter how polite I have tried to be in the past. (censored for Luskin)**&*(&(&....I might as well go all out)

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A TODAY

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:27 pm
by kwlyon
I will see if I can't draft up a few nice questions for Mr. Luskin... along the lines of how he can be against censorship when he personally filed illegitimate DMCA's on behalf of the discovery institute claiming ownership of material they have no right to that fell well within fair use anyways. It does not help, to say the least, that discovery institute is staffed almost entirely with LAWYERS, as in people with law degrees who are recognized by the bar association...they understand the DMCA.

We should get a list of well thought out questions on this thread so anyone who goes that gets the chance can be prepared. This guy deserves the PWNAGE...just keep in mind the audience will not be on your side. Only the idiots will come out for a showing of that horrible film.

Your lord and savior,

Kevin

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:34 pm
by Savonarola
Darrel, you should probably send this out as an email to those freethinkers associated with the university, particularly professors or emeritus professors, plus one or two others that I bet both of us are thinking of now...

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A TODAY

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:29 pm
by Dardedar
kwlyon wrote:just keep in mind the audience will not be on your side.
DAR
Well I don't know about that. This doesn't seem to be advertised very well. We usually end up out numbering the fundies.

Doug and I had dinner with Dr. Bill tonight to talk about what to do. We all plan to try and make it after work. It would be nice to have a handout I suppose but it might not be the venue for it. One can always just tell everyone to go to:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

That's the mother load of roast.

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A TODAY

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:08 pm
by kwlyon
Darrel wrote: Doug and I had dinner with Dr. Bill tonight to talk about what to do.
Yeah, I heard your waitress was smokin' hot! I will try to make it for the lecture at 7 if I can justify the time at that point.

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:57 am
by kwlyon
Well this event was rather uneventful. I must say I am reevaluating my position on Luskin. He is definitely on the wrong end of a very important issue and certainly there was a lot of misinformation in his talk which progressed at near light speed. However he does not seem to be the ass-clown I believed him to be. I am reserving judgment until I can look into his responses to my questions after his talk. Perhaps I have judged his character prematurely. I think Luskin might be sincerely misinformed and not one of the intentionally deceptive asspelunkers that are so often at the lead of the ID/creationism (they are the same damn thing) movement.

At the Q/A I pitched Luskin a couple softballs that I knew he could hit but I did want to hear his answers as I felt they would be quite telling. I was quite impressed by his answers, I must admit. After pointing out that I do, in fact, disagree with Judge Jones's reasoning behind his decision, and felt that his extensive written opinion was a tad uncalled for, as the question of wether or not creationism is science is a moot point, it has simply not proven itself in the academic arena and thus does not get to be included in grade-school curriculum, I asked Luskin why the discovery institute did not take a more active role in the Dover trial and why several members withdrew as witnesses at the last minute.

I really must give him credit here. I thought his answer was exceedingly fair. He stated that many at the discovery institute saw this trial as a sinking ship as the plaintiffs were CLEARLY in the wrong. Thus most of them choose to distance themselves from this trial. I feel this was a very fair point and I am glad that some at the discovery institute are astute enough to recognize a loosing fight when they see one. He only vaguely addressed my assertion that ID/creationism has not proven itself and gained a consensus worthy of it being added to the curriculum. At the time I barely noticed as he had a tendency to be long winded. We spoke after the talk more extensively on this issue and he seemed to be quite wishy washy regarding it....he went from agreeing with me that it should NOT be taught to agreeing to disagree...I kinda lost track of where he stood on this issue...I think he was lawyer snowing me here to be honest.

His next answer I was less impressed with, but in general I will give him some credit if it turns out he was being honest with me. For the time being I will assume he was being honest. I asked if it was true that he, acting on behalf of the discovery institute, filed a DMCA takedown notice against the video criticizing his fox interview. He claims that he did not file that complaint however admits that someone at the discovery institute did. It was very clear he wanted to distance himself from this occurrence and he did state that he does not condone such censorship. I would like to point out, however, that he remains a spokesman for an institute that apparently does condone and take part in such actions. He would not speak further on this as the individual against whom the copy right violation claim was filled is apparently threatening legal action. I am generally very anti-litigious however in this case I hope the fella does sue...and he should win. This behavior is unacceptable.

Now for the more critical points. The talk was not very well delivered. He FLEW through the material so fast I could not write notes half the time. There was actually very little content in his talk. I don't think he really made a very compelling argument for why ID should be taught or even given a serious looking into. His talk was supposedly about how ID has been censored out of higher education however he really did not address this to any degree. There were no examples given. He simply stated that, despite the fact that many contest that the scientist named in the expelled documentary actually suffered damage to their careers over their ID advocation, that they really and truthfully were the victim of persecution...and then he handed us a web sight that supposedly harbors information debunking the expelled-exposed sight. I have actually seen this sight..I don't recall anything remarkable about it. But the point is moot...these people are ALL still gainfully employed in their field. Most without any reasonable level of punitive measurements. I think the real point of contention is that Luskin does not believe they deserve the "ridicule" they received. I contend that using one's position as editor of a journal to sneak a paper around peer review deserves rather serious action--the individual in question got off scott free. And yes...if your beliefs regarding your field fly in the face of the strong and well established consensus...you best be ready for a battle before you will be taken seriously. As I told Luskin, there is not crying in baseball...or science...they need to grow a pair.

We had a rather interesting talk about appropriate material for grade school curriculums and why I must assert that one should never aim to teach the controversy but rather stick to well established basic principals that hold a high degree of consensus among experts in the appropriate field. This was where he did get rather wishy washy lawyer on me. I think he may have been so non-committal because he ultimately was in disagreement with me however he was afraid of offending me--or perhaps it was just the lawyer in him. But whatever the case at first he said that he agreed that ID should not be in the curriculum until it has proven itself...but then latter he disagreed and once again stated that he believed that students should be "taught the controversy"....I was really quite confused as to what, exactly, his position was at certain points. I think he was saying that ID should be kept out of the schools for the time being as it tends to be overly politicized...but then.... politics are seemingly all they got.

The only thing that does make me question his sincerity ever so slightly was just the incredulity of it all. If he is, in fact, being forthcoming about his beliefs, then why create such an issue of evolutionary theory. Apparently Luskin is not a young earther...he accepts the age of the earth as generally agreed upon by the scientific community. So.....what's the dealio yo? In the end, I must confess, my honest impression of Luskin having spoken with him at some length, is that he is sincere. I believe that he honestly does believe that there is big pressure to sensor ID out of academia. I just don't think he made a very compelling case for it at all. I have seen LOTS of incidents of creationist censoring their opposition...I just have not seen any to suggest that the academic community has returned the favor. I think he is just seeing what he wants to see and frankly his perceptions are quite skewed to say the least. But I am not yet ready to put him in the same class as Kent Hovind. I can not stress enough, however, that he is dead wrong about one thing...Again it does not matter in the least wether or not ID is science (and it is not). ID HAS NO MORE A PLACE IN THE GRADE SCHOOL CURRICULUM THAN DOES STRING THEORY! They both have the right to fight for a paradigm shift.

Your Lord and Savior,

Kevin

--Oh...and where the hell were all the biologist? There was soooo much bad science and misinformation in his talk I was really expecting to see quite a few people address during Q/A. Perhaps they all felt it was not worth their time...or perhaps they just were unaware of the talk....I mean I would not have known about it if it were not for this forum.

--Also, would you think anyone would be interesting in a talk on this subject during a meeting?

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:19 pm
by Doug
kwlyon wrote: However he does not seem to be the ass-clown I believed him to be.
DOUG
Not a clown. Just a methodical liar. He LIED about so many things it was quite clear that he has no interest in letting people know the truth and making up their own minds. It is not just that he made errors. He knew better in many cases, and I could tell this by the way he framed some of his lies, such as his distancing himself from the movie and his misrepresentation of the Dover decision and the panda book.
I was quite impressed by his answers, I must admit. After pointing out that I do, in fact, disagree with Judge Jones's reasoning behind his decision, and felt that his extensive written opinion was a tad uncalled for, as the question of wether or not creationism is science is a moot point, it has simply not proven itself in the academic arena and thus does not get to be included in grade-school curriculum, I asked Luskin why the discovery institute did not take a more active role in the Dover trial and why several members withdrew as witnesses at the last minute.
DOUG
Well, Luskin didn't give the right details about how the judge concluded that I.D./creationism is not science. The judge used very specific criteria. Luskin also did not let on that the panda book was a creationism book that was hastily re-done to make it look like an I.D. book, and how this was discovered.
I really must give him credit here. I thought his answer was exceedingly fair. He stated that many at the discovery institute saw this trial as a sinking ship as the plaintiffs were CLEARLY in the wrong. Thus most of them choose to distance themselves from this trial. I feel this was a very fair point and I am glad that some at the discovery institute are astute enough to recognize a loosing fight when they see one.
DOUG
They distanced themselves from the trial because they knew they would lose. I don't think Luskin was fair at all. Funny how he stated that he didn't want to re-try the case, and yet he spent at least 40 minutes explaining how the judge was allegedly wrong and biased. He also didn't mention that the judge was angry with the Dover creationists for constantly lying about many of the details regarding how the panda book got to the school library.
I have actually seen this sight.. I don't recall anything remarkable about it. But the point is moot...these people are ALL still gainfully employed in their field. Most without any reasonable level of punitive measurements.
DOUG
AND, the claim that they were fired for believing in creationism is questionable. As the movie noted, in at least one case someone's contract was up and the person was not given another contract. That is hardly what one would call being "fired." He would have been fired if he had not been allowed to finish his contract.

The movie was very dishonest, as we've noted many times here on this board.

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:43 am
by kwlyon
Doug wrote: DOUG
Not a clown. Just a methodical liar. He LIED about so many things it was quite clear that he has no interest in letting people know the truth and making up their own minds. It is not just that he made errors. He knew better in many cases, and I could tell this by the way he framed some of his lies, such as his distancing himself from the movie and his misrepresentation of the Dover decision and the panda book.
I think you are likely right. You have been dealing with people like this MUCH longer than I have and I would guess you likely have better honed judgment in these matters. None the less...I will have to assume for the time being he is mostly just incredibly misinformed and lacks any insight into the nature of science. Yes...he certainly started "preaching" when he got to the dover trial. We had a very extensive discussion about this after the talk. Ultimately he seems to be in disagreement with my assertion that we must only teach basic, well established scientific principles in grade school. I really don't think he has put much thought into the consequences of allowing the "controversy" to be taught. I was also forced to concede that it is not possible to convince him of what seems so evident to me...there simply is no controversy among professionals in the field of evolutionary biology regarding the reality of common decent. If he IS being intentionally deceptive, then luckily I don't think he will prove to be a very effective liar...he simply qualifies his position far too much...to the extent that often it is hard to know what he is arguing for. However I played the nice guy...and it earned me an audience with Luskin and several students after the talk....the students were much more receptive to these points.

There was, however, one philosophy of science major that....I think was trying to convince me that there is horizontal gene flow in mammals....I have never heard of such a thing...but then I couldn't really understand him. I think he was intentionally using big scary biology words (quite possibly incorrectly for all I know) to basically call me stupid without saying as much. I guess he was right to question my astuteness because I was actually trying to have a conversation with him...and then he just walked off while I was still talking to him. I was quite taken aback! Maybe my ignorance bored him?
Doug wrote:DOUG
Well, Luskin didn't give the right details about how the judge concluded that I.D./creationism is not science. The judge used very specific criteria. Luskin also did not let on that the panda book was a creationism book that was hastily re-done to make it look like an I.D. book, and how this was discovered.
Again, I simply find this argument TOTALLY beside the point. Judge Jones's decision was right, in the since that the dover case was an instance of individuals in authority within the school trying to push a religious agenda on the student body. However the issue with ID being taught in schools is not that it is religious in nature...it is...but this is a moot point. There is nothing wrong with the concept of an intelligent agent creating the universe being taught in science...but it must first be exceedingly well verified and earn an overwhelming scientific consensus of experts in the field. I'm not holding my breath.
Doug wrote: They distanced themselves from the trial because they knew they would lose. I don't think Luskin was fair at all. Funny how he stated that he didn't want to re-try the case, and yet he spent at least 40 minutes explaining how the judge was allegedly wrong and biased. He also didn't mention that the judge was angry with the Dover creationists for constantly lying about many of the details regarding how the panda book got to the school library.
Yes, I think that he did express that they distanced themselves from the case because they knew they would loose as the individuals involved were in a rather bad spot due to their behavior/activities. He certainly was not a fan of Jones...and he certainly seemed to loose his cool there for a while. I found it interesting that he did not take issue with WHY I feel Jones's opinion was in the wrong. But then I suspect that my objections to his opinion are more due to my perspective as a scientist/educator. Reading his opinion, I get the feeling that he only internalized the evident fact that ID and creationism are one and the same...thus, due to previous decisions on the matter, ID/creationism cannot be taught at dover or elsewhere. I just keep coming back to the fact that I feel this is wrong. If they can demonstrate their intelligent agent and gain a consensus in the peer reviewed arena...I think they have every right to have their theories added to the curriculum...but they don't get to cheat and sneak around the process of gaining consensus... because that would be unfair!

Your Lord and Savior,

Kevin

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:41 am
by Dardedar
kwlyon wrote:If they [ID'ers] can demonstrate their intelligent agent and gain a consensus in the peer reviewed arena...I think they have every right to have their theories added to the curriculum...
DAR
And the creationists can too. And other than frill on the dress (and the sheep skin coat), the difference between them again is...?

Kevin, did you see the Plavacan (local anthropology professor) presentation we had a few years ago on ID? It's really good and we have a DVD of it. I can give you a copy.

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:20 pm
by juju
I'd like a copy of that, too actually.

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:46 pm
by Doug
kwlyon wrote:There was, however, one philosophy of science major that....I think was trying to convince me that there is horizontal gene flow in mammals....I have never heard of such a thing...but then I couldn't really understand him. I think he was intentionally using big scary biology words (quite possibly incorrectly for all I know) to basically call me stupid without saying as much. I guess he was right to question my astuteness because I was actually trying to have a conversation with him...and then he just walked off while I was still talking to him. I was quite taken aback! Maybe my ignorance bored him?
That's their tactic, to throw in big words to make it appear that they are being scientific when in fact they are not.

If they had anything of note, biologists would see this all over the professional biology journals.
Doug wrote:DOUG
Well, Luskin didn't give the right details about how the judge concluded that I.D./creationism is not science. The judge used very specific criteria. Luskin also did not let on that the panda book was a creationism book that was hastily re-done to make it look like an I.D. book, and how this was discovered.
kwlyon wrote:Again, I simply find this argument TOTALLY beside the point.
DOUG
It's another example of how Luskin lied. He said that the Dover people were in the wrong, but he misrepresented what they did wrong. He stated that they should get I.D. in the classroom via scientific credibility, not through the courts.

As if the Discovery Institute is opposed to using court cases to further their cause...
kwlyon wrote:Reading his opinion, I get the feeling that he [Judge Jones] only internalized the evident fact that ID and creationism are one and the same...thus, due to previous decisions on the matter, ID/creationism cannot be taught at dover or elsewhere. I just keep coming back to the fact that I feel this is wrong.
DOUG
The judge spelled out specific criteria for whether something should be considered a religious view or a scientific theory, and then applied that criteria to I.D. This included an examination of the history of the I.D. movement, and the intent of its proponents. The judge noted, for example, that "Dembski [one of the I.D. proponents] has written that ID is a 'ground clearing operation' to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and 'Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion.'" [pg. 27 of the judge's decision] Does that sound like they're trying to get science into the classroom or religion? And it got worse for the creationists/I.D. proponents.

The I.D. people were given plenty of time to marshal their resources to make a case for I.D. being science, and they failed miserably. The judge also explained, based on evidence presented in the court, how know that the intelligent design movement is nothing but another form of creationism. Recall how the guy at the U. of A. pretended that I.D. is not creationism.

Read the judges' decision here.

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:52 pm
by kwlyon
Darrel wrote:
kwlyon wrote:If they [ID'ers] can demonstrate their intelligent agent and gain a consensus in the peer reviewed arena...I think they have every right to have their theories added to the curriculum...
DAR
And the creationists can too. And other than frill on the dress (and the sheep skin coat), the difference between them again is...?

Kevin, did you see the Plavacan (local anthropology professor) presentation we had a few years ago on ID? It's really good and we have a DVD of it. I can give you a copy.
I would love a copy of that. No I haven't seen it. And ID is not Creationism in a sheep skin coat...it is creationism with it's dork hanging out for all the world to see.

Doug,

I will respond to you in just a bit. I promise. However I generally think I am beginning to agree with your perspective of Luskin. I want to drop him an email and see if he will weigh in here. If he responds I will post the email. As for Jones, I have read the opinion. In general I am certainly in agreement with it's sentiment... however my concern is that it has been used by the Discovery Institute and others to scream on about government thought policing. And, oddly enough, on some level I think they are right but for the wrong reasons. Jones just happens to be right in his opinion when he asserts that Creationism and ID satisfy the same boundary conditions... (Electrostatics joke...i.e. they are the same damn thing at least for all practical purposes) However if Jones had come to the opposite conclusion, I think his "opinion" could have done quite a lot of harm. This is one reason I have maintained that, as the creationist so often say, the courts should not rule on matters of science. The creationist just seem to be a little confused about what DOES determine the merit of an idea within the scientific community. They do seem to be operating under the very odd presumption that all ideas/opinions are inherently equal in value.

I am beginning to shift my position on this to some degree. You have made me think on this quite a bit more. The above has been my position and I still believe it has merit, however, it is neglecting to take into account the fact that it is the CREATIONIST pushing these matters into the court system in the first place. If they would just play ball like every other scientist and earn their respect in the scientific community the honorable way none of this would be an issue. But then, to be fair, I believe they have tried this and it bared no fruit. So I guess in an act of desperation they have turned to bullying...and of course transference (claiming to be bullied while beating us over the head). I'm going to have to think on this a good deal more. But for now I must get back to work! I did not intend on replying just yet...and here I went and replied!

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:37 pm
by Dardedar
KEVIN
"...generally think I am beginning to agree with your perspective of Luskin.
DAR
Kevin, I'll be blunt. Luskin is a TOOL. I can say this without even having gone to the event. For the love of Christ, the man followed a presentation of "Expelled." They didn't play it by accident, this piece of theatrical shit was played on purpose. One of the most dishonest pieces of hackwork and lies put together in modern times. The man may even be sincere. Jim Jones, Timothy McVeigh, Limbaugh, hell let's parody them and go whole hog, Hitler... they may have all been sincere. Who cares? All tools!

The man is peddling this movie and his slightly modified recipe of creationist horseshit. He's a lawyer, he's not stupid, he is without excuse. You say: "I think Luskin might be sincerely misinformed...". I think there comes a point where it doesn't even matter if he believes his own crap. Who cares!? In the end, it's still crap. And it's not like he's not sitting at home minding his own business. He is on the road peddling this horrible, idiotic and dishonest movie while trying to mislead the kiddies with his dishonest, no questions until the end, slide show. He's an intellectual disgrace. The Discovery Institute and it's ID message is organized, carefully crafted, dishonesty. The Plavacan presentation we have makes this clear as day.

I'll get you a copy of the DVD. I should be able to scratch up some copies by the next meeting. Hope to see you there.

D.

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:32 pm
by kwlyon
Well said. However If he is, as I certainly suspect somewhere deep down in the cockles of my rectum, a manipulative squirmy little shitbiscuit...It is still good for some of us to respond to him, in addition to rationally, with respect. Again, I was not after luskin...I was after the spectators. And my exchange with him earned me an audience of students who I feel sure left far more skeptical of the existence of a "controversy" than they otherwise may have. It allowed me the opportunity to reinforce that which should be plainly obvious... scientist are not idiots...and they are not silenced so easily. So apart from a MASSIVE conspiracy, which luskin claims not to accept, how do you explain the massive consensus among biologist in the field? Well...Luskin simply asserts that there is no consensus. And I assert that smurfs have purple peckers.

As for Luskin... everyone deserves a chance to defend their position. I will extend him that opportunity. It is quite possible, though I wager unlikely, he may not be guilty of several things I have accused him of...but the organization he supports is. I am going to let him dig his hole and treat him with firm kindness. Perhaps one day he will wake up....most don't....some do. Now don't let us all be so kind and soft hearted. I am not here speaking on behalf of intellectual pacifism. I need a Doug and a Darrel out there doing some intellectual bitchsmackin'....just please stop short of tearing these guys a new asshole. God forbid they have yet another orifice from which to spew their bile.

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:55 pm
by Dardedar
Well now you are speaking of tactics of engagement. I agree. Doug and I talk tough but we are usually pretty good at walking the line and keeping extended interactions going on indefinitely , while at the same time keeping the burners on full blast. It is a real skill. Not sure how much is talent or practice. Somehow I do tend to be able to get away with absolute bloody murder in this category. Been doing it a very very long time. Thirty years ago I remember my sister remarking how I could get away with saying things about the Jehovah's Witnesses (while roasting them) that would have gotten her whipped.

You say we should treat him with respect but I think only as much is necessary to keep him going and let me make the points I want to make (his movie is poo and his ID hypothesis is vapid). Anyway, I should have went to this Luskin thing but had an appointment/commitment. I would have sat on the front row and made a face every time he lied. How can I be nice to the spirit of the anti-Christ?

Everyone gets a free DVD.

D.
----------------
"You say 'You're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists ...' - nonsense! I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the anti-Christ!" [Pat Robertson]

Bonus: "Advice from a (real) physicist ---When you're at a dinner party and you hear any 3 of the following words:

quantum
reality
consciousness
mind
Kant

Run, run away as fast as you can to a costume store and buy a clown mask. Put it on, then return to the party and resume the conversation."

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:10 am
by Doug
Darrel wrote:Well now you are speaking of tactics of engagement. I agree. Doug and I talk tough but we are usually pretty good at walking the line and keeping extended interactions going on indefinitely , while at the same time keeping the burners on full blast. It is a real skill. Not sure how much is talent or practice. Somehow I do tend to be able to get away with absolute bloody murder in this category. Been doing it a very very long time.
DOUG
Yes, we do a great job of being firm but friendly. Unless the other person gets ugly. Then we are more firm and less friendly.

Kwylon wrote:
just please stop short of tearing these guys a new asshole.
DOUG
Some people are so full of shit that they could use a new one.

But I'm reminded of a statement attributed to Harry Truman. When a supporter yelled out "Give 'em hell, Harry" during one of his rallies, Truman responded, "I don't give them hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's hell."

That's what we do. We don't need to resort to low blows or misrepresentations of our opponents. All we have to do is speak the truth and they think they've died and gone to hell.

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:14 am
by kwlyon
Yeah, Sav seems to be the one to whip out the manhood and smack em across the face with it. But I would argue that every group needs a paladin! Roll to hit....Oh nevermind... their AC is like 25 anyways.

Kevin

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:00 pm
by Savonarola
kwlyon wrote:Yeah, Sav seems to be the one to whip out the manhood and smack em across the face with it.
Yep, I have minimal tolerance for utter idiocy. I make be harsh on a personal level, but I fold the derogatory comments about the person in with sufficient reason to conclude that my derogatory comments are accurate. That is, I may call someone an idiot, but I'll prove it first.

Re: Intelligent Designer at the U of A THURSDAY

Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:40 pm
by Doug
DOUG writes:
Luskin is still up to his old tricks: lying about evolution, Intelligent Design, and science.

See here.

Despite there being more fundamentalist ministers than you can shake a stick at who repeatedly claim that people must choose between religion and evolution, Luskin makes the preposterous argument that the "controversy" should be seen solely as a scientific one! Religion, he claims, has nothing to do with the ever-present attacks on evolution.

...Luskin and his DI [Discovery Institute] colleagues have created a well-funded public relations machine which they use relentlessly to mislead the public about evolution and to encourage school boards and state legislatures to take steps to destroy high-quality science education. They get what seems to be unlimited air time on Fox to promote their dangerous message.

Interestingly, for a group that pretends to be about openness and professes to want to look at all sides of the issue, the pieces they post on their site permit no comments. Instead, they attack me and expect that theirs will be the last words -- as incorrect as they are. But here on The Huffington Post, readers who form a robust community will have the last words. Those words may well demonstrate exactly what the Discovery Institute is all about and how offensive most people find their actions.