Religions > Atheism > Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
21 Oct 2005 01:59:21 AM |
| Object: |
Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
---
Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told
* 13:30 19 October 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Celeste Biever
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same
criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify
his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at
Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of
theory was so broad it would also include astrology.
The trial is pitting 11 parents from the small town of Dover,
Pennsylvania, against their local school board. The board voted to read
a statement during a biology class that casts doubt on Darwinian
evolution and suggests ID as an alternative.
The parents claim this was an attempt to introduce creationism into the
curriculum and that the school board members were motivated by their
evangelical Christian beliefs. It is illegal to teach anything with a
primarily religious purpose or effect on pupils in government-funded US
schools.
Supporters of ID believe that some things in nature are simply too
complex to have evolved by natural selection, and therefore must be the
work of an intelligent designer.
Peer review
Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified
that ID was a scientific theory, and was not committed to religion. His
cross examination by the plaintiffs attorney, Eric Rothschild of the
Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.
Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences
supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: Theory:
In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the
natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested
hypotheses.
Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be
included in the NAS definition. I cant point to an external community
that would agree that this was well substantiated, he said.
Behe said he had come up with his own broader definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it, he says.
Hypothesis or theory?
Rothschild suggested that Behes definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behes
definition of theory was almost identical to the NASs definition of a
hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
Behe maintains that ID is science: Under my definition, scientific
theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and
logical inferences.
You've got to admire the guy. Its Daniel in the lions den, says Robert
Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is
interested in science. "But I cant believe he teaches a college biology
class."
The cross examination will continue Wednesday, with the trial expected
to finish on 4 November.
---
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
21 Oct 2005 03:41:27 AM |
|
|
In article <jhachm-368C10.23592120102005@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
You're a chemist, like Behe, aren't you? Can' you DO something about him?
{;-)
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
22 Oct 2005 02:38:58 AM |
|
|
In article <nemo0037-A0A0C8.04395621102005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
In article <jhachm-368C10.23592120102005@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
You're a chemist, like Behe, aren't you? Can' you DO something about him?
{;-)
Do you mean short of inviting him to visit my lab and slipping something
in his coffee? I don't know. :-)
A number of scientific organizations, including the American Chemical
Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and
the National Academy of Sciences have come out in favor of teaching
evolution:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5970_statements_from_scientific
_an_12_19_2002.asp
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
21 Oct 2005 04:41:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
22 Oct 2005 02:03:02 AM |
|
|
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally unimpressed me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in flames.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
22 Oct 2005 12:41:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally unimpressed me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good lawyers and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are wrong on the
science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
23 Oct 2005 01:00:03 AM |
|
|
In article <9dukl19kimt4hmke3br9oj5n6pu74io05j@4ax.com>,
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally unimpressed me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good lawyers and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are wrong on the
science.
That's exactly what I try to tell those who would support ID. It's not
an argument about science, it's all about politics and power.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
23 Oct 2005 07:45:45 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:00:03 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <9dukl19kimt4hmke3br9oj5n6pu74io05j@4ax.com>,
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally unimpressed me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good lawyers and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are wrong on the
science.
That's exactly what I try to tell those who would support ID. It's not
an argument about science, it's all about politics and power.
That is obvious. If it was about science, it would be scientists
arguing with scientists. Behe is a scientist in the same way a
prostitute is a lover.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
23 Oct 2005 11:15:38 PM |
|
|
In article <fjfml1tvf2m3u91fi0qd1i3n3llo0r6r3d@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:00:03 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <9dukl19kimt4hmke3br9oj5n6pu74io05j@4ax.com>,
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally unimpressed me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good lawyers and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are wrong on the
science.
That's exactly what I try to tell those who would support ID. It's not
an argument about science, it's all about politics and power.
That is obvious. If it was about science, it would be scientists
arguing with scientists. Behe is a scientist in the same way a
prostitute is a lover.
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and respect to
the Religious Right fanatics.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
24 Oct 2005 01:34:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:15:38 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <fjfml1tvf2m3u91fi0qd1i3n3llo0r6r3d@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:00:03 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <9dukl19kimt4hmke3br9oj5n6pu74io05j@4ax.com>,
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally unimpressed me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good lawyers and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are wrong on the
science.
That's exactly what I try to tell those who would support ID. It's not
an argument about science, it's all about politics and power.
That is obvious. If it was about science, it would be scientists
arguing with scientists. Behe is a scientist in the same way a
prostitute is a lover.
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and respect to
the Religious Right fanatics.
Obviously he made an evaluation of his abilities and his prospects in
the field of real science and decided to make a career move. It
cannot be much fun being him.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
26 Oct 2005 12:01:15 AM |
|
|
In article <0appl11qtu7cefcl3g6i88724mses0bqda@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:15:38 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <fjfml1tvf2m3u91fi0qd1i3n3llo0r6r3d@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:00:03 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <9dukl19kimt4hmke3br9oj5n6pu74io05j@4ax.com>,
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally unimpressed
me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good lawyers
and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are wrong on the
science.
That's exactly what I try to tell those who would support ID. It's not
an argument about science, it's all about politics and power.
That is obvious. If it was about science, it would be scientists
arguing with scientists. Behe is a scientist in the same way a
prostitute is a lover.
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and respect to
the Religious Right fanatics.
Obviously he made an evaluation of his abilities and his prospects in
the field of real science and decided to make a career move. It
cannot be much fun being him.
Also he decided that he could make more money writing science fiction
and pimping ID for the Discovery Institute. I wonder what his speaker's
fee is per engagement?
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
26 Oct 2005 06:15:34 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:01:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <0appl11qtu7cefcl3g6i88724mses0bqda@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:15:38 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <fjfml1tvf2m3u91fi0qd1i3n3llo0r6r3d@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:00:03 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <9dukl19kimt4hmke3br9oj5n6pu74io05j@4ax.com>,
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally unimpressed
me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good lawyers
and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are wrong on the
science.
That's exactly what I try to tell those who would support ID. It's not
an argument about science, it's all about politics and power.
That is obvious. If it was about science, it would be scientists
arguing with scientists. Behe is a scientist in the same way a
prostitute is a lover.
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and respect to
the Religious Right fanatics.
Obviously he made an evaluation of his abilities and his prospects in
the field of real science and decided to make a career move. It
cannot be much fun being him.
Also he decided that he could make more money writing science fiction
and pimping ID for the Discovery Institute. I wonder what his speaker's
fee is per engagement?
More than he could earn as a mediocre scientist not as much as a truly
successful swindler like Pat Robertson.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
26 Oct 2005 11:52:11 PM |
|
|
In article <82pul19d1lr94dtiaf5v9uou6qkeu2eg5j@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:01:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <0appl11qtu7cefcl3g6i88724mses0bqda@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:15:38 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <fjfml1tvf2m3u91fi0qd1i3n3llo0r6r3d@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:00:03 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <9dukl19kimt4hmke3br9oj5n6pu74io05j@4ax.com>,
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac
<jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he
just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally
unimpressed
me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in
flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good lawyers
and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are wrong on
the
science.
That's exactly what I try to tell those who would support ID. It's not
an argument about science, it's all about politics and power.
That is obvious. If it was about science, it would be scientists
arguing with scientists. Behe is a scientist in the same way a
prostitute is a lover.
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and respect to
the Religious Right fanatics.
Obviously he made an evaluation of his abilities and his prospects in
the field of real science and decided to make a career move. It
cannot be much fun being him.
Also he decided that he could make more money writing science fiction
and pimping ID for the Discovery Institute. I wonder what his speaker's
fee is per engagement?
More than he could earn as a mediocre scientist not as much as a truly
successful swindler like Pat Robertson.
I wonder if he even got thirty pieces of silver.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
27 Oct 2005 01:13:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:52:11 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <82pul19d1lr94dtiaf5v9uou6qkeu2eg5j@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:01:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <0appl11qtu7cefcl3g6i88724mses0bqda@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:15:38 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <fjfml1tvf2m3u91fi0qd1i3n3llo0r6r3d@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:00:03 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <9dukl19kimt4hmke3br9oj5n6pu74io05j@4ax.com>,
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac
<jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he
just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally
unimpressed
me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in
flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good lawyers
and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are wrong on
the
science.
That's exactly what I try to tell those who would support ID. It's not
an argument about science, it's all about politics and power.
That is obvious. If it was about science, it would be scientists
arguing with scientists. Behe is a scientist in the same way a
prostitute is a lover.
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and respect to
the Religious Right fanatics.
Obviously he made an evaluation of his abilities and his prospects in
the field of real science and decided to make a career move. It
cannot be much fun being him.
Also he decided that he could make more money writing science fiction
and pimping ID for the Discovery Institute. I wonder what his speaker's
fee is per engagement?
More than he could earn as a mediocre scientist not as much as a truly
successful swindler like Pat Robertson.
I wonder if he even got thirty pieces of silver.
Thirty Jesus Crackers®
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
29 Oct 2005 01:54:53 AM |
|
|
In article <g662m19tjm6o7sc003nbolrehou9gjee76@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:52:11 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <82pul19d1lr94dtiaf5v9uou6qkeu2eg5j@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:01:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <0appl11qtu7cefcl3g6i88724mses0bqda@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:15:38 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <fjfml1tvf2m3u91fi0qd1i3n3llo0r6r3d@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:00:03 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <9dukl19kimt4hmke3br9oj5n6pu74io05j@4ax.com>,
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac
<jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth,
he
just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a
complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond
me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally
unimpressed
me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in
flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good
lawyers
and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are wrong
on
the
science.
That's exactly what I try to tell those who would support ID. It's
not
an argument about science, it's all about politics and power.
That is obvious. If it was about science, it would be scientists
arguing with scientists. Behe is a scientist in the same way a
prostitute is a lover.
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and respect to
the Religious Right fanatics.
Obviously he made an evaluation of his abilities and his prospects in
the field of real science and decided to make a career move. It
cannot be much fun being him.
Also he decided that he could make more money writing science fiction
and pimping ID for the Discovery Institute. I wonder what his speaker's
fee is per engagement?
More than he could earn as a mediocre scientist not as much as a truly
successful swindler like Pat Robertson.
I wonder if he even got thirty pieces of silver.
Thirty Jesus Crackers®
And whn he opened the box he got a 'secret bible decoder' ring.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
31 Oct 2005 09:22:01 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:54:53 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <g662m19tjm6o7sc003nbolrehou9gjee76@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:52:11 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <82pul19d1lr94dtiaf5v9uou6qkeu2eg5j@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:01:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <0appl11qtu7cefcl3g6i88724mses0bqda@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:15:38 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <fjfml1tvf2m3u91fi0qd1i3n3llo0r6r3d@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:00:03 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <9dukl19kimt4hmke3br9oj5n6pu74io05j@4ax.com>,
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac
<jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth,
he
just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a
complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond
me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally
unimpressed
me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in
flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good
lawyers
and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are wrong
on
the
science.
That's exactly what I try to tell those who would support ID. It's
not
an argument about science, it's all about politics and power.
That is obvious. If it was about science, it would be scientists
arguing with scientists. Behe is a scientist in the same way a
prostitute is a lover.
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and respect to
the Religious Right fanatics.
Obviously he made an evaluation of his abilities and his prospects in
the field of real science and decided to make a career move. It
cannot be much fun being him.
Also he decided that he could make more money writing science fiction
and pimping ID for the Discovery Institute. I wonder what his speaker's
fee is per engagement?
More than he could earn as a mediocre scientist not as much as a truly
successful swindler like Pat Robertson.
I wonder if he even got thirty pieces of silver.
Thirty Jesus Crackers®
And whn he opened the box he got a 'secret bible decoder' ring.
Bet he orgasmed.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
02 Nov 2005 01:50:03 AM |
|
|
In article <akdcm194qej2kjtta2dpmih7s9ut7ddvoj@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:54:53 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <g662m19tjm6o7sc003nbolrehou9gjee76@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:52:11 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <82pul19d1lr94dtiaf5v9uou6qkeu2eg5j@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:01:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <0appl11qtu7cefcl3g6i88724mses0bqda@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:15:38 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <fjfml1tvf2m3u91fi0qd1i3n3llo0r6r3d@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:00:03 -0700, johac
<jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <9dukl19kimt4hmke3br9oj5n6pu74io05j@4ax.com>,
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac
<jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this
out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his
mouth,
he
just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a
complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond
me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally
unimpressed
me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in
flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good
lawyers
and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are
wrong
on
the
science.
That's exactly what I try to tell those who would support ID.
It's
not
an argument about science, it's all about politics and power.
That is obvious. If it was about science, it would be scientists
arguing with scientists. Behe is a scientist in the same way a
prostitute is a lover.
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and respect
to
the Religious Right fanatics.
Obviously he made an evaluation of his abilities and his prospects
in
the field of real science and decided to make a career move. It
cannot be much fun being him.
Also he decided that he could make more money writing science fiction
and pimping ID for the Discovery Institute. I wonder what his
speaker's
fee is per engagement?
More than he could earn as a mediocre scientist not as much as a truly
successful swindler like Pat Robertson.
I wonder if he even got thirty pieces of silver.
Thirty Jesus Crackers®
And whn he opened the box he got a 'secret bible decoder' ring.
Bet he orgasmed.
The holy spirit come upon him!
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
04 Nov 2005 04:01:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:50:03 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <akdcm194qej2kjtta2dpmih7s9ut7ddvoj@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:54:53 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <g662m19tjm6o7sc003nbolrehou9gjee76@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
[]
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and respect
to
the Religious Right fanatics.
Obviously he made an evaluation of his abilities and his prospects
in
the field of real science and decided to make a career move. It
cannot be much fun being him.
Also he decided that he could make more money writing science fiction
and pimping ID for the Discovery Institute. I wonder what his
speaker's
fee is per engagement?
More than he could earn as a mediocre scientist not as much as a truly
successful swindler like Pat Robertson.
I wonder if he even got thirty pieces of silver.
Thirty Jesus Crackers®
And whn he opened the box he got a 'secret bible decoder' ring.
Bet he orgasmed.
The holy spirit come upon him!
So he got a facial.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
05 Nov 2005 02:21:58 AM |
|
|
In article <bgmnm15ofcebapc1nonrq3qheb0prhrb3j@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:50:03 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <akdcm194qej2kjtta2dpmih7s9ut7ddvoj@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:54:53 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <g662m19tjm6o7sc003nbolrehou9gjee76@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
[]
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and
respect
to
the Religious Right fanatics.
Obviously he made an evaluation of his abilities and his
prospects
in
the field of real science and decided to make a career move. It
cannot be much fun being him.
Also he decided that he could make more money writing science
fiction
and pimping ID for the Discovery Institute. I wonder what his
speaker's
fee is per engagement?
More than he could earn as a mediocre scientist not as much as a
truly
successful swindler like Pat Robertson.
I wonder if he even got thirty pieces of silver.
Thirty Jesus Crackers®
And whn he opened the box he got a 'secret bible decoder' ring.
Bet he orgasmed.
The holy spirit come upon him!
So he got a facial.
Heh! Heh!
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
06 Nov 2005 03:01:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:21:58 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <bgmnm15ofcebapc1nonrq3qheb0prhrb3j@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:50:03 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <akdcm194qej2kjtta2dpmih7s9ut7ddvoj@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:54:53 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <g662m19tjm6o7sc003nbolrehou9gjee76@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
[]
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and
respect
to
the Religious Right fanatics.
Obviously he made an evaluation of his abilities and his
prospects
in
the field of real science and decided to make a career move. It
cannot be much fun being him.
Also he decided that he could make more money writing science
fiction
and pimping ID for the Discovery Institute. I wonder what his
speaker's
fee is per engagement?
More than he could earn as a mediocre scientist not as much as a
truly
successful swindler like Pat Robertson.
I wonder if he even got thirty pieces of silver.
Thirty Jesus Crackers®
And whn he opened the box he got a 'secret bible decoder' ring.
Bet he orgasmed.
The holy spirit come upon him!
So he got a facial.
Heh! Heh!
:)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
24 Oct 2005 01:22:37 PM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> said:
In article <fjfml1tvf2m3u91fi0qd1i3n3llo0r6r3d@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:00:03 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <9dukl19kimt4hmke3br9oj5n6pu74io05j@4ax.com>,
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally unimpressed me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good lawyers and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are wrong on the
science.
That's exactly what I try to tell those who would support ID. It's not
an argument about science, it's all about politics and power.
That is obvious. If it was about science, it would be scientists
arguing with scientists. Behe is a scientist in the same way a
prostitute is a lover.
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and respect to
the Religious Right fanatics.
A careful reading of the transcripts suggests that he is beginning to
realize this. For example he seems to be abandoning irreducible
complexity, and is defining design as the "purposeful arrangement of
parts." We can detect it when "separate, interacting components are
ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the
individual components". So complexity is no longer his criterion --
the appearance of purpose is.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2128238/entry/2128240/?nav=ais
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
26 Oct 2005 12:04:53 AM |
|
|
In article <g89ql11r2e1fv7a42c6f5qhtffkq11fmft@4ax.com>,
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> said:
In article <fjfml1tvf2m3u91fi0qd1i3n3llo0r6r3d@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:00:03 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <9dukl19kimt4hmke3br9oj5n6pu74io05j@4ax.com>,
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in
<jhachm-199BE7.00030222102005@news.giganews.com>:
In article <2rdhl1limohdtejpf66kdh3mb8tpcdk8n9@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
I saw Behe in a TV interview a few weeks ago. He totally unimpressed
me.
If he's the best that ID's got then it is truly going down in flames.
He's the best scientist that ID has to offer. They have good lawyers
and
theologians and this is about politics. They know they are wrong on the
science.
That's exactly what I try to tell those who would support ID. It's not
an argument about science, it's all about politics and power.
That is obvious. If it was about science, it would be scientists
arguing with scientists. Behe is a scientist in the same way a
prostitute is a lover.
Behe is a prostitute. He sold his scientific integrity and respect to
the Religious Right fanatics.
A careful reading of the transcripts suggests that he is beginning to
realize this. For example he seems to be abandoning irreducible
complexity, and is defining design as the "purposeful arrangement of
parts." We can detect it when "separate, interacting components are
ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the
individual components". So complexity is no longer his criterion --
the appearance of purpose is.
Which is even more nebulous. I suppose that one could say that anything,
a hand, a leg, an ear, a mitochondria, a peptide molecule, 'has a
purpose'. Hell, even the rock I tripped over last week had a 'purpose'.
The designer put it there so I could trip over it.
What bosh!
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
21 Oct 2005 06:09:47 AM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
Complete idiots are in plentiful supply :-(
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
27 Oct 2005 01:11:39 PM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2005 04:09:47 -0700, "Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
Complete idiots are in plentiful supply :-(
Dover School Board. Kansas State Education Board.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
22 Oct 2005 05:45:19 AM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2005 04:09:47 -0700, "Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
Complete idiots are in plentiful supply :-(
Unfortunately true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
21 Oct 2005 05:27:08 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:59:21 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
I think it's at least as 'scientific' as ID. Check this out.
<snip article>
Behe is going down in flames. Every time he opens his mouth, he just
digs himself deeper into a hole. How anyone other than a complete
idiot could possibly take ID seriously after this is beyond me.
Well we have Bible Bob who says,
" A theory is a guess, speculation, abstract thought, a guess based on
some facts; but then facts are not truth so it is all about theory."
He's not a complete idiot, just a religious nut.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
21 Oct 2005 03:51:50 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Rothschild suggested that Behes definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behes
definition of theory was almost identical to the NASs definition of a
hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
LOL. Wish I could see a video of that.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
22 Oct 2005 02:16:57 AM |
|
|
In article <uvahl1h6t5vk2kahmnst3i6h5erfhickb4@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Rothschild suggested that Behes definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behes
definition of theory was almost identical to the NASs definition of a
hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
LOL. Wish I could see a video of that.
I wish too. The NCSE has a lot of information about the trial including
more complete transcripts of Behe's testimony:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
27 Oct 2005 01:10:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:16:57 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <uvahl1h6t5vk2kahmnst3i6h5erfhickb4@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Rothschild suggested that Behes definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behes
definition of theory was almost identical to the NASs definition of a
hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
LOL. Wish I could see a video of that.
I wish too. The NCSE has a lot of information about the trial including
more complete transcripts of Behe's testimony:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/
Behe must enjoy making a fool out of himself-worldwide.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
27 Oct 2005 04:21:21 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:10:51 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:16:57 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <uvahl1h6t5vk2kahmnst3i6h5erfhickb4@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Rothschild suggested that Behes definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behes
definition of theory was almost identical to the NASs definition of a
hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
LOL. Wish I could see a video of that.
I wish too. The NCSE has a lot of information about the trial including
more complete transcripts of Behe's testimony:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/
Behe must enjoy making a fool out of himself-worldwide.
I don't think it's so much that he enjoys it as he can't help himself.
He was "designed" that way. <G>
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Behe: Astrology could be considered a 'scientific' theory. |
31 Oct 2005 09:21:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:21:21 GMT, John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:10:51 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:16:57 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:
In article <uvahl1h6t5vk2kahmnst3i6h5erfhickb4@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Rothschild suggested that Behes definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behes
definition of theory was almost identical to the NASs definition of a
hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
LOL. Wish I could see a video of that.
I wish too. The NCSE has a lot of information about the trial including
more complete transcripts of Behe's testimony:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/
Behe must enjoy making a fool out of himself-worldwide.
I don't think it's so much that he enjoys it as he can't help himself.
He was "designed" that way. <G>
Ba Ba BING! :)
"Greater Good."
"Divine Plan."
The Christian God makes GWB look intelligent and competant.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
