101. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173388 by Dr Benway on April 30, 2008 at 5:43 pm

I am taking up a collection for The Wootered and Enfeebled Infirmary. This cheery and well-lit facility includes padded corridors, plenty of nappies, pureed carrots, finger puppets, and shiny happy staff persons.

Please give. The streets and the internets are no place for a wooter.

102. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173270 by Dr Benway on April 30, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Chris Davis: General Order #1 prohibits troops in theater from consuming alcohol, viewing pornography, or having sex.

Gosh. Hope you won't get court martialed for an occasional date with Rosy Palm.

The strict rule is probably meant to reassure Afghani muslims. At least I hope it's that rather than Gen. Frank's personal issues with Jesus.

103. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172928 by Dr Benway on April 30, 2008 at 7:19 am

Congrats to al-rawandi and annabanana! Two fun, handsome, brilliant, people find each other - the greatest story ever told.

Drop me a line if you're ever in the greater Boston area. I'll take you out for dinner someplace.

104. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172803 by Dr Benway on April 30, 2008 at 5:33 am

Chris Davis: I've only been here two months and I'd consider blowing myself up for a couple of strippers and a 12 pack of Guiness...cans or bottles.

Can I ship booze to an APO/FPO?

You're always in my thoughts, Chris.

105. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172621 by Dr Benway on April 29, 2008 at 7:36 pm

I'm on page 109. Apologies if this matter is dead already.

FightingFalcon,

The very idea of soldiers dying for the flag enrages me. It touches an instictive, mother bear rage at the heart of me. Those are my babies out there. I will never, ever forgive anyone who encourages them to do something dangerous for the sake of the flag.

I understand dying for others. I don't understand dying for symbols.

106. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #172550 by Dr Benway on April 29, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Best thing that could happen to this horrible Expelled propaganda.

107. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172539 by Dr Benway on April 29, 2008 at 5:29 pm

There are three Richards:

1. The unpleasant, shrill, strident, extremist Dawkins as represented by certain book reviewers
2. The Dawkins in print.
3. The Dawkins in person.

Dawkins 2 and 3 go together well. Dawkins 1 and 3, not so much.

108. Science leads to killing people

Comment #172048 by Dr Benway on April 29, 2008 at 7:23 am

Because I love a mystery, I have been googling Ben Stein. He apparently wrote something daft in his NYT column around 12/2007 that became a WTF? blog phenomenon. I present here a taste of those blog reactions. Note how easily the comment below could be Mad Libbed to work for Expelled

Our humble hypothesis is that Stein has no idea what he's saying. He can't decide whether Goldman's sin was selling products it doesn't believe in or promoting a view of the credit markets it does believe in. His main column is a mess of innuendo and half thought out positions, mixed with misplaced populist bravado. It's like he packed every nasty thing he could think of without bother to actually think thought any of them and then let them pour onto the pages of the New York Times, like so many clowns falling out of a tiny car.

From http://dealbreaker.com/ben_stein/

I'm leaning toward the hypothesis that Stein is a useful idiot. He's a "miss the forest for the trees" guy. His capacity to retain trivia combined with his trademark nerdy personna affords him a patina of smart. But he is not smart. To function, he must have some genuinely smart people around him to protect him from his deeper stupidity.

Perhaps he has a fuzzy notion that loyalty to GWB is honorable, and somehow that's how he got suckered into representing the creationist loons.

I've never seen this depressing thing called "America's Most Smartest Model." It looks mean spirited and not very funny. Is it still on television?

109. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170966 by Dr Benway on April 28, 2008 at 7:33 am

Ben Stein epitomises stupidity. What's even worse is that he clearly believes this verbal effluent he is spewing.

I'm still not sure about the Food Court Jester. I tend to think he's part of a wider PR effort by the neocons.

110. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170955 by Dr Benway on April 28, 2008 at 7:18 am

BillySands: Then there are propotionately more christians in American prisons than atheists.

To be fair, I don't think this suggests that Christians are more likely to commit crimes than others. I would guess that the appearance of Christian repentance and belief scores a lot of points with probation officers and parole boards.

Yet another reason why Pascal's Wager is a joke.

111. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170948 by Dr Benway on April 28, 2008 at 7:02 am

irate_atheist: Others here may see it differently, but the question being asked was 'what's your question?'.

Ah. Very good question. To eliminate the rival hypothesis that the person didn't realize this matter really was pressing, you would need to re-state it, perhaps like this:

"Mr. X, we asked to hear your question about evolution but you didn't explain it. To keep the debate focused we use a three strikes rule for non-responsiveness. If you post again without answering, that will be 'strike one.' Three strikes is proof that you're willfully dodging the question."

Three strikes really is bending over backwards to give someone who looks like a con artist the benefit of the doubt. I don't see how we could be accused of unfairness for our opinions about a person as a result of this method.

That's the consequence: an opinion about the person based upon corroborative evidence and subjected to falsification. Nothing more need be done.

We should have used "three strikes" with Robertson. Might have avoided months of "prove that I lied" nonsense.

112. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170919 by Dr Benway on April 28, 2008 at 6:28 am

I envisioned "3 strikes" as a method to eliminate the rival hypotheses for willful non-responsiveness to a specific question - e.g., the person didn't see the question, the person didn't realize that question was most pressing, the person was going to answer it eventually.

For the method to work:
1. There must be some question asked more than once that was not addressed.
2. Someone has to explain "three strikes" to the non-responsive person, re-stating the question that has not been addressed.
3. Someone must say the strikes after each subsequent non-responsive post.

At "strike three" willful non-responsiveness becomes established fact supported by evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This has nothing to do with evicting a person from the discussion or marking their posts as trollish.

113. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170734 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 11:16 pm

What's interesting about Stein's bomb scenario is who doesn't get nuked by Iran. Hmmm.

114. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170731 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Science won WWII for the allies - Enigma, radar, sonar, jet flight, etc. Science defeated the Nazis. Science liberated the Jews from the camps.

MPhil, how do the Germans feel about Ben Stein wandering around holocaust memorials with a film crew for this bit of propaganda?

115. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170621 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Tempt not the tit thy mouse!

116. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170611 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 9:04 pm

All societies have something like the Golden Rule, or the idea that one ought to treat others as one would like to be treated.

Most other moral principles can be derived from the Golden Rule.

Differences between societies about certain rules usually arise from different beliefs about what's true rather than different values. For example, if we all believed that God forbids any insult to His prophet Mohammad, well, we'd crack down hard on cartoonists making fun of Mohammad just like the Muslims.

117. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170565 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Michael Behe and William Dembski are ID proponents with some scientific credentials. Behe has made an effort to publish his ideas about irreducible complexity. Dembski seems more interested in self-promotion, from what I've seen. Both accept the notion of common decent - i.e., humans and modern apes sharing a common ancestor.

I have a BA in animal physiology. Controversy over the theory of evolution never came up during my course of study.

Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&watch_response

"Expelled" is manufactroversy.

118. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170536 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 8:18 pm

TheTruthID: Thanks for the forgiveness. (I hope).

Making amends can be a powerful thing. It can change the world. But forgiveness can't be given, even though most people want to give it; even though people nearly always say, "I forgive you."

Forgiveness happens if the "I'm sorry" is real. The "I'm sorry" is real if the future is not the same as the past. For small hurts, only a little of the future is needed to prove the truth of the apology. For big hurts, an entire lifetime might be required.

Goodness is down to us. We can't count on some book people half understand, or some invisible magic person, or some afterlife that supposedly has some goodness in it. We just don't know about any of that stuff. What we do know is this life we have now. So if we want goodness, we have to make it happen. And we make it happen by holding each other accountable.

Morality is a serious thing, maybe the most serious thing there is.

119. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170489 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Wow Adam. Thanks for your apology.

If you can see that saying "God created the world" isn't science, I'm happy. Saying it isn't science doesn't mean you can't talk about it or think about it. It just means you can't teach it as science.

120. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170441 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Rules that help sustain relationships don't require faith. They can be proven to work or not. When you've got proof, you don't need faith.

121. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170428 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Morality has two components: an intuitive part and a conceptual part.

If you think of morality as the behavioral rules that help sustain relationships it's a lot easier to sort.

Morality serves relationships.

122. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170411 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Morality is a sense like hearing or seeing. When you do something cruel to another person, you have to blunt that sense a little. If you do this too much, you can damage the sense permanently -- like listening to loud music for too long can damage your hearing.

Even though having a concience can be a pain sometimes, I wouldn't want to live life without it.

123. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170140 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 12:41 pm

I think the Templeton Foundation picked the odd word "obsolete" specifically for the Orwellian connotations.

Synopsis of "The Obsolete Man" from Wikipedia:

In a future totalitarian society, Romney Wordsworth (Meredith) is a man put on trial for the crime of being obsolete. Publicly, he's a carpenter. Secretly, he is a librarian (punishable by death), and religious (also punishable by death). He is prosecuted by the chancellor (Weaver), who expresses in detail that he is not needed by society.

Eventually, Wordsworth is sentenced to die, and is given the choice of method of dying. He chooses an assassin and an undisclosed method of killing, additionally requesting that his death be broadcast live.

A camera is installed in Wordsworth's room to broadcast live to the nation, so they can see the condemned in his final hours. He summons the chancellor, who shows up at 11:15 PM. After some discussion, Wordsworth reveals that he has locked the door, and that his chosen method of death is by bomb, hidden in the room and set to go off at midnight. He intends to show the nation how a spiritual man faces death, and proceeds to read verses from his Bible, ownership of which is punishable by death, and thus is his only valuable possession. He also points out that, as the events are being broadcast live, the State will risk losing face by trying to rescue a high-ranking chancellor. As the time winds down, Wordsworth's calm acceptance of death stands in sharp contrast with the chancellor's increasing panic.

Moments before the bomb explodes, the chancellor finally begs the old man to let him go: "In the name of God, let me out!" Wordsworth immediately obliges, but not without repeating the mention of God which the State had "proven", through an edict, to not exist.

The chancellor bursts out of the room and down the stairs just as the bomb explodes, killing Wordsworth.

In the final scene the chancellor, now stripped of his rank, is put on trial for none other than the crime of being obsolete.

124. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170130 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 12:26 pm

This question incriminates the atheists regardless of the answer given. The word "obsolete" has certain associations for Americans who grew up during the cold war. It's a bureaucratic term. It's far more loaded than similar words like "irrelevant" or "unnecessary."

The free man declares, "You cannot erase God with an edict!"

These theists are better at associative thinking and meme warfare than the new atheists. They invoke the story of atheist state verses the little guy theist again and again.

We need some effective way to invoke the anti-story: rationalist little guy checks Big Bullshit with rules of evidence.

125. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170092 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 11:08 am

riandouglas: I may be missing something, but I think some of them (our good pals Remnant and TheTruthID being notable recent examples I have had experience with) would simply assume their arguments were too difficult to deal with, and we stopped responding to them - similar to the way we view Remnants diversions.

The three strikes rule is a means to eliminate certain rival hypotheses for non-responsiveness - e.g.,
1. The person didn't realize a particular question was more important than other matters on the table.
2. The person didn't see the question.
3. The person was planning to answer the question eventually.

True believers may not care so much about the distinction between established fact verses subjective impression. But I do care.

126. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170053 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 10:12 am

Oh a male/female discussion. Fun!

Men are wonderful. Their height, skin, voice, humor, confidence. Just the best.

I'm especially fond of guys who can fix stuff and build things. Sometimes as I troll the interwebs, I stumble upon some bloke's page describing how to build a boat out of PVC pipe. Awesome!

http://www.rebelcat.com/

127. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170028 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 9:32 am

epeeist: Have we learnt anything over the past few days about handling a variety of theists, from thisisme and seeker_of_truth to the likes of Remnant and TheTruthID?

Yes. It's to our advantage to document evasion.

There exists an easy and a hard method to trap evasion:
1. The hard method: Requires a set-up and some team work but provides hard evidence. It also provides a moment in time when the evasion becomes an established fact.
2. The easy method: No set-up and no team work, but provides only soft evidence and no moment when the evasion becomes an established fact.

The explicit "three strikes" rule is the hard method. Repeating the prior question in an abbreviated manner (e.g., "flood?") is the soft method.

For certain posters (e.g., Remnant), I'd prefer the hard method. Once the evasion has been proven, we are saved any continued effort to establish it as a fact.

If we've collectively asked a new theist posting here 5 or 6 questions, he or she will of necessity ignore or avoid some of those questions. Later if we accuse the theist of evasion, he can accuse us of selective enforcement of the rule.

Analogy: "I've been parking in this spot for a month now, officer. And I'm not the only one. My co-workers frequently park here as well. So why am I getting this ticket today?"

A rule arbitrarily enforced is an unjust rule. A rule implied but unspoken also can be unfair.

In my analogy above, the officer might avoid accusations of selective enforcement by issuing a warning rather than a ticket: "If I see your car there again, I will write a ticket." The warning is the set-up for the later enforcement.

So, of the 5 or 6 questions asked of the new theist, someone must decide that one of those questions is most pressing. That someone must say, "Mr. T, you've given no response to question X although you've been asked to respond more than once. We've developed a 'three strikes' rule for willful evasion. If you don't reply to question X in your next post, that will be strike one. Two more posts without an answer will serve as proof of willful, dishonest evasion."

128. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169974 by Dr Benway on April 27, 2008 at 7:44 am

Styrer: Why the bloody hell, melissajoy1234, are your and nearly all of your fellow faithheads' contributions on this site so fucking long?

Matters of timing are more an art than a science and reasonable people will disagree. That said, I wish you hadn't reached for the "fuck" so early.

I grew up in a home without swearing and before the "seven words" were on TV. I can remember my own conditioned response to them: a feeling of upset and anxiety as if someone were about to do me physical harm.

My freshman year of college I rapidly lost this conditioning and learned to swear like a sailor. This caused a few awkward moments upon visits back home until I learned to control the color of my wording better.

I'm guessing that the word "fuck" isn't a common conversational intensifier for melissajoy1234. She likely sees a lot of swearing on the Internet, but probably doesn't encounter much being directed at her. So she may feel the way I once felt in response to swearing.

I don't think her behavior yet merits that level of rebuke, which likely will drive her away from the conversation entirely.

melissajoy's argument seems largely emotional:

Your (Dawkins') apparent hostility towards this seemingly harsh God (who, if you read the Old Testament, is seen repeatedly over and over again forgiving and redeeming His people, even when they didn't deserve it), merely showed me that something within your spirit is striving against God. It is a spiritual issue, Mr. Dawkins, and I pray that you find peace with Him and with yourself before your final day on this earth.

This is a subtle ad hominem that has nothing to do with Dawkins' argument against ID. My hope was to redirect melissajoy back to the fact that ID is not science. If she might agree with me about that, my political objective would be met.

Changing her opinion about atheists, whom she describes as suffering from unresolved resentments, would be a more difficult objective to obtain. [/understatement]

Pick your battles, as they say.

129. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169821 by Dr Benway on April 26, 2008 at 10:38 pm

melissajoy1234: without my relationship with God, I would probably be a suicidal statistic.

Then I wouldn't want to challenge your faith.

What I want from my fellow Americans is simply this: to recognize and respect the boundaries of science.

Any claim about the world must be subjected to these four tests before it can be allowed into a scientific discussion:
1. can it be corroborated?
2. can it be falsified?
3. is it logically sound?
4. is it the most parsimonious explanation available?

The intelligent design proponents have not made any claims that pass the above tests. This is why ID is not science.

It might be appropriate to talk about intelligent design in a social studies class or a religion class. But it isn't appropriate for a science class.

130. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169759 by Dr Benway on April 26, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Crap I've no time to read all the posts right now.

For those who want to ban the shirt: I'm with you in spirit. That shirt is offensive.

But I beg for this: argue for the ban using language that will allow us to recover the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Personally, I can't see how we can ban the shirt and also argue against the Islamists who killed the Declaration of Human Rights.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2416,Vote-on-freedom-of-expression-marks-the-end-of-Universal-Human-Rights,International-Humanist-and-Ethical-Union

131. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169457 by Dr Benway on April 26, 2008 at 6:28 am

"Be Happy, Not Gay" is fucktardese for "Me Asshole, Best Avoid."

Seems a time saver.

132. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169233 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Remnant, Jesus speaks to you and TheTruthID.

When I read TheTruthID's "pig" comment, I felt the same inward, burning sensation that I once thought of as the quickening of the Holy Spirit.

You have nothing to prove to me; I don't know you. I'm imagining you and TheTruthID are children in some manner.

133. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169219 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Remnant: Why are you referring to the Bible, taken out of context to what the passage reveals by the way, from the God you don't believe in?

Is it not within the power of the Lord to open my mouth, just as He once opened the mouth of Balaam's ass?

Jesus: Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

134. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169197 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Origin of the universe.
Abiogenesis.
Evolution by natural selection.
Ohm's law.

These are distinct theories or sets of hypotheses. People who combine and confuse them reveal their own ignorance.

Creationist: I do not believe in Ohm's law!
Scientist: Why not?
Creationist: How could a cell form from random molecules hitting each other?
Scientist: Uhh...
Creationist: And how could the universe come out of nothing??
Scientist: Oh dear.

135. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169168 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm

4471. Comment #169037 by TheTruthID on April 25, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Hey Elli,

Nice prom picture. You must of been Home Coming Pig.

From Luke chapter 6:

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

I know who you are TheTruthID.

136. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169011 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 2:09 pm

I wonder if his cake in the oven fails to rise if he'll blame the lefties.

137. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168986 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 1:53 pm

You cannot defeat a revenant.

138. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168939 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Isn't Reverend Dark's avatar a dog looking out a window?

139. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168930 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 1:10 pm

^ipashchuck, you missed this bit: "and the OT laws apply to us today."

140. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168927 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 1:08 pm

ipashchuk: What kind of evidence are you looking for?

The onus is on the person making the positive claim to defend that claim.

The default position, "claim X has not been proven" requires no defense.

141. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168912 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Have you noticed the creationist's frequent problem distinguishing a strawman representation of his position, verses a reasoned consequence of his position?

For example:

You say, "If the Bible is literally true and the OT laws apply to us today, we're duty bound to stone people for breaking the Sabbath. That's outrageous and inhumane!"

The creationist replies, "That's a strawman! God is not inhumane!"

142. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168898 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 12:43 pm

ipashchuk, we don't say "God does not exist."

We say, "The proposition, 'God exists' has not yet been proven."

HTH

143. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168891 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Part of the standard mental status exam involves a statement about the patient's capacity to appreciate analogies, similarities, and abstractions. So the doctor might ask, "Mr. X, what do you think this saying might mean: 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.'"

I remember during my med student days my surprise at this response: "Well you don't thow stones because you don't want to break the glass."

People who look normal, make upper middle class incomes, and generally function fairly well, can be quite concrete. It's a shocking thing to realize.

Listen to the SciAm interview with Mark Mathis. Note his difficulty appreciating analogies and abstract arguments. Link here

This is part of what we're up against: brain damage.

144. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168855 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 12:04 pm

To recap the play on this beautiful spring afternoon: Remnant was asked for an approximate date for the world-wide deluge known as "the flood" as described in Genesis. Billy, epeeist, and Frankus have wondered how:

After "The Flood" the world supposedly had 8 people left.

8 people who somehow managed to repopulate the world instantly and make it look as though the egytian pharaoh and empire continued as normal - despite being obliterated (apparently).

Remnant at the plate:

#168735 April 25, 2008 at 10:21 am: Ignorance arises from the primordial ooze.

STEEERIKE ONE! But back at the plate:

#168736 April 25, 2008 at 10:23 am: As you clearly put on display.

STEERIKE TWO! riandouglas lobs an easy one in the strike zone:

#168740 April 25, 2008 at 10:26 am: Still no answers on that flood question then?

Remnant swings:

#168755 April 25, 2008 at 10:34 am: I have not observed much evidence of intelligence, reason, logic, or creative thinking here either.

FOUL BALL! Another pitch from riandouglas:

#168759 April 25, 2008 at 10:36 am: Still no answer to the question about the flood.

Remnant at the plate:

#168761 April 25, 2008 at 10:37 am: Of course you probably will not do the research.

FOUL BALL! And here's the pitch from riandouglas:

#168768 April 25, 2008 at 10:40 am: Still not answer to the flood questions?

Response from Remnant:

#168767 April 25, 2008 at 10:39 am: Re-read what I wrote two or three times. Reading comprehension can be improved with practice.

Oh, the crowd say he's OUTTAHEER! But wait! The umpire seems to be in a generous mood: FOUL BALL! And now a follow-up from riandouglas:

#168781 April 25, 2008 at 10:52 am: I must have missed your ground breaking scientific paper reconciling the fossil record, the lack of water, problems with salination for fish, how the animals fit onto a wooden boat, how they were fed, where the water come from (and went to) etc etc (see a previous post by epeeist for a larger list).

And now the swing from Remnant:

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

REMNANT SWINGS AND SOMEHOW MANAGES TO WHACK HIS OWN SKULL! Oh noes! And now he's wandered off the Science Field into the concession stand. What's this? He's taking a swing at the scientists!

#168838 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 11:45 am: I just love how atheists and evolutions latch on to words like surmises, postulates, could have, possibly, theorizes,maybe, hopefully, possibly, as solid evidence.

Too funny. I guess it is just a godless thingy!

The umpire tells the crowd, "How do you call a fella out when he doesn't know what "out" actually means? Please, someone, get this guy to a home where folks can look after him, before he hurts someone."

145. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168698 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 9:47 am

seeker_of_truth: The best analogy I have heard is language.

Interesting. Languages have evolved into separate species over time.

QED.

146. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168687 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 9:36 am

seeker_of_truth: Would you then limit this scrutiny/opposite consequence search to those who hold and support the same theory alone?

The words "hold and support the same theory alone" confuse me. Are you saying one must support contradictory theories at the same time? My brain has a problem with that.

All accepted scientific understanding is contingent upon future discoveries. If one day we discover fossils with the words, "MADE BY YAHWEH" inscribed upon them, we may favor some version of the intelligent design hypothesis.

At this point in time, ID is not science.

1. ID proponents have not demonstrated any evidence for their theory that has stood up to independent corroboration and peer review.

2. ID proponents have not formulated any hypotheses in a manner that might allow falsification.

3. ID proponents often posit something "supernatural," which violates logic.

4. Evolution is a more parsimonious explanation for the story of life on earth than ID. ID is like "evolution n'stuff" whereas evolution is just evolution.

147. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168655 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 9:09 am

epeeist, I like your point about insisting upon an answer to a question before moving on. Good interviewers typically use the "three times" rule: ask the slippery politician once; ask twice, ask three times, then move on. The audience will see the evasion.

Because we're several people asking questions at the same time, the evasions can seem less obvious.

Perhaps we ought to support each other's efforts more explicitly. Example: al-rawandi asks a question. If the believer posts something without answering that question, I might say, "Al-rawandi's on the mound... The pitch is good! Oh, no swing from the batter - strike ONE!" Then I say, "Mr. Believer, please answer al-rawandi's question: (quote question)."

The next person can replay the above for strike TWO!

Finally, with strike THREE! we can rule the batter out.

BTW I'm open to a cricket or other analogy of greater universality than American baseball. However given that most creationists are Americans, baseball will probably work.

148. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168650 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 8:58 am

Remnant, if you are entitled to claim something about the mind or will of a being, so can everyone else.

Example: "Hey everyone! Yesterday remnant told me that he likes to wear women's panties and fantasize about being spanked by Tom Cruise!"

Lucky for you, no one ought to take my hearsay statement seriously. You have a right to confirm or deny any claim someone might make about something you allegedly said.

Pity you don't extend this right to your God.

149. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168636 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 8:46 am

God as our Creator is supreme and owes us nothing.

Objection! Hearsay!

150. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168622 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 8:38 am

The micro/macro-evolution distinction violates the principle of parsimony.

If one concedes changes in gene frequency and phenotypic expression from one generation to the next...

And if one concedes that an accumulation of changes will occur with each new generation...

One must concede that at some point, a later generation will be sufficiently different from an earlier generation, such that it might not interbreed with it.

If someone denies that final conclusion, they must explain the mechanism that stops the accumulation of small changes from adding up to a large change.

If they can't explain that mechanism, they are positing an unknown without justification.