Archive for Tuesday, August 1, 2006

Lecture series tackles dispute over evolution

Intelligent design advocate finds list of speakers one-sided

August 1, 2006


Kansas University is organizing what some say has been absent in the long, hot battle over the teaching of evolution: dialogue.

"We've had debates," said Leonard Krishtalka, director of KU's Biodiversity Institute and veteran to the evolution debate. "I don't think we've had intelligent discussion. This is an attempt to have intelligent dialogue with the larger community and Kansas on a controversial subject."

KU this fall will kick off "Knowledge: Faith & Reason," a lecture series featuring some of the key players in the evolution and intelligent design debate.

So far, the list of guests is one-sided, according to one critic, because there is only one clear intelligent design proponent.

The series will include lectures from Kenneth Miller, a Brown University biology professor who testified against intelligent design in last year's Dover, Pa., trial, and John E. Jones III, the judge in the Dover case who in his ruling issued a pointed criticism of the intelligent design movement.

The series also will feature Os Guinness, theologian; Richard Dawkins, Oxford University evolutionary biologist and author; and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education.

The only apparent speaker who supports intelligent design is Michael Behe, a professor and author who testified in the Dover trial.

Organizers of the series say it's a chance to look at the divisive issue from a broader perspective.

"One can imagine the subject going beyond just evolution and creation to other areas of inquiry that involve faith and reason," Krishtalka said.

Evening lectures will be followed by morning talks on the day after each lecture. The lineups for the second part of each lecture have not been set.

John Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, doesn't expect the series to be a dialogue.

"That's propaganda," Calvert said of the planned lectures. "Would I go to listen to Kenneth Miller? No. I know what he's going to say."

Calvert prefers debates and one-on-one discussions, which he says bring focus to specific issues and enable audiences to see all sides of an issue.

Calvert pointed to the state's hearings on the science standards and the scientists who were invited but didn't show.

Calvert said pro-evolution scientists are loath to debate the issue because they say there is no controversy. And to debate is to admit there is a controversy, he said.

"The inherent problem with that position is there truly is a genuine, legitimate, major scientific controversy about evolution," he said.

Victor Bailey, director of the Hall Center for the Humanities and organizer of the series, said he thought the hearings were politically motivated and the outcome was set before they took place.

Following the hearings, the state board of education voted last year to make several changes to the state's science standards.

The forum reaches across disciplines. It is part of The Commons, a new venture for the Hall Center and the Biodiversity Institute. Though future series topics have not been set, organizers say stem cell research is one idea they've discussed.


fletch 11 years, 9 months ago

Definition of irony: the head of the Intelligent Design Network complaining about something being propaganda.

jtg 11 years, 8 months ago

LARRYFARMA says, "I am sure that there are some pro-ID biological scientists out there who are not well known like Behe but who could do a better job of orally defending ID."

Well, LF ... find them; name them; bring themto us (or their work) - or bring us to their work.

Good luck.

oldgoof 11 years, 9 months ago

Oh cripes:

"Of course, it is disappointing that so far there is only one anti-Darwinist representative, and even more disappointing that he is Michael Behe."

Who do you suggest, Larry?   If Behe wasn't a nationally recognized person on the issue, he wouldn't have been asked to offer testimony at the trial by your friends!!

jtg 11 years, 8 months ago

overall comment from new visitor:

A proposed exercise for any/all -

 1. Copy ALL the posts here into a WP

 2. take a word count.

 3. Delete ALL the argumentum ad hominum - and all the responses to it.

 4. take another word count.

 5. do the math.

 6. Think about it.

james dick 11 years, 9 months ago

This is a great idea. I do think we need more ID proponents though. I hope it expands to include the broad role of religion in American public life, both theoretically and empirically. How about a social scientist and/or historian who have studied the role of religion and faith and can talk about the roles religion has and does play in our public life.

chzypoof1 11 years, 9 months ago

This "dialogue" is just another excuse for the University to show their general distaste of anything that's not backed by "scientific fact". ID is kind of a stupid idea, even though I'm a christian. The teaching of creationism, which I believe to be more fact than the monkey theory, should be taught at home and church.

That being said, Evolution is a theory. It should be taught as such. Teach it as our "best guess"...and leave it up to the parents to teach anything else that they want.

jayhawks71 11 years, 9 months ago

what dispute? The only dispute is in the mind of those with active imaginations, for example, those who create an invisible voyeur so interested in everything that we do at all times.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago


"They choose to call names & sling insults because they cannot show proof of the assertions they have written."

SW addressing me on another post:

"Pssst. Asbestos, your racism is showing."

Quite the poser hyprocrite you are how is that NOT calling me a Racist?

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

Yes SWBSOW you are quite the "Civilized self stylized gentlemen intellect" at least in your own mind.

You deserved getting thwacked and off topic for your tow faced posts.

xenophonschild 11 years, 9 months ago

Miller is the guy. Will be there to hear him, and to witness the quiet annihilation he works on proponents of creationism/intelligent design.

Finally, our guys recognize the wisdom of pounding the troglodytes in public, in public forums for all to see.

jtg 11 years, 8 months ago

Now, lest we find ourseleves defeaned by a chorus of the Rabid Rightists's howling AAH! AAH! AAH! about my last post, let me make it c;ear that is exactly what it is NOT. Rather it is a direct critique of his techniques in debate and his behavior on the board - and most definitely by extension an attack on his character (or lack of it), This is done not to undermine his expressed position(s) on the issue(s) but to demonstrate his unwillingness (or inability) to engage them honestly in honest debate.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Let me continue :

Another fine example of C-Man's debased debating technique is his "love it or leave it" post re my analysis of discussion here. Aside from being the sort of petulant whine you'd expect from a High School Junior Class President who doesn't want to hear any criticism of his "Fish Under The Sea" theme for the Prom rather than something from an adult trying to talk about a science lecture series at KU, it illuminates his real purpose here. That is to lower the level of debate to name-calling, - and to make it focus on personalities rather than substance. The simple answer to his inane "why don't you go play somewhere else if you don't like the way I play" challenge is this: I choose not to; frankly, I welcome the opportunity to shine a little light on how the foot-soldiers of the Rabid Right labor in the trenches to bury serious questions under an avalanche of non-sequitors, AAH, invective and other tried-and-true propaganda techniques. Working as he does from the classic Rovian playbook - Political Debate for Dummies CM functions is a perfect lab-rat for this. And silly as the exercise sometimes is, it's still fun kicking a sad little half-educated homunculus like him around the playing field now and then.

And he makes it so easy the temptation is impossible to resist! Take his "your fallacy is wrong" line. Wow. Fallacy = false; false = wrong. Either CM is the absolute master of the meaningless tautology or he is suggesting that I am arguing from a false fallacy which would mean I'm arguing the truth. Either way the statement is that of an ignoramus and one of the most compact and efficient idiocies I have had the privilege of encountering in quite some time. A suggestion for CM: a little knowledge can be an embarrassing thing particularly when trumpeted out so loudly. You want to make an impression using the terms of formal logic - learn what they MEAN. Tossing them out randomly gives the impression of a rather slow autodidact who gave up halfway through his self-imposed self-improvement project.

Klickhammer 11 years, 9 months ago

Hey, rightthinker, are you going to talk about the "science" of ID, or is it too hard?

xenophonschild 11 years, 9 months ago

We need more events like this to help kill religion as any kind of viable force in society. Religions are tired, worn out jokes, and need to be either killed or allowed to die gracefully.

You trogs are dumb as a bag of hammers. Evolution is not a "theory"; it is established fact. It actually happened, is happening as you read this. Jesus was not god, not ever, and your xtian bible is a gaggle of Jewish drivel. People like you richly deserve the oblivion you are shuffling off to.

devobrun 11 years, 9 months ago

So, I'm outta here.

There is no intelligent live on this board

Strontius 11 years, 9 months ago

The I.D. people are being given more than their fair share of equal time with just one pro-I.D. lecturer out of the several lined up. If we want to be proportional, KU should host more than 100,000 advocates of evolution before we even begin to consider having an I.D. proponent.

oldgoof 11 years, 9 months ago

Good one fletch. ...and if this makes any sense....the I.D. person invited is one of the very few national names in the movement ...Behe ... so its not like KU invited the "B" team.

xenophonschild 11 years, 9 months ago


You're okay with me. Keep up the good work.

I love it when HGA smites the dummies; they drool helplessly in a frustrated stupor.

And what's with all the invective and bad manners . . . that result in the LJW censors excising post after post of conservativeman and rightthinker?

After so many deletions, one would think they'd learn how to post properly. Maybe they should ask - no, humbly supplicate - holygrailale how to post and not get deleted.

chzypoof1 11 years, 9 months ago

Holygraile- I agree with you that ID is not science. However, I don't agree that you can "debunk" the idea of a creator. Science, as it is taught, studied, etc today was created by humans. Humans are prone to error. Proving that an animal has adapted to it's surroundings, to survive, does NOT prove that we came from apes. I believe that evolution has occurred, but I do NOT believe, as others, that some acid pool created us all just on a whim.

Just to "debunk" science for a moment, I'd like to use a science based religion story: When the Shroud of Turin was found, "scientists" used carbon dating, and found it to be from a different time period than Jesus' death. Yet, when they went back to re-test, they realized they screwed up, and found that it was actually around 2000 years old.

All I'm saying is that science is human based, and has been known to be wrong. ID is a religious faith, that should be taught at home....but....Evolution is a theory, that should be taught as such.

tolawdjk 11 years, 9 months ago

Maybe because public school students, themselves, can't vote?

And I'm not sure what you imply by requiring Judge Jones to recuse himself from cases involving religion. I thought the Dover case was about the science behind ID, and its validity to be taught as science. I wasn't aware it had anything to do with religion.

Or are you saying ID = religion?

grimpeur 11 years, 9 months ago

O the heresy! O the embarrassment! "...true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry."

Well, we wouldn't want that (rational inquiry). Nor would ID's supporters, as you're surely aware. Are you suggesting that religion cannot be reached through free rational inquiry, and that the two are mutually exclusive?

"...he should recuse himself from any case involving religion."

Such as the Dover case? Oh wait! ID isn't about religion! Or it is.

I guess we make do with "anti-Darwinists" because these shills have nothing to be FOR, since their claims of scientific basis are bankrupt and empty.

Allow me to suggest that if ID supporters wish to make claims of scientific support for their religious beliefs, they do some scientific inquiry first, instead of contenting themselves with a poor imitation of what scientists do every day--that is, question, test, and re-test their own hypotheses and those of their peers. The first time an ID supporter can bring himself or herself to do this, they'll have taken that first step toward scientific legitimacy. And I write this with the firm conviction that this is not going to happen any time soon.

devobrun 11 years, 9 months ago


Watch out, you must be new to these boards.

HGA will attempt to win this discussion by invective. He will abuse you by denigrating your qualifications, being obtuse and condescending.

He will get as personal as he needs to be in order to drive you from this discussion. He will bust you for spelling, grammer, anything to drive you away.

Make no mistake, chzypoof1, you are challenging HGA's faith. No one wins when faith is challenged.

When two elephants fight, only the grass looses. Give it up with HGA. You can't win the argument with him, and you can't learn anything from him. All that will happen is that you will be abused by him.

Klickhammer 11 years, 9 months ago

This is gonna be an awesome. Richard Dawkins, Michael Behe. Fantastic.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

"Explain to me how that is not racist or does not show some racism on the posters part?"

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

"2. You are now starting to show up in threads to make attacks on me. While I was slightly flattered by your attention, it is now starting to creep me out."

Paranora usually manifests itself from too much chemical abuse.

NOw I M outta here!

MyName 11 years, 9 months ago

Who cares how fair it is to the ID proponents, I'm just glad they're getting good speakers. If you can get people who are A-listers to come to Kansas and discuss this, you must be doing something right.

And for those of us who might actually like to know where and when these people will be speaking (something they forgot to mention in this otherwise acceptable article):

LarryFarma 11 years, 9 months ago

It should be interesting to hear what ol' Judge Jones has to say -- he never fails to put his foot in his mouth. For example, in a commencement speech, Jones said,
" . . . . this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry." See This statement shows such great hostility towards organized religion that he should recuse himself from any case involving religion. Also, Jones indicated that he intended to watch "Inherit the Wind," the historically inaccurate movie based on the 1925 Scopes trial, to "help put things in historical context" as part of his preparation for making a decision in the Dover case. The movie negatively portrayed creationists as a bunch of ignorant, intolerant hillbillies. See

Hopefully, Jones' lecture will be followed by a Q&A session in which he will be asked the right embarrassing questions.

Of course, it is disappointing that so far there is only one anti-Darwinist representative, and even more disappointing that he is Michael Behe. In the Dover trial, Behe showed himself to be a poor spokesperson for anti-Darwinism -- for example, he said that ID is like astrology. However, he did make a good written rebuttal to the Dover opinion -- see

Also, in this whole debate over the Kansas state evolution education standards, I am wondering why we have heard so little from those who are most affected -- the public-school students themselves.

LarryFarma 11 years, 9 months ago

tolawdjk said ( August 1, 2006 at 9:23 a.m. ) --

Maybe because public school students, themselves, can't vote?<<<<<<

They can't vote now, but they can sure as hell speak up. I know that if I were now a public-school student, I would want to learn about ID so that I would know what all the fuss is about.

And I'm not sure what you imply by requiring Judge Jones to recuse himself from cases involving religion. I thought the Dover case was about the science behind ID, and its validity to be taught as science. I wasn't aware it had anything to do with religion.<<<<<

The Dover case was all about religion -- it was an Establishment Clause case.

grimpeur said ( August 1, 2006 at 9:26 a.m.) --

Are you suggesting that religion cannot be reached through free rational inquiry, and that the two are mutually exclusive?<<<<<<

No, I never suggested anything of the kind. What I meant was that because Jones in effect asserted that religions not based on free rational inquiry -- e.g., Christianity -- are not "true" religions, he is inclined to rule against anything that he associates with such religions. That is why I said he should recuse himself from any case involving religion.

holygrailale said ( August 1, 2006 at 10:40 a.m.) --

Dr. Behe has absolutely the best credentials of anyone on the side of Intelligent Design. . . . .If he doesn't go over well, you're done. You have nothing but lawyers and theologians left to talk about science.<<<<<<

I am sure that there are some pro-ID biological scientists out there who are not well known like Behe but who could do a better job of orally defending ID.

devobrun 11 years, 9 months ago

rightthinker, conservativeman,

Maybe being ignored by HGA is a good thing.

Someone has been calling my place of employment and leaving anonymous messages regarding my views on this board.

This board is startin' to get spooky.

FYI, In the previous post by HGA, he characterizes my beliefs incorrectly.

I refer to Karl Popper as the foundation of my scientific philosophy.

Observation and hypothesis is the phase of science known by Popper as the Conjecture phase.

Politics is the human condition in science too. From inner-university politics (whose name and in what order on a paper) to societies, all the way to Al Gore there is politics. What else is new?

Right HGA, to the extent that any endeavor is unwilling or unable to test for refutation it should leave the term "science" out of the discussion. Thus biology has a lot of science in it.

But evolutionary biology is filled with statements that are quite unscientific. It is with statements like:"all living things have a common ancestor" that I find nonscience. Evo-bio has quite a few of these types of statements.

Again, everybody on this board, beware the personal attacks from HGA. They can be a real buzzkill.

swbsow, thank you for the illustration of how evo-bio makes statements that are both non-refutable (and therefore nonscientific), and fruitless.

devobrun 11 years, 9 months ago

My Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary has 2 definitions of the word conjecture.

1) supposition, or an inference from defective or presumptive evidence, a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork.

2) conjecture implies forming an opinion or judgement upon evidence insufficient for definite knowledge. surmise, implies even slighter evidence and suggests the influence of imagination or suspicion. guess stresses a hitting upon a conclusion either wholly at random or from very uncertain evidence.

So, HGA argues semantics. So, I choose definition 2 of conjecture (the one about judgement and opinion based upon insufficient evidence for definite knowledge).

When an observer gathers evidence he may or may not be engaged in scientific discovery (it might be police work). When the observations are followed by an explanation, an hypothesis, then we might say that a scientific statement is made (or we might say it is a legal opinion rendered by a D.A.)

Can the hypothesis be refuted? That is, can the hypothesis be subjected to repeated tests? I place emphasis on the test, rather than the observation. HGA disagrees.

Weather forecasters do this every day. Are their models converging to better and better forecasts? All you have to do is define a figure of merit (like difference between measured and predicted temp), then plot delta temp vs time over decades. Some smoothing would be anticipated, but at least the model can be tested.

Can you do that with swbsow's statement: " It states we share a common ancestor with the Great Apes." ?

Yes, HGA has a different view of science , even a different definition of conjecture. He apparently doesn't run into Popper-style scientists. Fine.

So, why the invective HGA? I'm tellin' ya that physics-based sciences generally look forward to the test, require tests, embrace the application of their theories. You have a different view. So you assign religious motives to me. You put my name and institution on the board so that a google search will come up with a match to this board.

I've nothing to be ashamed of regarding my Karl Popper style definition of science. It is the philosophical basis of the science that is used by engineers all the time. It is surprisingly powerful in actually doing things.

Here's a good example of an electrical engineer doing science: Claude Shannon, just google him. Information theory is the basis of the design of the channel between me and you right now.

I dunno, HGA, maybe you should seek help with your anger.

Klickhammer 11 years, 9 months ago

It doesn't seem to matter how many times it's pointed out to ID pundits such as those who lurk here that they're misrepresenting science, fundamentally misconstruing its aims and goals, and blemishing the tenets of its thought -- it doesn't seem to matter because they cannot adjust their argument (and this is all we're dealing with, a sort of "nuh-ugh" contrarian's protest with little else in place to support it) let alone allow anything to actually sink in and change their point of view. Why? Because to acknowledge that ID isn't science, and that science's very nature is in a state of flux, and that science is indeed falsifiable would be to cede their entire platform (you know, to sneak creationism into schools), ruining their efforts. This is why they're so distrustful (and distasteful); they're just arguing away with no regard for the truth.

(As an aside, why don't you ID followers ever talk about the "science" of it? You know, irreducible complexity, specific complexity, the designer, and all the rest? Could it be that it doesn't even matter? Why get bogged down in the specifics when you can take pot shots, attempt to redefine science, and argue by distraction? I guess you probably don't want people critically examining your "theory" because it would be rather embarrassing when they realize it's rubbish. Also, you would have to personally understand it too, which doesn't ever seem to be the case. Here's a challenge to any ID followers: in your next post, outline the reasoning and science behind ID, if it exists. Make it intelligent, and try to design it so that it makes sense.)

Some of us like to think that they're incapable of understanding, like trying to teach a monkey about the stock market, but it stands to reason that they're willfully ignorant, preferring to stay blind for the sake of smug contrarianism. For them, it makes for some high-fiveable posts, the kind where you really stick it to those liberals who are so clueless, but the truth remains completely out of reach, exactly where you like it.

devobrun 11 years, 9 months ago


Non-refutable is used in the sense of Popper. A statement that is non-refutable is one that cannot be tested for refutation.

If I say: " There is a God", then I have made a nonscientific statement. It cannot be tested for refutation. The question simply lies outside the realm of science. It might be true, it might be false. It isn't testable, so it isn't science.

If you want to interpret our physical existence to God, go ahead. If you say that love is evidence of God, go ahead. Just don't call it science. Thus, I am 100% opposed to ID, because it is evidence in support of a god explanation. It isn't testable.

When you made the statement that man and chimps share a common ancestor, I say this isn't science. Evidence abounds for similar genes, etc. But your statement is scientific only if you test it. Do it. repeat it.

When scientists engage in explanations that cannot be tested, they engage in ideas only. That is, your statement is of no use to people except to feed the mind. Satisfy their curiosity. Science which remains in the realm of ideas is philosophy. I know that you evo-bio types disagree. But, other than the social stigma (inquistion)associated with my rejection of evolution, I find belief in statements like yours to be quite unimportant me.

Oh, BTW to the extent that the model for H2O has been tested and used, the statements regarding the forces, masses, energies, etc. are scientific. Because the model for H20 has been used so much, in so many situations, its darn good science.

Newtonian gravity has been tested (space program). It continues to be tested. But there is a problem with gravity. You see, quantum mechanics applied to gravity doesn't work.

As I write, cosmologists are quite puzzled. The whole field is in quite a turmoil because the universe is accelerating out. The big bang is substantially incorrect. They don't know why. Their attempts to theorize their way out of the quantum gravity problem are diverging. And testing is looking rather bleak too.

So, watch out when you use gravity as a great scientific discovery based on evidence. Yes, newtonian gravity has evidence and test, but quantum gravity is the biggest physics question today. Quantum gravity has stumped all of 'em from Einstein to Hawking.
Honest, there is a gloom in the air when you ask a physicist how things are going on the gravity front.

jtg 11 years, 8 months ago

RE CONSERVATIVEMAN's "All this debate would be over if the high priests of evolution labeled their 'theory' as a theory." ...

Well, they do. Always.

Though in science, the word "theory" is used as a Term of Art (AKA "technical terminology"). For a general discussion of this concept go to Wikpedia:


Specifically, Evolution theory is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Again, for a useful workaday general discussion hit the WIK:


For those of you who do not want to click-and-learn, try this distillation:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and TESTABLE."

So, when some ID-iot tries to brace you (with gthe usual smug smirk) with his Thomas Mooore Law Center workshop flash-card question "But isn't evolution JUST A THEORY?" - simply answer, "No."

Then, when pressed (as you will be), expand: "No. The Theory of Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. And if you don't know the difference between an everyday personal 'theory" and a 'scientific theory' you really aren't qualified to discuss the issues."

Then, for the benefit of all present, run through the simple explanation (above, or your preferred version) of what a scientific theory actually is.

jtg 11 years, 8 months ago

My first post was addressed to a COMMENT by C-Man - not to C-man personally.

It seems to be being suggested - by way of some supposed "interesting" stylistic similarities - that I am somehow posting in collusion with HolyG. I can't comment on the content-relationship as the cited postings by HolyG (610PM and 7PM) just don't seem to be there. But in the interest of what our friends in the mainstream press like to call "full disclosure" let me say this:

I do not know who HolyG is, nor have I ever corresponded with whoever HolyG is. Nor have I been aware in any way of HolyG's existence - or that of ANYONE else here - before this afternoon when I came to this page by way of a Google Alert on the subject. Also, I really don't think I've posted enough for styles to be compared productively.

Would the attempt to link me with HolyG be an exploratory run at "guilt by association"? if so, it's a very a good example of how argumentum ad hominum is used to cloud real issues in forums like this and to either stifle honest debate or bury it under a sludge of personality issues. To say that this is common is not to suggest it is good.

jtg 11 years, 8 months ago

I decided to take my own suggestion and parse this discussion for purposeful content vis-Ã -vis argumentum ad hominum (I won't comment on what passes for wit in this environment). Admittedly, this was a quick-and-dirty job, but nonetheless you might find the results interesting.

I deleted filler such as addressing ("hey, JTG -" etc.), then I C&P'd to two separate files and took a word count . Here's what I got:


AD HOMINUM (and follow-ups to same): - 3,257 words

I have the material saved in two files - one for productive, one for AAH; they're available to anyone who wants to check for themselves (though you might find it more interesting to run the exercise on your own). It's interesting to follow the two tracks without bouncing back and forth between them - especially with all attributions removed. The AAH track is particularly depressing when viewed as the product of functionally literate adults - little more than a repetitive series of "nyah nyah nyah"s and "you're another"s.

A pretty poor performance all around, folks.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just" - T. Jefferson

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago

YOu know the "thwacked" was via words on the blog here for misrepresenting yourself. Most "respoible people" can tell or your superficial nature.

As for the Mexico City issue and The selling babies, that is not a racist position, it is however anti -Mecican Policy. Remember, Mexico is not only one "Race". Additionally, you are defending racists anyway. Those from "La Raza" "translation is The Race, want us to vacate all the land and give it back from them. They hate us "gringos" that have stole their land...(even tho' they sold it to us.) Go to the following site and find the true nature of the por illegal alien forum.

NO my position is not racisist, not at all.

Since when is being pro American "racist"?

I just want illegal immigration to stop.

Again, you have taken this thread..a dispute over evolution, to provide ad hominum personal attacks on others, and then hold yourself up as a shining example of perfection.

I just called you on it.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 8 months ago


Do you realise just how self centered you are making your self appear with your self promoting posts?

Why don't you just stop.

Like the man said, when you find yourself in a hole, first th9ing to do is to STOP DIGGING!

JUst let it go you ego maniac. Here ya go again:

"Defending racists for stating that the quote you put on the board was racists. Hmmmm, that's a new one."

You are pathetic, and have hijacked a board to stroke your own ego and yur self centered sense of being right. Hope it was worth it. I M outta here.

jtg 11 years, 8 months ago

Clearly, C-Man does not grasp the actual meaning of "argumentum ad hominum". For his benefit and for the benefit of any others who may be a bit confused - let me lay it out:

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINUM is the debate technique (and logical fallacy) of attacking an argument by attacking the character of the PERSON who presents the argument. Thus -

ARTHUR: PLAN 7 is good for the country. CHARLENE: ARTHUR has buys sex from underaged on drugs (therefore, PLAN 7 must be bad for the country.

Because Charlene attacked Arthur's CHARACTER rather than addressing Arthur's ARGUMENT, her argument qualifies as the logical fallacy called "argumentum ad hominum" meaning "argument against the man". It is a logical fallacy in that it does not attend on the propositions being discussed, but functions instead as an ARGUMENT FROM INFERENCE the base inference being that if the debater's character is suspect, then his argument must be false. The logical fallacy = does not follow (non sequitor).

Disagreement on an issue and attacks on a POSITION are not in and of themselves ad hominum attacks. Nor, necessarily, are outright direct attacks on a person's character itself. Direct attacks are straightforward arguments addressing a straightforward issue the character of another.

Now, of course there are many people and CM is clearly one of them who think ANY disagreement on ANY issue IS a personal attack. Hence CM's conviction that HG and I are in cahoots as if in a nation of nearly 300 million people there couldn't be two who could disagree with HIM without it being a conspiracy. But that is not a debating position that is a manifestation of the ego-disorder commonlky termed paranoia (see also his insistence that HG and I are conspiring against - sigh).

jtg 11 years, 8 months ago


I see that ASBESTOS suffers from the same confusions over AAH. (": you have taken this thread : to provide ad hominum personal attacks on others). Folks ALL argumentum ad hominum is "personal attacks". ASB has managed in one senternce to combine redundancy AND misapplication no small feat. A TIP: "Argumentum ad hominum" is NOT a magic phrase that thrown at others randomly somehow makes them (or their arguments) disappear in a puff of purpole smoke. The way the Rabids of the Right have seized on it here almost make me sorry I introduced the term to this board.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.