Comment history

Mirecki treated after roadside beating

"Get a metaphysic that allows value judgments or sit down and shut up."

Get a grip, and read some Voltaire. When you have gained a little actual *culture* or some measure of civilisation (and I mean the real thing, not the sorry excuse that passes for it in the US) we can talk. Until then, you'll never rise above the level of a flamebaiting troll.

"Some amount of humility should be good for both sides."

I know of very few scientists who do not possess humility. Watching neutron stars collide in galaxies a million light years away does give you a really wonderful sense of perspective.

What scientists do *not* have is any patience for stupid, political hacks who want to tell them how to do their jobs despite having less than three percent of their credentials and half that fraction of their IQ.

"it might be a good idea to be a little humble and admit that there are certain subtle things that the present theory of evolution does not answer at the cellular level for instance."

It might also be a good idea to realise that this is an argument from ignorance.

"Science need not contradict religion at all."

In fact it *cannot* contradict religion at all. Because religon deals with the supernatural and science deals with the natural. The two areas do not overlap. The problem is that some religious yahoos don't get that and want to play politburo commissars.

"To a neutral observer, without a bias, it seems as though the evolution is directed at this level."

To a neutral observer without bias, it seems that evolution is poorly understood at that level. Directed evolution isn't science, it's theology.

"Certainly ther is more mystery than science can answer."

Indeed. But at least we, unlike religion, don't simply forfeit.

"Posted by Evil_Dr_P (anonymous) on December 7, 2005 at 1:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is the Evil_Dr_P, ya know, I'm such a twit."

Posing as someone else is poor netiquette.

- JS

December 8, 2005 at 9:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mirecki treated after roadside beating

"Christianity is about love."

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet."
- Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux

"Evolution advocates also need to realise that the theory is not fool proof."

They do. But so far there has been no substantiative challenge to it. In fact, there's not even been an attempt. What there *has* been is a string of lies, political games, more lies, PR stunts, and yet more lies. IDC is empty. Scientifically and otherwise.

"Just as the religious bigots are mad so are the scientists who are fanatical about their theory."

Very few are.

Science is, however, carried out in scientific, peer-reviewed journals, *not* high-school textbooks.

ID has published a lot of the latter and *absolutely nothing* in the former.

Thus, ID isn't science. The scientists are simply pointing that fact out. They aren't being 'fanatical' or 'close-minded.' They are being professional and honest.

"The evolution theory does not explain well several mechanims at the cellular level."

True. Currently. But that's subject to change.

"Seen at that level it does indicate a certain amount of directed evolution."

Wrong. That's an argument from ignorance. There is not positive evidence for ID.

"The kind of arrogance and intolerance on both sides is a disgrace."

'Both sides' my foot. So far the intolerance and arrogance has been unilaterally on part of Dumbski, Ahmanson, Lyin' Luskin, et al.

I suggest you read the Dover trial transcripts.

"ON the one hand we have scientific "evolution" fascists [...] The scientists are arrogant and egotistic and cease to be followers of science because of this."

Where? Point out one, bitte. Surely, since you use plural, that shouldn't be too hard.

"On what basis does an atheist and evolutionist say that what happened to the good doc was "wrong." Looks alot like survival of the fittest to me."

That comment is - as Pauli is famously quoted remarking - 'not even wrong.'

Claim CA002 at the talk.origins Index of Creationist Claims.


December 8, 2005 at 9:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mirecki treated after roadside beating

"All of the Founders believed in ID and most all of our foundational political documents are predicated upon ID."

Bull. http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/su...

"And buckle your seat belts, for cultural collapses can get bumpy. Very bumpy. See Germany circa 1930. See France circa 1790."


You should Google 'Godwin's Law' too.

Oh, and one more thing: I though all the creationists were lying in their teeth when they said the debate over ID was about science not politics, religion and culture. Thanks for proving me right. Care to testify so before the Supreme Court if and when the Dover Dolts or the Kansas Kooks appeal?

"I see a bad moon on the rise."

So do I. A mushroom-could-shaped bad moon. Have done ever since that unmigitated idiot dubya did his little end-run around what passes for a democratic process on your side of the Pond.

"And, again, anyone else willing to consider the possibility the good religion prof may have taken a cue from that great cinematic event called Fight Club?"

I've considered that. But what has happened here dovetails too neatly with what we have seen from other religiofascist groups over the years. I have an exercise for the readers: Compare and contrast the Mirecki beating, the events leading up to it, and the 'debate' following it with the ditto regarding the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter. And if nobody replies, I'm gonna take a page out of Lenny Flank's book and repeat the question until I get an answer or you run away.

"No one deserves to be beaten for what they say in America. That being said, people do need to think about possible reactions to what they say or do."

No, what you need to do is put these fascists behind bars and throw away the key. Preferably the traitors George 'Weapons of Mass Deception' Bush, Dick 'Torture is OK' Cheney, Paul 'Screw The UN' Wolfowitz, Rupert 'Noise Machine' Murdoch, and Carl 'Scooter Libby' Rove can accompany them. I'd say Pat(wa) Robertson too, but he really belongs in a mental instution, not a prison.

"Dr. Mireki, Please release the medical records and the police report to the LJW reporters."

Med records contain sensitive information which are no business of yours, and publishing police reports before the fascists are caught wouldn't exactly be a three-digit-IQ thing to do, would it now?

December 8, 2005 at 9:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mirecki treated after roadside beating

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet."
- Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux

To those who question the authencity of Mirecki's account I have a couple of questions and a comment:

The questions first. Why do you think that people might be receptive to the idea that the beating (and I'm virtually positive that it did happen) had more rather than less to do with the fact that he'd been in the centre of a heated controversy over blasphemous comment made against religious fundamentalists?

Could it have something to do with the fact that islamofascists have been using the same tactics for years now, and that most dispassionate observers view Christian Reconstructionism (of which ID is a pawn) as little or no different from radical islamism? Try googling 'Salman Rushdie', 'JyllandsPosten death threats cartoons', and 'Lenny Flank reconstructionist Ahmanson'.

And the last question: Could the fact that fundamentalists have threatened the academic freedom of the KU and resorted to threats of illegitimate interference with the running of the university in direct violation of every code of civilised behavior have something to do with the readyness to jump to the aforementioned conclusions? The willingness to respect academic freedom has historically been a *very* accurate measure of a group's willingness to follow the other basic rules of civilisation.

And now for the comment: Being beaten is scary. The shock can very well take longer to heal than the physical wounds. Because what you don't know is just how much of a psycopath the goon beating you really is, and there's squat all you can do to prevent him from bashing your head in if he decides to go the whole nine meters.

After the fact you don't consider securing evidence. You don't take licence plates or call the police immediately or any of the dozen or so other things that sound so reasonable after the fact. What you do is put as much distance between you and the assailant as humanly possible.

It's a spinal-reflex reaction that we've probably inherited from waay back on the evolutionary tree, and in a natural environment it actually makes sense, because if the fecal matter is so deep that you're not even landing a single blow on whatever you're up against, then bugging out as fast as you can without wasting time and energy on anything else provides a rather marked advantage when it comes to survival. And most savannahs aren't big in police stations anyway...

December 6, 2005 at 6:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

2nd KU class denies status of science to design theory

@ Larry: Please at least check the talk.origins Index of Creationist Claims, located here:


before you post 'criticism' of the ToE.

Your points are rebutted in these files:*

(1) CB 100 though 180, esp. 150
(2) Too vague to come up with a specific reference in response. I presume that you refer to the 2LoT argument or the probability of abiogenesis. See CF 001-011.2 and CB 010, respectively.
(3) CB 630

* Which took about 15 min. to find, BTW - surely not an insurmountable task for anyone interested in informed debate.

December 3, 2005 at 7:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

2nd KU class denies status of science to design theory

I also take particular objection to this statement:

"If you want to be treated with respect, give respect."

Respect is not something to be bargained, granted, or taken by right. Respect is *earned* by acting respectably. I am under no obligation - moral or otherwise - to respect someone who is not respectable. I am specifically not under any kind of obligation to respect, take seriously, or even humor anyone's religious views just because they hold them and have a strong faith in them.

I view that particular line of rethoric as dangerous and damaging to a free society, since it states implicitly that we must tolerate, even humor, anyone who holds his religious beliefs dearly, no matter how insane he is.

I submit that this is harmful to society, and I cite the disgraceful inactivity of the West when the fascists in Tehran issued death threats to Salman Rushdie as proof of my claim.

There were actually people - so-called 'intellectuals' to boot - who argued that Rushdie shouldn't have been so 'provocative and disrespectful' towards Islam.

Please explain how your demand that no-one be 'provocative and disrespectful' towards what is for all intents and purposes Christian Reconstructionism* in a clown suit differs from the demand that Rushdie allow his freedom of press and speech to be restricted by a bunch of bearded, Bible-thumping** lunatics.

*"The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be's are the members of the "Reconstructionist" movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rouas J. Rushdoony[.] [...] According to Rushdoony's view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. [...] The Reconstructionists propose [...] ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible---they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning."

- Lenny Flank at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanavera...

**Q'Ran-thumping actually, though it's sometimes - no, let's be honest and say usually - hard to tell the difference.

November 28, 2005 at 7 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

2nd KU class denies status of science to design theory

I am not in the habit of debating with people who repeatedly enter the statistic under the 'Godwin's Law' heading. However, John1945 (who should, by the way, take a walk through Downtown Berlin - that would hopefully teach him not to cheapen the lesson taught there) has made several claims so repeatedly that I feel they cannot stand unadressed.

"What other theory besides macro-evolution defends its credibility with ad hominem assaults on its critics' religious faith?"

Fallacy. Macro-evolution* isn't defended by assaults on critics. It is defended by the abundant evidence, some of which is at




*Which BTW is one of those Disco Institute buzzwords that raises the hackles of any remotely informed observer.

Finally, if you look up the definition of ad hominem, you'll see that your use of the term is actually wrong. Furthermore, you'll see that the ad hominem arguments that *have* been proposed here are actually valid. Questioning a story because it is reported by Fux News or the Itar Taz is ad hominem, but is justified and valid because Fux News and (though to a lesser extend) the Itar Taz has been shown to make stories up out of whole cloth.

Similarily, the questioning of the usefulness of Dembski et al as supporters of your cause is, while technically ad hominem, perfectly valid because their duplicity is a well-documented fact. In fact a quick search for 'Dembski AND duplicity' over at www.pandasthumb.org returned about 30 hits, a few of which are sampled here:


The creationist/fundie/reconstructionist/IDist movement has, however, turned this issue into a political battle, since they don't have a snowflake's chance in a blast furnance of winning the scientific debate.

Fine. If it's a political debate, then we'll play by the politcos' rules. And the ayatollah-wanna-bes have set those rules themselves. Can you say Carl ('Scooter' Libby) Rove and Pat(wa) Robertson?

It was never the scientists who wanted to play the political game. It was never the scientists who wanted to play it Carl Rove style either. But if that's the set of rules the fundies want to play by, the least they can do is damn well quit whining when the scientist wise up to that fact at last and start responding in kind.

"For instance, I object to biologists who claim that Darwinian theory is a "fact"."

Already covered here:


November 28, 2005 at 6:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )