#38271: Keith Sader — 09/01  at  08:40 AM
There's three sides to this controversy! The FSM will not be ignored. We know it was his noodly appendages that formed the earth.

#38272: Aero — 09/01  at  09:56 AM
Before the facts evolution and it's real controvercies are presented, maybe teachers and profs should get together and produce an infomercial/sermon (they both use the same mechanisms to hoax the audience) about what evidence is and how it is important . Then students could feel more comforatable with how they get the message.

Use scary scenarios like the audience is on trial and their are 450 withnesses for their defense that verify they are innocent against the prosecutor and his one witness. Now imagine the prublic gets convinced that the judge should make the trial balanced by only allowing one witness for the defense and instructing the jury ahead of time that God is on the side of the prosecution and commands that the accused should hang.

Or something like that.

#38273: Bob Davis — 09/01  at  09:56 AM
I like the way you say you're going to be teaching the controversy.

as an example of egregious error, and show how the assertions of the IDists are better explained by evolution.

It seems like it can't be ignored at this time, and it certainly can't be taught (what's to teach?) so dismantle it in one fell swoop.

Maybe add a little satire, like teach FSM or other theories too. Meanwhile we have a leadership vacuum at the presidential level of such startling proportions.

#38274: — 09/01  at  09:58 AM
For a wonderful short piece dealing with this same issue, check out the latest from conservative John Derbyshire in National Review Online.

You should acknowledge when smart conservatives, who probably disagree with your politics 90% of the time, write good stuff on ID.

#38275: — 09/01  at  10:06 AM
John Derbyshire says

And then I had to go and cap the month off by indulging in an anti-Intelligent Design rant, thus inviting a tsunami of e-mail. Everyone else had had a go at I.D. recently, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents' worth.

I'll admit, the I.D. people get up my nose. I didn't mind the old William Jennings Bryan Creationism half as much, because, however wrong-headed — hey, anybody can be wrong — it was open and honest. I.D., by contrast, is dishonest. It is an attempt by Creationists to make an end run around the courts, which they know will rule against them on church-state grounds if they mention God or the Bible when presenting what they think should be taught in public schools. So they are terrifically careful not to mention those things. Instead, they throw up a smokescreen of "science" and "math," hoping to fox the gullible and get a few court rulings in their favor. Fie on them! If you want to teach from a religious perspective, open a religious school — a thing you can do perfectly legally in every state of the union, and the legality of which I wholeheartedly support. But leave alone people who disagree with your religion. That's fundamental Americanism.

Intelligent Design = Postmodernism.
Not only is I.D. dishonest, its "science" bears an uncanny resemblance to Lefty po-mo deconstructionism. Noam Scheiber has a good piece on this in The Australian.

#38276: PZ Myers — 09/01  at  10:21 AM
Heh, yes. The start of my lecture is going to be advocacy of the FSM -- and I'm going to dare the students to refute me.

#38278: Matt Ficke — 09/01  at  11:25 AM
IDists

Heh. One of the better puns I've seen in a while.

#38279: — 09/01  at  11:38 AM
Hey, they gave talkorigins.org a plug at the end of the article. Neat.

(Maybe someone can get Dawkins to contribute an FAQ? :D)

#38281: — 09/01  at  11:43 AM
Sorry, can't help myself:

http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/949.html

#38282: coturnix — 09/01  at  11:43 AM
I've seen Pastafarian groups forming on The Facebook, so college students (at least some of them) are paying attention.

#38283: — 09/01  at  11:57 AM
A growing number of scientists support teaching the FSM controversy.

#38286: raven — 09/01  at  12:13 PM
Very well put...

#38288: charlie wagner — 09/01  at  12:35 PM
Paul wrote:

The start of my lecture is going to be advocacy of the FSM -- and I'm going to dare the students to refute me.

With all due respect, I think your students would be better served by teaching them some actual science. But that's just my opinion.

LOSER OF THE DAY

George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.
New York Times editorial Thurs. Sept 1, 2005

Read "My Latest Crisis" at:

http://enigma.charliewagner.com

#38289: — 09/01  at  12:51 PM
Let's shove ourselves further down the crapper.

<url="http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/290#more-29">Dembski's Blog</url> has this to say:

Read carefully. Or ignore it.

Dembski sickens me. Now he's trying to impugne the sexuality and therefore the perceived bias against 1) women and 2) homosexuals by comparing his opponents and opponents to Iraq as "effeminate".

"ADDENDUM: Everything in this quote is right except for the references to religion and Darwinism in bold. It would be interesting to see what this research would have found if these additional categories had been included."

For some reason, including this statement below doesn't stop people from reading the inserted, false use of the statements in bold which he wants you to think of, involving more obfuscation and lying to make people wish and think as he does.

It would be nice to find such a study, but for some reason "The Week" magazine doesn't have "Cornell" or "insecurity" providing any matches that I can read online. So I had to find a more liberal blog to find

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Aug05/soc.gender.dea.html

Dembski's report left a lot out to validate his conservative, anti-evolution and anti-science views. Especially given that it wasn't a "Cornell study" but a research topic by a Cornell student, a blurring of lines Dembski has used before to imply that a person's school of choice can somehow validate them in the world about (talk about insecurity).

Interestingly, this study hasn't even been published yet, and how many students around here are lauded for shoirt form presentations without access to data for testing or abstracts at symposia? Dembski has used "fake reports" before by talks and such to validate his mistaken illusions about evolution and his insecure belief in an intelligent designer (whom he can't, insecurely, name "God" because of his anti-christian attempt to hide the God of the Gaps in his work -- <url="http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/specified.complexity.html">which can't even recover his own hypotheses</url>).

Like I said, it sickens me.

#38290: Llelldorin — 09/01  at  01:03 PM
I like the idea of starting with the FSM. Too many people don't get that there are plausible conceptions of reality (the FSM, creation of the universe in 10,000 BC with evidence of prior evolution already in place, creation of the universe one second ago with LOTS of stuff apparently already in progress, giant simulation, etc.) that aren't the business of science because they're literally irrefutable. (Doesn't look like a simulation? It's just that damn good. Have memories of this morning? You were created with them. Never seen the FSM? You're not wearing enough pirate regalia.)

#38292: — 09/01  at  01:06 PM

With all due respect, I think your students would be better served by teaching them some actual science. But that's just my opinion.

Shouldn't you know what constitues "being science", first?

#38293: charlie wagner — 09/01  at  01:22 PM
Rich wrote:

"Shouldn't you know what constitues "being science", first?"

Do I have the honor of being addressed by the Distinguished Professor of Religion and Director, Center for Faith and Learning at Pepperdine University? Or is this a different Richard T. Hughes?

#38294: — 09/01  at  01:30 PM

Too many people don't get that there are plausible conceptions of reality (the FSM, creation of the universe in 10,000 BC with evidence of prior evolution already in place, creation of the universe one second ago with LOTS of stuff apparently already in progress, giant simulation, etc.) that aren't the business of science because they're literally irrefutable

Why stop there? It's possible that Creation hasn't happened yet, that we don't exist, and we just think we do because the memories are being revved up for the impending Creation, which is next week.

I bet you didn't consider that one.


BTW, the 'creation with evidence of a past' should be attributed to Philip Henry Gosse's book Omphalos, first published in 1857.

Truly, I am not wearing enough pirate regalia.

#38295: Kagehi — 09/01  at  01:30 PM
> George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom.

Like I said on at Athiest Empire. The main problem with Iraq isn't that its failing, its that our president learned how to inform the public from seminary school. 90% of his speeches are preeching about what he expects to accomplish, without any defense of his actions or actual facts, and when he does provide anything, instead of a long laundry list of successes, of the sort Chrenkoff (in australia ironically) has been giving the entire time http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com , he talks about stuff that sounds like it was bought for an all night BBQ or something. The public needs facts. Sadly, the DOD took two years to just 'start' reporting the same stuff Chrenkoff has been collecting since practically day one and Bush (and apparently his speech writers, assuming he doesn't write this BS himself) doesn't seem to be capable of even comprehending what the #@$#$ problem is. But what do you expect? His entire administration, save for inconvenient people like his science advisor, which he ignores, is made up of people that have more in common with priests and their illogic than the people they want to convert (oh sorry, 'govern').


As for the real subject of this post. Yes, one needs to understand 'what' science is, before expecting them to know how to tell when someone is scamming them.

#38296: Kagehi — 09/01  at  01:33 PM
Ah, just realized the joke there.. He didn't even refer to the actual crisis, but directed it at the Gulf, instead of the natural disaster.. Sounds typical if true. lol Sorry about the rant if that's the case, but its definitely something that has bugged me for the last three years.

#38297: — 09/01  at  01:35 PM
Charlie - I'm not "the Distinguished Professor of Religion and Director, Center for Faith and Learning at Pepperdine University" and I'm not too happy about sharing the same name!

#38298: Bob Davis — 09/01  at  01:43 PM

Why stop there? It's possible that Creation hasn't happened yet, that we don't exist, and we just think we do because the memories are being revved up for the impending Creation, which is next week.

I bet you didn't consider that one.

I got that one covered in my essay on Evolution at my Knowledge base. Scroll down to "Alternate Theories" item #7.

#38299: — 09/01  at  01:48 PM
In its paper form the Grauniad comes in three sections - news/comment; features (G2) and daily specialist section - science on Thursdays. In G2 there is a daily 'Pass Notes' - a lightweight Q&A guide to a burning issue of the day. And today - in the same issue as the Dawkins piece - Pass Notes is on ... the FSM. Truly a miracle.

#38310: Jim Daley — 09/01  at  03:44 PM
Wow.

Earlier this morning, I went over to Dembki's blog to see what he had to say about this. He said:

Not only are Dawkins and Coyne not offering any scientifically rigorous evolutionary explanation for how the bacterial flagellum emerged but they’re telling us that they don’t need to.

All <i>I<> said was that while yes, they don't in this Guardian article, Dawkins has, in a number of his works, (rigorously) explained exactly this concept; and that I've read plenty of ID arguments in mainstream media that also are not very rigorous in explaining, say irreducible complexity. I didn't editorialize by saying that trying to dismiss Dawkin's article on these grounds is an incredibly weak and very lame approach.

Knowing I was in the opposition, I was really as nice as it possibly could be. It wasn't like I was trashing him or mocking him or anything, simply pointing out a distortion.

The fucker erased my comment and invalidated my username and password!

I guess I finally understand how these sonsabitches operate. He should call his blog uncommon <i>dissent<>, since there's obviously no room for it. Jeebus. This is exactly what IDers accuse the scientific community of doing to them.

#38314: Arun — 09/01  at  04:20 PM
In this age, it is only your usenname and password. If we transition to the world that they want, you'd be deposing to the Grand Inquisitor.