Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dumb as a Bag of Hammers

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In most if not all of the comments from the anti-ID crowd they focus on the farting sounds or what Judge Jones is actually saying. They entirely miss the point being made. The point is that what the judge is saying aren’t his own words. They’re the words he was given by the people pulling his string. In other words, he’s nothing but a talking doll mindlessly repeating verbiage supplied by others. Either the loyal opposition are all as dumb as a bag of hammers or they are purposely ignoring the point made by the satire. I’d guess more or less some of both on a case by case basis. The interesting thing is that none are acknowledging the point either because they don’t get the point or they are afraid of acknowledging the point because it’s irrefutable and damaging to their cause.

Comments
BenK while Darwinism is a problem for theists and theist-sympathetic agnostics It wouldn't be a problem for me (a member of the latter group) at all if it wasn't hideously flawed dogma pretending to be science as well tested as gravity. I go where the evidence leads. The evidence doesn't support NDE. If it did I wouldn't be here.DaveScot
December 22, 2006
December
12
Dec
22
22
2006
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
Just adding my two cents... I wasn’t nuts about the Judge Jones’ puppet theatre. The farting sounds were a bit juvenile. Personally, I think this topic is far too serious to poke fun of each other about these issues. I think the information coming out about the trial is damaging enough without the side show antics. Don’t get me wrong, I think humor is a necessity in this debate to a degree because these issues can become so heated. Yet, it would be refreshing to see some humor without being hurtful to others (regardless of which side they are on). There is no point in agitating each other even further, and I don’t think the general public who are trying to get to the facts about these issues are impressed with the way the two sides belittle and demean each other. I seem to remember the PT boys posting a video with some guy vacuuming an ID guy laying on the floor. I didn’t watch the whole thing because it seemed beyond ridiculous to me. But, this was nothing new, as they constantly belittle and poke fun of ID supporters over there. We shouldn’t lower ourselves to that kind of behavior. I attended Behe’s lecture at KU a few weeks ago, and the thing that made the biggest impact on me was his attitude. He didn’t act defensive, he didn’t poke fun of anyone. He calmly and effectively took down every argument that had been laid out against him in prior lectures. It was outstanding. I recently saw a letter posted at PT by Ken Miller, who is still using the same lame issues about the trial that Behe and others have clearly refuted. This, in my opinion, is the type of thing that completely discredits Miller. He never acknowledges that he is passing on horrendously misleading information. He actually stated in his lecture here that the KBOE wanted to take evolution out of our curriculum in ’99. He is blatantly dishonest in how he presents the facts, and this is what needs to be pointed out to the public. But, it can be done without lowering ourselves to their level of behavior. I love humor, I just think it could be use in a more effective manner.Forthekids
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
This horse is dead. Larry Farfiman -- I think you have it exactly right in what you've just said in this thread.dopderbeck
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
WinglesS: "No, it’s not ok. However I would assume that most people at the PT are atheists, while many here are Christian." I think you will find a variety of people there - including Christians. WinglesS: " If an atheist name calls - well I think that’s quite typical of atheists. They have no code of conduct so you can’t fault them as doing something that stands against their moral principles, if they have any." It is not typical of me or most of the atheist I know. And I think it denegrates polite discourse. WinglesS: " I don’t mean to imply atheists have no moral values, but I don’t think they have any consistent common set of values." Thank you, but would you care to explain this? In the context of the rock-solid invariable common set of values that Christians or other people have? I'm sorry - but that attitude gets my goat. :-/Radix2
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
BenK: "The debate over ID and Darwin is a rather bitter one, particularly for the anti-ID crowd; while Darwinism is a problem for theists and theist-sympathetic agnostics, an uncomfortable incongruity, Darwinism is an necessity for atheists. " I would have to disagree with this statement. I became an atheist many years ago due to a variety of reasons (mostly due to no supporting evidence for a *supernatural* being as described in the bible of my upbringing ). Perhaps here I should state that I am a weak atheist - I do not deny the possibility of the existence of the Judao-Christian God or any other god. This is very similar to Dave Scot's agnosticism, but not quite and the debate on the difference would only serve to distract from this thread and my point. My point is that until I heard of the debate about science vs religion and the idea that ID was creationism and all of the (to me) denial of evidences that the latter evinces, I had no thoughts about evolution. Aside from the fact that it was and is still the most supported theory. Wrapping it up prematurely perhaps, "evolutionism" had nothing to do with my atheism. I did not need that for my day to day world view Don't get me wrong. I reckon it would be cool if we could show a high likelihood that there was an intelligent entity involved in the development of life on Earth. But I don't think we are their yet...Radix2
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT
Dave, "I made some suggestions on how to clarify the message in future versions for people not so familiar with the situation." I was thinking about the animation. How about including some "false starts", along with engines-refusing-to-start sounds, as some of the gallery of notables attempt to pull Jones' string? Or maybe the sounds of a chainsaw not quite starting? They'd frown, pull faster and harder, then smile when they finally succeed. Just a thought.Douglas
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT
"If you visit PT, you’ll see nearly every post is filled with name-calling, often times some vulgarity, childish attacks, and worse. Elsberry in the most recent post calls Bill “William A. Divine Wind Dembski” two or three times in the post and in his many comments. So, a fart sound is childish and to be ridiculed, but silly name calling is okay? " - JasonTheGreek // Dec 18th 2006 at 6:45 pm No, it's not ok. However I would assume that most people at the PT are atheists, while many here are Christian. If an atheist name calls - well I think that's quite typical of atheists. They have no code of conduct so you can't fault them as doing something that stands against their moral principles, if they have any. I don't mean to imply atheists have no moral values, but I don't think they have any consistent common set of values. I in the book I read, "What's so amazing about grace?" by Philip Yancey, the author talks about the apostle Paul often criticising the chruch but having nothing to say of the (probably far worst) practices of pagans. So it should be with Christians and atheists. Two wrongs don't make a right afterall. Those over at PT like to be vulgar and childish doesn't give us the right to be vulgar and childish. If there are any atheist ID supporters or adherents to any other set of values other than Christian, the Christian standard doesn't apply, of course. However many would know that many posters here are Christian, and might see replies, whomever they are from, as being representative of Christian behavior.WinglesS
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
To some extent I could excuse Jones' extensive copying, considering the great complexity of the case, with hundreds of pages of documents and hundreds of hours of testimony. I am much more disturbed by his one-sidedness than by his extensive copying. Almost all of his ID-as-science opinion came from just the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief, so little or nothing came from the other post-trial briefs: the defendants' opening post-trial brief and the answering post-trial briefs from both the plaintiffs and the defendants. An opening brief is obviously going to be very one-sided. If the defendants' arguments were really lousy, then Jones had all the more reason to put them in the opinion in order to attack them. I am also disturbed that Jones mindlessly copied the ACLU's opening post-trial brief into his conclusion section -- in fact, one copied prohibition in the conclusion section, prohibiting the Dover school board from "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution," never made it into the opinion's final order -- see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/12/important-conclusions-of-law-in-dover.html Also, I think that Jones should not have judged the scientific merits of ID or irreducible complexity.Larry Fafarman
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
Matteo Point taken. After I wrote this I realized it might not be so obvious to anyone who isn't so familiar with the cast of characters and the Discovery report of how much of the judge's opinion was lifted directly from the ACLU brief, a brief all the string pullers in the animation took part in writing. I made some suggestions on how to clarify the message in future versions for people not so familiar with the situation.DaveScot
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Well, at the risk of commiting a tautology, it was not plainly obvious. Otherwise I wouldn't have missed it. If Jones had been represented as a ventriloquist's dummy rather than a pullstring doll, then I would've gotten it. As it was, it came across to me as annoying, pointless mockery. I don't think I'm so unlike others here that I'm the only one who didn't get it. I'm a daily reader. I generally get it when it comes to posts here. But not this. Given that the sounds were annoying, I didn't spend enough time with it to get the subtler message. But again, that doesn't mean the problem is with me. I mean if folks don't laugh at one of my jokes, I don't blame the audience.Matteo
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
When I saw the interactive flash animation I didn’t get it that the whole idea was that the various anti-ID players were putting words in Judge Jones’ mouth.
I don't understand how you missed it. It is plainly obvious. What did you think the point was?Jehu
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
FWIW, I'm working on a post-modernist enhanced flatulence version of my last post ---Phantom raspberry blower of old London town effects and all. I.D. could be in trouble...steveh
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
When I saw the interactive flash animation I didn't get it that the whole idea was that the various anti-ID players were putting words in Judge Jones' mouth. It just doesn't come across obviously enough that that's the whole point. I can't be the only sympathetic person who didn't "get it". If a joke falls flat with an intelligent, sympathetic audience, then who is at fault?Matteo
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
The point is that what the judge is saying aren’t his own words (fart). They’re the words he was given by the people pulling his string (fart). In other words, he’s nothing but a talking doll mindlessly repeating verbiage supplied by others.(fart)
(Sound effects mine) Humorless nitpicks: Does a Barbie doll plagiarize Mattel? Does it speak the words of the person pulling the string? Wasn't this already covered in the plagiarism discussions? What new insights do these animations bring to the debate (apart from Flatulence and silly voices)?steveh
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
"Quote Marks and Citation Miraculously Appear in Text of Judge Jones’ Commencement Address." Isn't random mutation amazing?Douglas
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
Wait. I just thought of something related to my last comment. Kenneth Miller writes biology text books. These are technical in nature and use jargon a popular audience wouldn't necessarily understand. He also wrote a popular book "Finding Darwin's God". Surely the lay verbiage in this book has passages he took from his other (technical) work and adapted it so a broader audience could understand. Gasp!! I wonder if he's a self plagiarist too?!JasonTheGreek
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
The debate over ID and Darwin is a rather bitter one, particularly for the anti-ID crowd; while Darwinism is a problem for theists and theist-sympathetic agnostics, an uncomfortable incongruity, Darwinism is an necessity for atheists. That is, the argument from design isn't the foundation for most theists' belief in God, although it is a comforting thought, and even then the argument from design isn't abolished by Darwin, but severely weakened. On the other hand, it was only ever Darwinism that made ateleological approaches to the universe plausible; should Darwinism fall, atheism as an intellectual project would utterly collapse. As Dawkins has said words to the effect that 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.' These people are, by and large, defending their religion. But of course, the debate can't be framed in those terms - belief in RM+NS has to be entirely defended as the position of an unbiased scientists appart from any metaphysical commitment. Hence the debate is not an honest one from the outset, and hence the tone of it is very sour. Hence the hyperbolice claims that 'anyone who doesn't believe in [darwinian] evolution is either stupid, ignorant, insane, or wicked'. Hence the pretence that ID supporters are not simply mistaken but somehow flawed as human beings, perhaps shift and dishonest, perhaps morons. Hence this case in which Darwinists pretend offence at satire which every man and his dog knows they would be calling 'hillarious' or 'cutting satire' if it were propaganda from their side. This is simply a matter of 'any stick good enough to beat ID with'. They are rather desperate to find sticks; they are fighting for their religion.BenK
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Actually. I just visited Ed Brayton's site via his newest PT post...he accuses West and DeWolf of plagiarising THEMSELVES. There's a novel idea if I've ever heard one! I take itback...this post is a "press release" from another anti-IDers which Brayton pasted to his site. A law professor involved in the matter commented that Brayton owes DeWolf an apology because the "press release" just isn't true. These guys are desperate. They used their text from their popular book on the subject to write a more scholarly law review. I don't even see how this is wrong, let alone how it compared to Judge Jones!JasonTheGreek
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
If you visit PT, you'll see nearly every post is filled with name-calling, often times some vulgarity, childish attacks, and worse. Elsberry in the most recent post calls Bill "William A. Divine Wind Dembski" two or three times in the post and in his many comments. So, a fart sound is childish and to be ridiculed, but silly name calling is okay? I also see someone comments and calls Bill "dumbski"...they also claim that Behe was behind that stack of papers on the immune system and said that all of that didn't convince him (they're distorting, that's not what he said at all!) They use the old canard that Behe is a creationist. Funny as he calls himself a theistic evolutionist. Guess what that means- the folks at PT think that ANYONE who believes that a designer (in Behe's case, he says he thinks the designer is the God of the Bible) brought us about- they're "creationist." Does that mean that all the PTers are atheists? If you believe that God had nothing to do with creating us, and that we're all big accidents- how can you be anything BUT an atheist? Seems like nearly all those commenting at PT mustbe atheists then. I see no other way to explain it. Atheism has been ruled a religion by SCOTUS. Thus, PT is trying to smuggle religion into the classroom via blind watchmaker darwinism.JasonTheGreek
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
While we’re on the subject of Jones repeating other people’s words, check out this gem over at Evolution News and Views: Quote Marks and Citation Miraculously Appear in Text of Judge Jones' Commencement Address It just keeps getting better.GilDodgen
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply