Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Triumph of Reason over Rhetoric at the Panda’s Thumb

William Dembski
June 27, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

DaveScot beat me to the punch (see previous post). Just so you don’t have to wade through the 515 (and counting) comments on the Ron Numbers thread (if you must consult it, go here), here are some highlights. It is heavily edited, of course, but what I left out is even dopier than what I kept in. It’s hard to believe that when NATURE needed to critique Steve Meyer’s piece that he published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, it looked to guidance from the Panda’s Thumb.

The Triumph of Reason over Rhetoric at the Panda’s Thumb

The Panda’s Thumb is the virtual pub of the University of Ediacara. The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation. –PT Statement of Purpose

PZ Myers
Yes! That is an invitation to argue!

B. Spitzer
You know, PZ … you come across as arrogant.

PZ Myers
Do you think I know nothing about religion? I get religion chucked at me every single day.
It gets annoying.

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank
Time for yet another pointless religious war again, huh.

PZ Myers
Lenny is part of the problem …

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank
I guess that’s why the ID fundies love me so much, eh?
(sigh)
(shrug)

PZ Myers
I know, don’t even try comprehend it. You can’t.

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank
If all the evangelical atheists now want to wave their dick in my direction, I’ll be looking elsewhere, sorry.
(yawn)

PZ Myers
The creationists and the religious know this; they aren’t stupid.

Gerard Harbison
One should have more confidence in the science.

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank
Sometimes I think that when you’re busy waving your dick, it cuts off all the flow of blood to your brain. (sigh)

PZ Myers
Amazing. …

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank
Well, PZ, I’m sorry that you don’t like me. (shrug)
Please feel entirely free to call me anything you want to. May I suggest “stupid-ass idiotic turd-eater”? Or how about “heretical atheist who’s not really a True Atheist™©”?

PZ Myers
You just did your condescending moron act ….

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank
OK, I’m ignoring your dick-waving. (shrug)

PZ Myers
You do seem to have a fascination with penis waving. If you’re going to continue here, could you please keep it in your pants?

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank
And I am still ignoring PZ’s dick-waving….
PZ will now wave his dick again.

Kevin
I am sick

PZ Myers
We’re fighting rats …

Kevin
oh and we ca dispense with the fake REV
and
DR….
or what is your divinity and what was your PHD?
rat lying ENABALER!

PZ Myers
We’re doomed ….

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank
Think about it.
(snicker) (giggle)

PZ Myers
I do not:
1. threaten to shoot all the Christians,
2. call all religious people idiots,
3. suggest that we need to convert all the religious people to atheism, or
4. deny that religious people contribute to science.

Kevin
I am ver y very disappointed to hear that you do not advocate to
1. threaten to shoot all the Christians,
2. call all religious people idiots,
3. suggest that we need to convert all the religious people to atheism, or
4. deny that religious people contribute to science.
because you would have been 100% in the right to do so…

Andrea Bottaro
As for me, metaphysical discussions bore me to death.

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank
I do indeed notice that every time we have our periodic religious war, none of the IDiots from UD ever have the ping-pongs to speak up.
wamba
Did someone say arrogant?

Lurker
Exactly.

dan
I concur with your thoughts about what amounts to being true to your own convictions.
It is fundementalist in it’s nature,but that does not disuade my own conviction that if it is truthfull to be athiest, then we must be able to stand up and say so. In this country, at this time, it is not acceptable to be athiest. I have had quite a few discussions along these lines, and if you can’t be true to your convictions on the web, then you are an absolute pussy, in my regard.

PZ Myers
You really have to stop believing the BS Lenny spews.

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank
I’ve had too much beer.
(hic)

PZ Myers
There is one unique asshole here who accuses others of wanting to round up and shoot the religious ….

Sir_Toejam
I could give a shit for tone and civility.

PZ Myers
The science is our strength.

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank
I am once again ignoring all of PZ’s dick-waving.

Rilke’s Granddaughter
To David Berlinski
… I would have expected that you, of all people, would recognize the futility of trying to persuade scientists with rhetoric rather than reason.

Comments
Upon reading the trend, one gets the feeling that some Darwinists live in a separate world. They seem to believe that, the moment the Fundamentalists get converted to Darwinism, the controversy will be over. In other words, "join hands with the TEs (Theistic Evolutionists) and let's convert the Fundies so that the origins debate ends". (This seems to be Lenny's view) This is clearly wrong, since there are many scientists who oppose (or are skeptical of) Darwinism for scientific reasons. Secondly, unlike what Lenny says, the "science argument" did *not* end over a century ago. Even upon reading Creationist material, you'll notice that when they debate Darwinists, they use scientific evidence (Information Theory, fossil record, etc) against Darwinisn, and refrain from using ONLY religious material. To label the controversy as a "political" arguement is a huge misrepresentation of the issue, and a "poisoning of the well" type of tactic. The issue is scientific, but not only scientific. But hey, if they wish to remain in their fantasy land where "there is no controversy among scientists", and "only Christian Fundamentalists doubt Darwinism" let them.Mats
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
PZ Myers: "Atheism is a religion like good health is a disease." No, Mr. Myers! By making such silly analogies you can't escape the fact that Atheism is just another belief system aka religion which you are bigoted member of it. PZ Myers: "some like to tell us that religion has to be kept out of the discussion, but that is like telling us you want an infection cured, but you don’t want to hear anything about bacteria or antibiotics, because it offends you." So you are saying that ID is an infection and religion is the bacteria. Awful! Now it becomes apparent that your only goal is to defend science not to defeat religion. Isn't it? Keep up the good work Mr. Myers! ID community should be thankful to you.Farshad
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT

Pandas Thumb receives Scientfic American award Top 25 Science and Technology Web Awards for 2005

Our editors [Scientific American] name 25 of their favorite sites

PT ranks about #8!

SciAm joins Nature in affirming PT.

I think John Rennie, the editor-in-chief of Scientific American, and PZ Myers are a pair of brokeback cowboys if you get my drift and I think you do. You should read them fawning over each other on Rennie's old blog. scordova
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
it's very hard to read PT without my eyes glazing over at the sheer repetition. Every good thread there has at least one person screaming "Waterlooooo!" sarcastically, while others try to out-name-call. It's hard to believe that any scientist would frequent that board, as the signal to noise ratio there is so low that it would be hard to find anything of any real value there.rmagruder
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT

Somewhere during the exchange, Pyers blows:

There is a strong cultural aspect to this struggle that is independent of the facts, I won’t deny that. But calling the science “irrelevant” is throwing away the sharpest tool in our toolbox. We are going to win people to the side of science and reason by promoting, well, science and reason. Stop running away from it! Stop being ashamed of the fact that the evidence is on our side! We aren’t going to win by engaging in theological debates, or by getting the right legislation, or by winning court battles—the way to win is by taking the ignorant by the scruff of the neck and dragging them outside and showing them that yes, the sky is blue, water is wet, the planet is round, and the earth is old. The science must be the linchpin of our strategy. When we teach people to think, science wins.

PeeZee, do share how facts like:

- Digitally encoded information along the spine of the DNA molecule with all of it's error protection safeguards, etc... etc... - Irreducible cellular machinery with complex interlocking components assembled to accomplish a specific function - The abrupt appearance of fully formed and distinct body plans and subsequent sudden bursts of biological novelty in the fossil record

...demonstrate that science is on the side of the Darwinian Materialist.

I'll be waiting along with the chirping crickets.

Scott
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
This much entertainment should not be free!GilDodgen
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Makes me feel privileged to have Uncommon Descent. The contrast is amazing.Atom
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
This is hilarious. The statements are surreal by some, as France flushes its future for the whole world to see, they're lifted up as an example of what is politically correct viewpoints! LOL! A comment made about England, USA and the Aussies. That's good company I'll take any day as nations creating wealth, science and innovation in business, technology, medicine and finance. But what is truly hilarious is the blindness upon which such statements are made. Countries around the world have scientist that are pro-ID and pro-creationist. What is so sad is none of this is evident to blind sheep holding onto dogmatic blankets of downy comforters. Flank is spot on. This is political non-sense, grandstanding and its a disaster to their cause. But go for it! I've never been a participant to watching one side of an argument IMPLODE before my very eyes on such a grand scale as this. It like the Howard Dean "aaaaaarrrrrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhheeeeeeee" moment. Priceless! The poor man was caught numbless in political back stabbing and could do nothing but shriek in despair. Call em names PZ, crackpot(is a favorite), etc., that's the way to debate people with PhD's! This will enhance public discourse as well! Right along with Dawkins famous quotes. I suggest you get your own primetime show so the public can view the elequence of your arguments as is. If someone is going to fight a political battle, they should learn from the likes of Slick Willy and the DNC that you do not attack your opponents with name calling and skull-duggery in the open. You sweeten them to death with blushing compliments of lies in TV LaLa Land, meanwhile, in the darkened corners of concealment with conspiracy run amok, carry a big knife for the back-stabbing of any and all who stand in your way. Even if they're on your side. Witnessing the shrill curdling voices like that of Dean's is worth every moment. The knife still gets bloody and the enjoyment of a surprised victim caught unaware in the dark is soothing to one's ego requiring 15minute fame for the purposeless pursuit of purposeless-ness.Michaels7
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Somebody really needs to make a YTMND of this.Deuce
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
PZ Myers Do you think I know nothing about religion? I get religion chucked at me every single day. It gets annoying. I've got a tip for you PZ...stop airing your religous rants in public both on PT and on your own blog and I guarantee you the chucking will slow down and you will be less annoyed. And we will all be happier because of it.Lurker
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT

Here's the NATURE piece I cited:

Nature 431, 114 (09 September 2004); doi:10.1038/431114a

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design

JIM GILES

Critics of evolution score publishing success

A new front has opened up in the battle between scientists and advocates of
intelligent design, a theory that rejects evolution and is regarded by its
critics as another term for creationism.

A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of
intelligent design - the first time such material has appeared in a
peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue. The
paper appeared in a low-impact journal, Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington. But critics say that it could still be used by
advocates of intelligent design to get the subject on to US school curricula
(see Nature 416, 250; 2002).

The article comes from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, a
leading promoter of the theory. In the article, senior fellow Stephen Meyer
uses information theory and other techniques to argue that the complexity of
living organisms cannot be explained by darwinian evolution (S. C. Meyer
Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 117, 213-239; 2004).

Many of Meyer's arguments have already been aired by advocates of
intelligent design, but critics say that publication will be used to back up
claims that the theory is scientifically valid.

Kenneth Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode
Island, who has argued against Meyer in public debates, does not doubt that
this will happen. "They've tried very hard to get material into
peer-reviewed journals."

Richard Sternberg, a taxonomist at the National Center for Biotechnology
Information in Bethesda, Maryland, was editor of the journal publishing the
Meyer paper when it was reviewed and accepted. Sternberg is also on the
editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, which publishes papers on
"scientific research in creation biology". He says the paper was seen and
approved by three well-qualified referees.

Meyer's article has attracted a lengthy rebuttal on The Panda's Thumb, a
website devoted to evolutionary theory. But Miller says that, despite
criticism of the journal, versions of the theory will find their way into
the scientific literature at some point. Arguments for it can be written, he
says, as reappraisals of certain aspects of evolution rather than outright
rejection. "Peer review isn't a guarantee of accuracy," he adds. "That is
especially true of review articles."

William Dembski
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Ahhh the rigours of academica produce such lovely *colourfull* characters. Now, can we please supply them with real knives next time they're about to fight, would save us an awfull lot of time.lucID
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
I can't believe that there is any Darwinist out there who can make Lenny Flank (I called him "Loony Flake" when I was commenting on Panda's Thumb) look like a moderate. Once when I cited a Supreme Court opinion that supported HIS position, he sneered, "when did you become a lawyer, Larry?" One of his favorite expressions was, "no one cares what you think (shrug)." The rapid growth of this thread on PT is probably setting a record even for PT. There are over 500 comments and the thread is less than three days old.Larry Fafarman
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Hilarious, to say the least.Mats
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Anyone else feel as edified as I do after reading that exchange? Where do I sign up to be a Darwinist!? Somebody cut me a slice of that quick!Scott
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply