“Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal” -- Paul Z. Myers

Maybe they didn't like his "Pharyngula" looks (a known swindler who exploits females)?

Perhaps this account is closer to the truth.

Of course, if this guy had only followed Basmati's example he would have just slipped in through the back door and with a new identity.

Nice one.

The Sissy

________

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

But what can one expect from someone who used the N-word unabbreviated two times in THIS POST.

Hatred surely makes strange bed fellows, as the saying goes. You'd pay Ben Stein, who is an outspoken advocate for the creationist intelligent design movement and a pro-life activist, honored with an award from National Right to Life?

Did you know that Stein said, "Nixon was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering-up peacemaker. He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war-starter like LBJ, a lying, conniving seducer like Clinton — a lying, conniving peacemaker."

But he does have that "tax-the-rich" flaw. What can you expect from someone who graduated from Columbia University (like Obama?) and was a poverty lawyer. And then he has all of that liberalism of the Hollyweirds rubbing off on him.

You should enjoy Stein's “Commentary on the Observance of Christmas” (Stein’s Jewish).

“I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.”

All conditionals with false antecedents are true. So, yes, what you say in your first sentence is true.

My impression is that the film is more about the tactics of certain people in academia than it is about the views themselves. My primary interest at present comes from research that I'm doing on charges of leftist indoctrination on universities around the country. My own alma mater, UW-Madison, for instance, has just lost a court case against a Catholic student group that the chancellor was trying to edge off campus for being "too religious," while, at the same time, it sponsors radical leftist groups with exclusivist and militant views and agendas. I see the subject of Stein's film as being a part of this seamless whole. Classic liberalism, as represented by the likes of JS Mill, tolerates a diversity of ideas--even outrageous ideas--in the "marketplace" in the belief that truth is more likely to be discovered as a result. These people, on the other hand, regard themselves as Keepers of the Truth whose role is to suppress and silence all dissent. One may well boast "All tenured faculty at Whatsamatta U accept Phlogiston Theory" if there has been an active campaign to shut out any scholars who challenge phlogiston theory.

So an editor of a prestigious journal publishes an article that is regarded by many as defending a variety of pseudoscience. First, now tiresome "Flying Spagetti Monster" replies notwithstanding, Intelligent Design enjoys a hoary tradition as a classic view defended by major intellectuals of the Western world for the past two millenia. Second, the author of the piece is a credentialed and careful scholar who brought his training and research to bear in the article to present to the scientific and academic community for their assessment. Instead of allowing the natural give-and-take of scholarly debate, they go after the editor for opening the door to a "creationist."

And to suggest that, by definition, anyone who finds problems with Darwin's theory is "anti-science" is kind of like a blogger suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him or her is "anti-God." Much is swept under the rug by those Darwinists who maintain, with Dawkins, that Darwin's theory is as certain as heliocentrism. Indeed, I just read a piece yesterday discussing work on a new naturalistic paradigm that some hope will eclipse Darwin's theory by closing gaps left open by that theory. Perhaps it will. Perhaps not. But the significance here is the acknowledgement of gaps that call for work on a new paradigm.

"Classic liberalism, as represented by the likes of JS Mill, tolerates a diversity of ideas--even outrageous ideas--in the "marketplace" in the belief that truth is more likely to be discovered as a result. These people, on the other hand, regard themselves as Keepers of the Truth whose role is to suppress and silence all dissent.

Would anyone care to guess which liberals on here regard themselves as "Keepers of the Truth whose role it is to suppress and silence all dissent"?

It's a shame that classic liberalism has been hijacked by those who, in self-righteous indignation, see themselves as the divine 'keepers' of the 'Truth'.

In your vast experience in the Hallowed Halls of Academia, have you ever had the occasion to become acquainted with a delightful little concept known simply as "The Scientific Method"?

I think I know what that is Sniff!

It is a taught regimen where one learns to put things down on paper in such a manner that it only promotes argument as to its accuracy!

It shows great discipline in the formulation so as not to indicate any hesitation or drift from plan!

It simply must be used as a reference by others doing the same thing.

You will be rewarded with sashes if you are good at it.

Why, yes. Yes, I believe I have now that you mention it.

Yes, indeed! Certainly I have!

Excellent, Dr. Muddle! Now then, good sir, would you agree that the "Scientific Method" is considered the cornerstone of science?

I suspect that the "scientific method" is the cornerstone of science just as the "philosophical method" is the cornerstone of philosophy, the "legal method" is the cornerstone of law and the "plumbing method" is the cornerstone of plumbing.

So far so good.

But perhaps the definition of each is still up for grabs. Now, I've read Michael Behe's stuff and even urinated next to him in a rest room in Aberdeen, Scotland, but I don't know what I think about some of the detailed arguments for design in the context of microbiology.

I do believe, however, that a definition of the scientific method that in principle precludes design as an explanation is too restrictive. I think that in principle Behe and others could just be right.

Consider Francis Crick's one-time conjecture of "Directed Panspermia"--the idea that human DNA was brought to earth by superintelligent aliens. Suppose that the following were true: (a) DNA is an artifact, having been manufactured by, say, Alpha Centaurians, and (b) DNA looks for all the world as though it has been designed (I believe (b) is a part of what Meyer argued in the article in question). If we define science in such a way as to rule out, in principle, appeals to design, then we preclude the possibility of our science arriving at the truth about the origins of DNA in this case.

Further, as Dembski and others have pointed out, archaeology, forensic science and the SETI project (among others) operate on the assumption that principled design inferences are good science. How does the archaeologist determine that an object is an artifact with clues to reveal about ancient people rather than a randomly formed natural object? And what are we listening for in the SETI project? On what basis does the scientist in CONTACT say, "This pattern is not random"? If there is a principled way of doing this in these contexts, then why do we think it must be ruled out of court in other scientific domains?

Here's a paper by philosopher Alvin Plantinga, challenging "Methodological Naturalism"--a concept widely thought to be a part of that cornerstone you have in mind.

Methodological Naturalism?

"philosophical method"? "legal method"? A good jest, sir!

What a strange and marvelous world you live in, Dr. Muddle. I confess I have a difficult time embracing the concept of a world with no absolutes...how absolutely fascinating. If I read you correctly, sir, if a newly hypothesized concept fails to pass the scientific scrutiny of "observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment", one simply disregards the offending principle that precludes adoption of said hypothesis as fact!

Stunningly brilliant in it's simplicity!

The practical implications are enormous! For example, I've always wanted to own a dog, but I'm allergic to them. Using your brilliant synopses, I can now redefine my cat as a dog and live the remainder of my years as a happy and content "dog owner".

Thank you for your participation in this discussion, Dr. Muddle, it has been MOST enlightening!

I have no idea what you're talking about. I suppose you did not read the Plantinga piece. And you say nothing here in reply to my point that an apriori rejection of a design inference is overly restrictive.

But my cat, Luke, thinks he's a dog, and I'm not telling him any different.

Dear Muddle,

We regret to inform you that the the keeper of the 'Truth' has rejected his interpretation of your alleged premise as speculated by his illogical conjecture and misapplication.

Please feel free to apply again for further rejection if in conflict with the predisposed fallacies of the keeper of the 'Truth'.

Sincerely,
Sniffles (aka Jeffc aka basmati aka Mainstream dba Plagerism 'R' Us.)

Dr. Muddle, I spent a fascinating day yesterday attempting to find real world applications of your redefintion of the Scientific Method ("disregard that which does not fit your conclusions!") (this being a paraphrase, of course, I cannot do your original theory justice).

First of all, I noticed Git Real's signature. I found the phrase "Eagles don't flock" to be somewhat annoying. After refilling the bird feeder yesterday, a large number of cardinals descended upon it. In a moment of Muddle-inspired clarity, I re-designated these cardinals as eagles and proved Git Real wrong once again! Eagles DO flock!

The rest of the day was somewhat uneven. It was a beautiful day yesterday, a perfect day for horseback riding. Sadly, I had no horse. But then I recalled your brilliant theory and transformed my dog (who was previously a cat, you'll recall) into a horse using the power of Scientific Methodless Intelligent Design!

Lacking a saddle, I took my new horse down to a tack store in Griffin. Sadly, the tack store owner did not stock saddles in my "horse"'s size. He shook his head and indicated I should seek medical help.

Thinking he might have a point, I took my new horse to the Vet. The vet was initially skeptical that my dog was now a horse, but after showing her Intelligent Design research on the web she is now a true believer. She did indicate that we may have a new species of small horse here, and suggested I contact the Guinness Book of Records folks to see if my horse is the smallest horse in existence.

I have forwarded pictures and measurements of my horse to the Guinness folks. I will update you on their reaction once I have received their reply.

Your devoted servant,
Sniffles

I'm not sure if you wrote to me about Plantinga, or sniffles!

Barley corn and mold--separated--make good liquorice!
Molinists prosper by outguessing God, I think, Hairy soldier.

Have you ever tried to explain away the DNA chain as a fabrication of the devil? Sword of the one horseman may cut you down! (when the trumpets blow!)
Pardonme some, due to soaking head in polluted water.
Those old dudes of hundreds of yarsago were strange thinkers, but they died out, and now all they git is others using their weird stuff to explain todays problems.

Now muddle may have something there! I have seen people (disturbed) huddle with and cuddle inanimate dolls as if they were their babies.
Now, if they think that those things are their babies, then who am I to argue?
Treating cats as if they were your dog just means the animal was misnamed. Lab notes and Scientific study and Philosophical methods of course will not dispute that the cat is a dog, but will give you more explanation and weird words that only another explainer of that type will pretend to understand fully.
I vote for the cat, er, dog!

Or you could just get a Labradoodle -- they're nice dogs and won't make you sneeze.

I don't need your lectures, they are useless to me, so lecture to someone else.

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

What?

I have considerable concern about any day care who hires such people and pays them in cash at the end of the day!

This baby-sitting thing is way out of hand in the USA.
Private ones aren't working---way too expensive.($150 per five-day week)
More than some Moms make! If they have two, or three..... Whoa!
We need federal, sanctioned, inspected ones!

Little did you know we have to have a huge back ground check.

I don't get paid at the end of the day- I get paid monthly.

Wulfman pays me daily but I get paid by a check at the end of the month.

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

After they check your huge background, do they then check your brain?
Why is a huge background necessary?
You said you got paid every day, I didn't.
Are you mixing two jobs? Why does your most wonderful, handsome husband allow you to work so much? You must not sleep at all!
Does your lovely boy still stay with neighbors at a party?
Little more detail, please.

End of subject- Go figure.

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Holy cow.

Holy, holy cow.

Holy cow. Holy, holy cow.

my thoughts, exactly.

------------------------
GOD BLESS THIS MESS

Mr. BPR read everything you wrote, he tried to warn me, now I can tell him that is correct.

I have to work for wulfman now- gotta go.

______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Must be one virtuous soul.

I wonder what you now think about the fact that you called Main Stream a "liar" for asserting that you are identical to the "Lilly" character?

And you took deep offense at me for thinking that Main Stream was on to something.

Then it turned out that in those strenuous denials you were lying through your teeth. And then we're told that the whole thing was an "experiment" to see who hates Christians. In this, you fail to notice that several professing Christians here are embarrassed by you.

Ah, and in the next breath, "I forgive you and I am praying for you because that's what Christians do...."

Now you continue the assault.

You have lost all credibility here. What sane person would be interested in the religion that you espouse? Lock the henhouse!!!

I'm sorry, but either you are a really weird one or, despite seeming evidence to the contrary, you are just as fictitious as "Lilly." (You continue to read like a bad satire of Christianity.)

This person, bpr, is a joker. I concluded that long ago, and that is the only reason that I fool around with it.
If I really thought this was someone, really, I would be afraid of the very handsome husband! Who would then obviously be bp's keeper!

I believe that to be an effective Preschool teacher a person would need the ability to write a coherent sentence?

This person doesn’t display that ability.

Diaper changer maybe.

Not a preschool teacher.

I know who you are- you just told.

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Mr. BPR will not post to you- he said it was a waste of his time after reading all you have written. He supports me 100 percent and knows I proved it. He does not speak to Mr. know it all.

I'm so glad you got a new friend, she does not like me, I'm Christian, I tried to be her friend, so did Denise- she said no- boy that is what her god wants. Not my God. If you agree- that tells it all.

Muddle- all you do is talk how horrible Christians and all the people in the church are- well so what- I don't care what you think- I care what God thinks- because you think you are so smart does not mean you are- especially on this subject.

Embarrassed, not me- wanted to see how far you and your new friend that has many gods would take it.

You must not have read about hypocrites that I have been writing about- or you would - well maybe understand it- I don't know you don't go to church and have act like you don't not any interest in church. We are all horrible hypocrites.

I hope you go back to seeker- because if you seek you will find Him.

But, I find it strange- alot of stone throwing at me- Hypocrites?

Point proven: Hypocrites -Christians and non- Christians- that's what I got from your friends and you- sorry you all did alot of stone throwing and still are- now who is holier than thou?

End of subject. I won't take anymore stone throwing- wow was Mr. BPR on target about you- Throw you stones at me, I won't reply.

_______________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Don’t you know that everyone here is a liar except BPR/ Lilly?

When she lies it doesn’t mean it’s a lie because it was an experiment not a lie just to see if you would lie because she doesn’t lie and she knew everyone else would lie but not her she doesn’t lie it’s an experiment to see if everybody else lies and are not Christians and there’s the proof.

Now do you understand? It’s as plain as the nose on your face.

I think?

what?

_____________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

Atheist Sees Image of Big Bang in Piece of Toast

I can't seem to make the link work, but is it Ferris on the float in downtown Chicago? [EDIT: Got it to work. Yep, great scene!]

We used to live about 40 minutes away from downtown Chicago and made frequent trips to the museums--particularly the art institute. I love the scene in Ferris Buehler in the impressionist wing with the Seurat La Grande Jatte, Picasso's Old Guitarist, etc.

You would think I'd would know how to do this correctly by now.

Twist and Shout

I think the problem was at my end. I got it.

We just watched FBDO a couple of nights ago. One of my all-time favorites.

The Discover Interview: Lisa Randall

I tend to agree with her way of thinking about religion and science.

I tend to agree with her too. Plus......I think I'm in love ;}> shhh, don't tell the wife! Hey it's Valentine's Day!!

"once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"
"listen to the thunder shouting, "I AM, I AM, I AM"

;>} Have a grateful day ;>}

No doubt I'll get hammered for posting this.

Free Thought Takes on Organized Religion in National Billboard Campaign

OK BPR and/or Lilly, have at it.

At least not in the hands of Dan barker & co.

I remember Barker from my days in Madison. He is a religious fundamentalist turned anti-religious fundamentalist: same rabid form, different content.

He spoke at a small gathering of people from some campus ministry once. My buddy and I from the philosophy department showed up. Barker began "bullying" some of the members with his well-rehearsed arguments that he had pulled from the barrel. We entered the fray and the fun began.

I always think of Barker alongside another person I knew in Madison. Elliot Sober is a philosopher of science and, so far as I can tell, a naturalist (atheist). But they are light years apart. Elliot is in the business of working on a naturalistic view as a kind of research project. The idea: How much can we plausibly explain given only the resources allowed by a thoroughgoing naturalism? Barker is a Village Atheist and reactionary. I know from experience that the latter is all bluster. Elliot, on the other hand, is as formidable as he is friendly.

A rising star on the atheism scene is my old friend and classmate, John Loftus. Prometheus has just released his book, and it has already garnered praise from the likes of Daniel Dennett and is listed on Christopher Hitchens' website.

_____________________________

This really comes as no surprise to me. I'm with Yardman. Let 'em waste their money on it. That sign is polarizing and won't change any minds. Kind of like having J.C Sniffles campaign for Obama.... Big Smoke - No Flame.

I suppose it's another left-wing attempt from liberals in an effort to "reach across the aisle".

________
In regards to Democrats, Republicans, gangs, and other scads of coterie Kool-Aide drinkers; Remember this..... Eagles Don't Flock

Free enterprise at its finest. They bought and paid for it, let them display it. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.