The Triumph of Reason over Rhetoric at the Panda’s Thumb
| June 27, 2006 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
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 sickPZ 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.
45 Responses to The Triumph of Reason over Rhetoric at the Panda’s Thumb
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
#28, Scott, makes me wonder if they keep up with the latest “peer-reviewed” papers that recently admit that “common heredity” is in fact Not Clear across all life forms. It appears some scientist on the evolution side of the coin disagree with one common descent and are leaning more to multiple roots.
Aside from this fact of internal debate. Commonality = Design among intelligent species who create new information. And is a plus component of ID. ID predicts shared commonality – it does not run away from it. This is a lack of understanding on the part of evolutionist in general it seems.
As for Jack Krebs postings – after reviewing those post Jack, I think my tone and comments to you in the past were humble in comparison. We had a reasonable debate. Panda’s smearing of you is just mud-raking.
But then, the ACLU, NAMBLA, Random Mutations go hand in hand with gnashing of teeth, eventual anarchy and civilizations downfalls. When one fails to adhere to standards of order, they inevitibly lead to disorder and chaos. Because one cannot make any reality based decisions on materialistic viewpoints alone, they are left to chatter into oblivion, louder and more voiciferous, nevertheless, an ever downward spiral into darkness.
So much for the state of rational science. It’s like Kramer and George got a lab.
Reminds me of the Lord of the Rings, when the orcs capture Frodo and Sam and then start killing each other over who will get their stuff.
Re: #33,
I think that’s an excellent comparison, BK. Get a bunch of them together and I think the only thing that would keep them from killing each other would be the fear of prison and damage to their reputations. (A little booze might fix that, though.) My point is that not only is their position hopelessly wrong but they’re vicious, hate-filled monsters (okay, not all of them, but a lot of them). I’ve actually wondered how, in The Lord of the Rings, the orcs maintain order in their ranks, as volatile and stupid as they are. The situation is not much different with the cult of materialism. Their arguments are merely trivial at best and roll-on-the-floor-and-nearly-suffocate-from-laughter funny at worst, and a some of them would apparantly just as soon kill as look at each other to boot. Why must we chisel away at their walls when not only are they crumbling on their own, but their defenders are pulling them down on top of themselves. All we need to do is point an laugh. In the words of the great John Davison, “I love it so!”
It may be a bit early to tell, but I think what we’re observing is symptomatic of a general melt down by the otherside.
It is symptomatic of a side that is facing one defeat after another. And there are apparently personal breakdowns as well:
Brayton writes of one of the PT founders, Gary Hurd:
Hurd wanting to get in a fist fight with Bryaton? Can you feel the love over there!
PZ, setting minds at ease and solving problems:
Toward that end
Excellent introduction, glad to have gotten to know you.
It looks like that they have something against people with spiritual tendency, maybe they should start building death camps! MHHH does History repeats itself? And what moral values are promoted through Darwinism Humanism and Atheism again? Ohh you say there is none? Well that is strange! PT thanks for mutating into such a wonderful example, using random moderation and natural sincerity of what science should look like
MUAHHAHAHA
When PZ Myers says that to believe that Jesus died to save mankind is not ‘rational’, he, more or less, means that the mind, working on what is visible, or discoverable, in the world, cannot DEDUCE this reality. It can’t reach this conclusion. That’s the atheist’s understanding of being ‘rational.’
Yet, we can use reason in an INDUCTIVE way, as well. The so-called ‘proofs’ of God’s existence are, indeed, ‘inductive’ arguments, starting with the world as we see it, and proceeding (logically) to the conclusion that God exists. Atheists reject this kind of argument. They have thus delimited what is clearly a part of our rational being. (Inductive arguments are standard fare in the sciences.) What is their justification for doing so? Is there some logical basis for it, or is it simply some passionate rejection of certain conclusions that create a psychological disturbance within their being? Thus, who is being ‘irrational’, and who not?
Further, if “survival of the fittest” is not just an intuition, but a demonstrably provable “fact”, then ‘deductively’ we should CONCLUDE that all the less ‘fit’ members of our species should be ‘eliminated’ so that humankind might improve. (Isn’t that what NS is supposed to do? Btw, many of those who secure abortions are already using this strategy.) If Myers is unwilling to support the ‘elimination’ of the ‘unfit,’ living members of our society, then isn’t he guilty of being ILLOGICAL??
As they say, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Myers would be advised to examine just how, and in what ways, he is being ‘rational.’
I remember being at a talk by Fr. Stanley Jaki at Cal-Tech in Pasadena. It was the year he won the Templeton Prize. He’s the author of “The Savior of Science.” One of the things that sticks out is that he said the beginning of modern science traces itself back to a commentary on Genesis made in the 12th Century. The commentator noted that since Genesis says that God created the sun, the moon, and the stars, that the motion of the moon and stars had to have been brought about by God as well, and that since it was God who had first ‘moved’ these objects, that these objects continued in motion by themselves (he used the term ‘inertia’ to describe this) and that it had to be an ordered type of motion. This led to a study of the stars/planets using as a ‘first principle’ the conviction that since God ‘orders’ all things, that the motion of the planets must be ‘ordered’ as well. It is not by coincidence, then, that modern science came about in the Christian west.
And, btw, the next time PZ Myers dresses up for graduation, he should consider that the cap and gown that he wears comes from the tradition of having a Graduation Mass at the end of the academic year. The cap and gown are left-overs from the “choir-robes” of the monks at these Masses. (Yes, PZ, “universities” developed from seminaries. That’s been true from the time of the Sorbonne to Harvard itself.)
Century Rides…
[...]of spare inner tubes, tyre levers and either a small air[...]…
Training Century…
[...]encounter the unexpected on your rides. Always carry some[...]…
Training for a Century…
[...]ride. By doing this your experiences will[...]…
Training for Century…
[...]a tear in your tyre, as can often happen with a big puncture one [...]…
Ride a Century…
[...]out for cuts and scrapes on the tire, replacing them sooner rather than[...]…
Ride a Century…
[...]A thorough test for oil leakages should be done along with checking the oil [...]…