tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post113563073757441557..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Bethell's blatherUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1136207445518571462006-01-02T08:10:00.000-05:002006-01-02T08:10:00.000-05:00Great letter, Dick. Here's a clickable link to it...Great letter, Dick. Here's a <A HREF="http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051231-095709-3383r_page2.htm" REL="nofollow">clickable link</A> to it, and don't forget to read the letter by NCSE's John Cole, too.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1136133288197453212006-01-01T11:34:00.000-05:002006-01-01T11:34:00.000-05:00Those of you who were apalled at Bethell's piece m...Those of you who were apalled at Bethell's piece might enjoy my rebuttal letter, which The Washington Times published today (1JAN06). See http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051231-095709-3383r_page2.htm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135918616748447202005-12-29T23:56:00.000-05:002005-12-29T23:56:00.000-05:00In proper response to another anonymous post..Cell...In proper response to another anonymous post..<BR/><BR/>Cells, in fact, do what they are told. <BR/><BR/>They follow the instructions their DNA tells them to do. When they cause cancer, they are STILL doing what they are told to do, because their DNA is damaged and instructs them to reproduce at a rapid rate, and never tells them to die (yes, imbedded in the DNA are necrosis genes that force a cell to die.)<BR/><BR/>Stop talking about 'what scientists can descover' and take a freaking histology or cell biology course in college. You will learn what we HAVE descovered, and what little we don't know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135799675068078452005-12-28T14:54:00.000-05:002005-12-28T14:54:00.000-05:00Bethell has shown himself in the past to be a rema...Bethell has shown himself in the past to be a remarkably lazy journalist, not at all adverse to quoting selectively whenever convenient (as opposed to, say, cold calling some new sources for information that might bring a truly fresh angle to his work).<BR/><BR/>Citing Popper against evolution is just one example. Although that canard was <A HREF="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8401_popper_and_evolution_9_10_2003.asp" REL="nofollow">addressed</A> years ago, Bethell can't bring himself to come up with better arguments.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135735530863030032005-12-27T21:05:00.000-05:002005-12-27T21:05:00.000-05:00Francis Collins on ID:Carlson: What do you think o...<A HREF="http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000954.html" REL="nofollow">Francis Collins on ID</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>Carlson: What do you think of this statement read to the Dover, Pennsylvania public school children that the theory is just a theory and explaining briefly intelligent design? Is that that be read to kids?<BR/><BR/>Collins: It sounds as if it’s a good idea to suggest anybody listening to a discussion about science to keep your mind open and to be sure that facts are actually backed up by data. But, of course, that statement is full of a lot more than scientific facts and data and concerns about them. It is a statement that reflects a battle that’s going on right now. And in my view, an unnecessary battle. So let me explain why I say that. As somebody who has watched our own D.N.A. sequence emerge, our own instruction book over the course of the last few years, all three billion letters of our code, and watched how it compares with that of other species, the evidence that comes out of that kind of analysis is overwhelmingly in favor of a single origin of life from which various forms were then derived by a process which seems entirely consistent with Darwin’s view of natural selection. By saying that, some people listening to my words will immediately conclude that I must therefore be opposed to any role for god in the process that’s not true. But I’m not an advocate of intelligent design, either.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135731954645424812005-12-27T20:05:00.000-05:002005-12-27T20:05:00.000-05:00There a mistake in Bethell's article. It reads at...There a mistake in Bethell's article. <BR/>It reads at the end:<BR/><BR/>Tom Bethell is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science"<BR/><BR/>While it should probably read: <BR/><BR/>Tom Bethell is the author of "The Political Guide to Incorrect Science"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135722174206619552005-12-27T17:22:00.000-05:002005-12-27T17:22:00.000-05:00Here is the worst of the article:The cell itself, ...Here is the worst of the article:<BR/><BR/><I>The cell itself, thought in Darwin's day to be a "simple little lump of protoplasm," is now understood to have the complexity of a high-tech factory. There are 300 trillion cells in the human body, and each "knows" its function. Cell biologists do not know how these things happen, or how they arose.</I><BR/><BR/>First of all, I don't think at any point in the history of biology was the cell thought to be a simple lump of protoplasm and nothing more. Second, if it were found to be such a simple lump, then molecular biology and biochemistry would be totally unnecessary and it would really make life look supernatural. If the cell were simple, yet did very complex things, this would make the article's claims a little more credible. Third, some cells don't "know" their function and do things that can kill you, like say, become cancerous. Fourth, cell biologists, biochemists, and molecular biologists absolutely DO know how these things happen, not every little detail, obviously, but if that were the case then these sciences would be "finished" wouldn't they?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135717224347869532005-12-27T16:00:00.000-05:002005-12-27T16:00:00.000-05:00Regenery is also the publisher of the works of Mar...Regenery is also the publisher of the works of Mark (take all the n***** into a field and burn 'em)Furhman and Ann (Joe McCarthy was a great guy) Coulter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135714304541567632005-12-27T15:11:00.000-05:002005-12-27T15:11:00.000-05:00"Are we to conclude that Americans, and only Ameri..."Are we to conclude that Americans, and only Americans, are capable of "reading and thinking for themselves", that those in Canada, England, France, Germany, Australia, the Netherlands, Italy, and Spain are all under the grip of some thought control imposed by jackbooted thugs?"<BR/><BR/>Well, you and I don't believe this, but isn't this exactly what some Americans think about the outside world?<BR/><BR/>This is a perfect example of the way that creationism hooks into even older American prejudices about the world the original colonist left behind them - the idea that the world outside the US is corrupt, unfree and hamstrung by government imposed dogma.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135714157734805872005-12-27T15:09:00.000-05:002005-12-27T15:09:00.000-05:00A few days ago Bethell was televised on C-Span in ...A few days ago Bethell was televised on C-Span in front of some conservative think-tank presenting his new book, in all its selective bizarrity. Amazon has <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/089526031X/qid=1135712362/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1673225-1921651?s=books&v=glance&n=283155" REL="nofollow">The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science</A> - note the enormous relative number of reader grades for the first two positive reviews. No doubt artifically inflated.<BR/><BR/>Not surprisingly, Bethell revealed he thinks the medical research community is also a conspiracy, as well as a variety of other psycho-ceramacies. The phrase "prisoners of a subculture" kept running thru my head. It takes real mono-maniacal dedication to write in opposition evolution for 30 years (in RW organs like the American Spectator, etc.) and learn nothing but one's own pre-approved beliefs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135711937353180602005-12-27T14:32:00.000-05:002005-12-27T14:32:00.000-05:00So, the Washington Times is one of the newspapers ...So, the Washington Times is one of the newspapers promoting ID in the media, and it is owned by Rev. Moon? Hmm, that reminds me of this Jonathan Wells quote: "Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism". Seems Rev. Moon is trying to fight naturalistic evolution on multiple fronts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135710566605801552005-12-27T14:09:00.000-05:002005-12-27T14:09:00.000-05:00Since when is Bill Gates an authority on DNA? (Of...Since when is Bill Gates an authority on DNA? (Of course, some might argue that he is not an authority on computer programs, either.) I don't know how one would compare DNA and a computer program, but most computer languages have more than 4 basic building blocks. Moreover, just because something is mysterious does not make it complex. I daresay there are plenty of microbiologists and biochemists who would consider Bill's programs just as mysterious as he thinks DNA is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135707220213154122005-12-27T13:13:00.000-05:002005-12-27T13:13:00.000-05:00"Anyone else notice that the Washington Times seem..."Anyone else notice that the Washington Times seems to be the only mainstream media actor still trying to actively promote intelligent design?". Perhaps there are few mainstream media supporters of intelligent design, but smaller newspapers still do. See if you can access the Calgary Herald's Dec. 22 editorial entitled "It's just one of many theories". It's incredible.<BR/><BR/>KenHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135706555346724952005-12-27T13:02:00.000-05:002005-12-27T13:02:00.000-05:00Sorry for double post and Bethel" should be "Bethe...Sorry for double post and Bethel" should be "Bethell."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135706439431450402005-12-27T13:00:00.001-05:002005-12-27T13:00:00.001-05:00Everything you said about Bethel is right on, but ...Everything you said about Bethel is right on, but your reference to "swift boat slime" indicates you have some of your own blind spots.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135706406806920062005-12-27T13:00:00.000-05:002005-12-27T13:00:00.000-05:00Everything you said about Bethel is right on, but ...Everything you said about Bethel is right on, but your reference to "swift boat slime" indicates you have some of your own blind spots.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135699450215484422005-12-27T11:04:00.000-05:002005-12-27T11:04:00.000-05:00Michael Hopkins is spot-on about Francis Collins. ...Michael Hopkins is spot-on about Francis Collins. Dr. Collins says that the genome sequencing of multiple organisms provides extremely strong evidence for evolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135698620891171602005-12-27T10:50:00.000-05:002005-12-27T10:50:00.000-05:00Anyone else notice that the Washington Times seems...Anyone else notice that the Washington Times seems to be the only mainstream media actor still trying to actively promote intelligent design? Rush has given up, Fox News has given up, just the Washington Times is still beating the dead horse. They even had that article last week pimping the crazy walking-godwins-law-violation guy from talk.origins.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135691491622826642005-12-27T08:51:00.000-05:002005-12-27T08:51:00.000-05:00I wonder if Francis Collins is aware of the claims...I wonder if Francis Collins is aware of the claims made about him? Maybe someone could point this out to him so he can set the record straight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135690018523656552005-12-27T08:26:00.000-05:002005-12-27T08:26:00.000-05:00The Washington Times, eh? Isn't that the paper own...The Washington Times, eh? Isn't that the paper owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon? The guy who founded "the moonies."<BR/><BR/>Once a dangerous cult, now an key part of Republican establishment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1135687799914017022005-12-27T07:49:00.000-05:002005-12-27T07:49:00.000-05:00"And contrary to Bethell's claim, there's no free ...<I>"And contrary to Bethell's claim, there's no free speech concerns: intelligent design can still be discussed in high school philosophy or religion classes -- it just can't be falsely represented as science."</I><BR/><BR/>In fact, according to <A HREF="http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3345271" REL="nofollow">this</A> story in the York Dispatch, that's exactly what the Dover School board may be doing:<BR/><BR/><I>"New school board president Bernadette Reinking said that she would like to see a Religions of the World class coming out of the history department.<BR/><BR/>She said teachers are looking into how to present a class about world religions, which would touch on all religions and could be offered as an elective and added to the course lineup if enough students are interested.<BR/><BR/>'Intelligent design' might not be called 'intelligent design,' but rather represented in the Christian religious story of creation, Reinking said."</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, Intelligent Design" originated as an evasion of the ruling agains creation science, and since it failed in that task, it's non-specific nature is no longer required, so they'll drop the obfuscation.<BR/><BR/>As for Bethell, he's a liar, IMO. He was set straight by <A HREF="http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html" REL="nofollow">Stephen J. Gould</A> thirty years ago, and has no excuses.Craig Penningtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18013621363279210112noreply@blogger.com