A point of consensus » « PowerPointing our way to disaster

The internet never forgets

I feel a little bit sorry for Joel Borofsky, Dembski’s ‘research’ assistant. Over at Inoculated Mind, Karl Mogel has excavated Borofsky’s tawdry history on them thar IntarWubs. I’d forgive him some of the earlier illiterate, whiny stuff—he started at a very young age, at about the same age as my daughter (who seems to be able to use the internet without sounding like a doofus, though)—but he doesn’t seem to have improved with age.

A point of consensus » « PowerPointing our way to disaster

Comments

  1. J-Dog says

    PZ – F*** him. I don’t feel sorry for him at all. He made his bed, now he has to lie in it. If you sleep with snakes, you got to pay the price. He could always “Stop Lying To Us” and himself and repudiate Dr. Buffalo Bill.

  2. George Cauldron says

    I suppose the moral to this story is, do not use your real name on the internets unless you’re quite certain you’re not going to say anything stupid. :-)

  4. Steve_C says

    It’s even funnier when he came on here to defend himself then disappeared after he was asked questions.

  5. BlueIndependent says

    Steve_C:
    “It’s even funnier when he came on here to defend himself then disappeared after he was asked questions.”

    Agreed. All these openly public Christians these days seem plenty open to the idea of learning from Jesus and God, but they turn into turtles when real life comes knockin’ at the door. Hey here’s a thought: Why not learn from the world you claim God gave you and open your mind for 2 precious seconds.

  6. Joel's Lab Mice says

    You guys are so mean. If you believed in the goddess Hunca-Munca, as we do, you would have a moral compass. You would not cover us in lipstick or shampoo-with-conditioner. You would not write sadistic children’s songs about using kitchen knives to mutilate vision-impaired mice. You would

  8. Rhampton says

    Related:

    BREAKPOINT: Censoring science in Kansas keeps kids in the dark
    by Charles Colson
    Florida Baptist Witness, August 17, 2006

    …But for now it’s censorship. Students will not be allowed to learn, for example, about Dr. Michael Behe’s theory of irreducible complexity. They will not be told that the teachings of origins is controversial because really it is not science, but about the philosophy of naturalism. There is no verifiable science about how life began — something students will not be told.

    Why do strident secularists want to keep kids in the dark? It’s because if there is evidence of intelligence in the universe, the secularist orthodoxy is undermined, and they cannot allow even raising those questions — hence, the dishonest claims and the inflammatory rhetoric.

    Richard Dawkins, the Oxford professor, is a fierce Darwinist because, as he says, it makes it intellectually respectable to be an atheist. You see, secularists don’t care what Christians believe as long as we keep those beliefs to ourselves. But the minute we take those beliefs into the public square, challenging secularist orthodoxy with provable truth claims — like evidence of Intelligent Design in the universe — they go ballistic…

  10. Steve_C says

    This is the funniest part…

    But the minute we take those beliefs into the public square, challenging secularist orthodoxy with provable truth claims — like evidence of Intelligent Design in the universe — they go ballistic…

    Evidence. Oh yeah. Tons and tons.

    They are right about this though…

    secularists don’t care what Christians believe as long as we keep those beliefs to ourselves

  11. says

    Steve, you don’t have to keep your beliefs to yourself. No one is keeping you from yarping about Intelligent Design.

    Teaching it in schools as science, that’s a different matter. ID hasn’t survived a centure + of cross-disciplinary review, nor been shown to be predictive. Basic science classes aren’t the place to wander around in the wishful thinking of various mythologies. We don’t let kids “decide” about gravity, or germ theory, or really any other scientific theories.

  12. Dunc says

    No, the funniest part is that it’s written by Chuck Colson. Now there’s a trustworthy and reliable source for you…

  13. Steve_C says

    Ummm. Once again sarcasm fails on the interwebbbb.

    There is no evidence for ID. And I do want christians to keep it to themselves.
    Would save me alot of eye rolling and needlessly changing the channel.

  14. Great White Wonder says

    Allen McNeill on the “success” of the Kornell Kreationist Klub Kourse:

    we concluded that … it would be safe to say that the work of the primary authors in the field of ID theory do not in any way undermine (indeed, they do not effect) almost all of current evolutionary theory in any significant way.

    It sounds like Allen is claiming that consensus was reached on this topic. But uh-oh, here come’s Allen’s Lying Li’l Partner Hannah Maxson:

    Allen- Did we categorize ID as challenging only OoL, or did we also find it relevant to the entire question of the usefulness of N.S., origination of novel form, function, and specified information at later times?- essentially, everything on our chart that dealt with questions of mechanism?

    Sounds like these two people were in two different classes. Trouble in paradise?

    I doubt it. These two love birds will figure out how to make it right. Watch and see!

    http://evolutionanddesign.blogsome.com/2006/08/04/the-course-is-over-but-the-conversation-continues/#comments