Thoughts in a Haystack

This is so easy that I should really resist, but I am weak.

Is that something like this:

If horses and flies are designed by the same intelligent designer, how come they are not the same?

TomS
 

AH! But as has been pointed out at The Panda's Thumb, there are horseflies.

All it takes is a very indecisive designer.
 

And have you really never seen a pegasus? That's a flyhorse if ever there was one.
 

Pegasus?

Like in Clash of the Titans?

Damn! If I had only known doing science was as easy as going to the movies, I'd never have ended up as a lawyer!
 

I was there at Dembski 2 yrs ago, and it was extremely hostile. Meyer and Wells had every reason to expect a similar reception at OU, especially given the way the university Museum of Natural History rushed to divest itself of any responsibility for allowing open interaction and exchange of ideas.
I'm glad to report that this time the atmosphere was much more civil.
 

Meyer and Wells had every reason to expect a similar reception at OU ...

Oh, let's see ... why might it be hostile? A dishonest attempt to get religion into public school science classes in violation of the Constitution or, failing that, to futher water down science education in our country that is already a scandal in a developed nation? Fart special effects? Copyright infringement? Quote mining? The list could go on but that should give the idea to even someone who had drunk the Koolaid. "[O]pen interaction and exchange of ideas" is only owed to someone who is being honest and above board in the first place.

Even then, the museum staff did nothing to stop Meyer and Wells from sharing their (religious) ideas with anyone who would listen. They merely offered everyone an oportunity to see how Meyer and Wells were misrepresenting the science. One perfectly acceptable interaction with a liar is to show just how that person is lying.

I'm glad to report that this time the atmosphere was much more civil.

Trinity Baptist do a better job of packing the audience this time? But, then, where did all those glares and all that tension Wells reported come from? Maybe from religious people who realize how dishonest and ridiculous Meyer, Wells and the other Discoveryoids make them all look?
 

Ho hum, another substance-free "I hate ID, therefore it's not science" rant.
John, if I wanted that, I'd go to ERV or Pharyngula. I guess it's just too much to ask of most Darwinists.

the museum staff did nothing to stop Meyer and Wells from sharing their (religious) ideas with anyone who would listen.

True, and kudos to them. But they couldn't stop themselves from their dumb little disclaimer letter anyway. They have all kinds of speakers come thru there, plus wedding receptions. Heck, I went to go see a "Christian Scientist" (the Mary Baker Eddy variety) speaker in that same room a few years ago, and the museum didn't issue a disclaimer. No, obviously there's sthg else going on in their psyche, and I think it's pretty funny, actually, in a sad sort of way.


Trinity Baptist do a better job of packing the audience this time?

There were glares and there was tension. But at Dembski 2 yrs ago, it was far worse; alot more yelling, long debates at the mic with Dembski on stage, etc. Probably the biggest diff this time was that there was a moderator.

Also, I don't get why you keep throwing out the word "dishonest". Maybe they just disagree. Think of that?

Peace,
Rhology
 

Ho hum, another substance-free "I hate ID, therefore it's not science" rant.

Bullcrap! I was speaking specifically as to why Dembski, et al. might meet hostility in academia and other places that value intellectual integrity. Nor are attempts to violate our Constitution "substance-free."

The question of ID not being science is a different issue, that also happens to be easy to demonstrate on many grounds, that I and many other people have documented over the years.

I went to go see a "Christian Scientist" (the Mary Baker Eddy variety) speaker in that same room a few years ago, and the museum didn't issue a disclaimer.

Really? They probably should of! But the Christian Scientists hadn't booked a theater in a medical school or hospital. Here the DI was trying to get reflected legitimacy (surely there are other venues in Norman and the choice was not accidental) by denying the very science that the museum does and teaches to the public. The staff (and the public actually interested in science) have every right to protect the museum's reputation by denying that it supports pseudoscience.

Also, I don't get why you keep throwing out the word "dishonest". Maybe they just disagree. Think of that?

I'm a lawyer. I know the difference between honest disagreement and dishonest attempts at manipulation. Quote mining is rife among the DIers and there is no way to continuously quote mine and be honest. Once might be a mistake but not many times, especially when they never correct their quote mines when they are pointed out. And that's just one example. There are many others.
 

'Nicer' had a lot to do with 'no open mic'.

Ian and I had a fun time planning my question... alas...
 

'Nicer' had a lot to do with 'no open mic'.

File that under "What a surprise."