silkworm

We're essentially saying the same thing, however, my point is because we can't control for God or test for God's existence so science does not care about the existence of God. If, hypothetically, we reach an end (the only possibly universally accepted end being of course there is a God) to somehow prove whether or not God exists will have no effect on scientific methodology or considerations (because in the event that God is a superbeing how do we control God then?). With a different set up, that the existence of God is of importance and consideration to science, gives them fuel for their argument, which that science and religion are bedfellows and that supernatural forces/entities need to be considered for valid science to take place.

I do keep that in mind, but I'm talking about in the past decade. You know, habitually.

Pointing that out in the first overall meeting led to overwhelming (and unexpected at the time) success, however I wanted to establish something else and then he shocked me by making it too easy. I wasn't going to hit that point until we established what science does for the audience. Although I didn't mention God, and only did once overall. An ICR bookwriter attends all the meetings and he said that belief in God causes an accountability problem and that's why people want to not believe in him and believe in evolution (his assumption of course that they are mutually exlusive). I had to make the statement, "Then how are you going to be held accountable to God by endorsing the lies about science in these presentations?" It took a couple of days but he conceded there are misrepresentations, though he did so in private. That's the only time. I go to these meetings as a student of science looking for a valid scientific argument, not as a religious person. I go to all science lectures I can attend, and then I do my best to clean up the mess. That's how I approach it, and that's the only way I can do it honestly. I do feel I have authority now to comment on Darwin not being an atheist now, and thank you for pointing that out, all biographical information about Darwin that I read said what I said.

lucaspa, I didn't get 2 files, I'm not sure you can attach them to posts, maybe you can. Would you like to email me? Thanks for the help and support and I'm reviewing the information you have sent me. As a sidenote, I don't advertise my atheism because by what I address it's a moot point, but I will not lie if asked. (An important point as well is that I grew up as an evangelical christian, and that what I say at these meetings can be verified.) The fact is, also, I am one of them. The support for ID/creationism is more cultural than religious in these parts and I am one of them. I have been met with success as well, because what I care about is defending the audience who I address, and rarely have any frame of reference to the arguments addressed. I see little point in beating Lucas in an invalid argument when compared to showing the audience that they are being lied to and that science has benefited them and scientists are not satan worshippers. I have been met with success in past meetings, however Lucas' first meeting I had the least (although there were the most people there) because of the odd format, and this format is even more odd with the CCTV.

#4 is the one lost on most of the audience, but I try to put that in practical terms. Arguing for point for point or getting too heavy cause tuneout, which I can't have. Thanks for pointing this out though, I didn't realize that this reasoning had a quotable basis or if it was just my own sense. It's also hard to explain J-C principles to an evangelical audience, because they generally don't think of their religion in those terms. Common Sense science actually argues against all scientific physical laws and redefines them. This is where their movement is going, and reminds me of The Exorcist line, "The Devil mixes lies with the truth." They misrepresent science using what sounds like scientific terminology in order to argue against their own silly misrepresentation. Evolution has overwhelming scientific support, so their presenting a different version of textbook science that will look silly to their audience and that will support their own reasoning. In Lucas' first visit, he put up an overheard of a bunch of physical laws and claimed they're all wrong and being replaced and are only in textbooks due to "political correctness." My first exchange with him dealt with this, and while I was trying to explain to the audience the nature of science, that is the old is constantly replaced with a better new (that is progress), he flat out admitted he thinks they are wrong because "they do not allow for God." I was shocked at his blatant admission and was taken aback for a moment while I considered how to pounce on him, and when I tried to a moment later (after a brief aside) he said, "they just don't fit the data." Accountability is an issue and I know he wouldn't say it again. Recap of the first Lucas meeting here:

This is an excellent post, and you and I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not going to claim religion because I am not religious, and I do not lie - that's what they do, but I'm lucky because I am from their culture - most of the support of creationsim/ID comes from my people, who I know how to talk to. Thank you for the quote from the Origin of Species. I've read it but I don't remember that. Generally I have to defend the Origin of Species by saying it had nothing to do with the Third Reich and Darwin did not write the foreword for Mein Kampf because he was long dead. There are a lot of ties between Darwin and Naziism in these meetings, ironically by people who openly make anti-semetic statements. Do you know anything about this business about Darwin saying men are more highly evolved than women? I do point out however that Darwin was a religious man, even studying for clergy, and that his atheism had more to do with the death of his favorite daughter than it did his science, which I think many in the crowd can relate too. You're very right about atheist - theistic divisions at these meetings, and you are right by evolutionist meaning atheist when I constantly repeat my assumption that it means evolutionary biologist. Many people are discounted by saying they are atheists/evolutionists, even in bizarre instances - like Galileo, who died long before the Theory of Evolution. You are absolutely right, and that's why I try to recruit as many religious scientists as I can to attend these meetings - with the exception of one who is good at dealing with this scenario (he's actually had to make court appearances for teaching anthropology and is constantly under attack).

See, I just looked at this and I guarantee you there are lot more people in Denver than 550,000. Kansas City, MO is also a lot more than 445,000 (and KC, KS should be included in that because KC is KC no matter what side of the line it's on (although KC, KS is dwarfed by KC, MO (and we are talking about cities here)). Both at least over 2 million. How do they count this? Cities of 550,000 and 445,000 could not support what Denver and KC do. There are differences too, a pop of 445,000 won't imply 2 million in the city. Wichita has 300,000 listed as pop, but only about 500,000 metro. I could buy around 400,000 for Colorado Springs however, bascule does that sound right? I think NYC is 20-25 million metro and LA somewhere between 10-18 (I know that's a wide margin but I try to stay as ignorant as CA as possible). Obviously these counts are limited by BS political boundaries and don't truly reflect a city's population. It should also be noted that Germany is the 16th most populous nation in the world (approx 83 million) http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html, so where are all these people in such a relatively tiny nation (relative to US which is number 5 with approx. 300 million)? Germany is about the size of Montana in land area, which is not 1/4 of the US in land area.

The German cities are all pretty massive like Munich and Berlin. An don't say my states are empty because the midwest is so appauling, it's because we use the land here to feed everyone. It's what we do, and I wish more people would respect it (not implying that you did ecoli, though many do).

I only know a little bit about southern Germany. Germans are very much into recycling and clean living and the architecture is much older than American architecture, and in urban settings its buildings are continuous for blocks and blocks without regular alleys but paths. They also design their homes to be as energy effecient and self sufficient as possible, every one of them with greenhouses in the back yard and things inside the home like ovens to circulate heat throughout the home. Germans are also pretty secular, but there is a catholic church though with very very old dead people in glass cases - Saints.

We bombed Japan because they simply were never going to surrender and carry on in the name of the Emperor. The concept that there would be no surrender, and Pearl Harbor made them meeting the bomb an inevitability. WW2 may still be going on today if the bomb hadn't shocked them into surrender. This isn't the playground, this is real life, and although I like Japan, I don't feel sorry for them.

Tis true. I am a Wichita boy. Where are you from DirtyAmerica?

I've said the same thing to Lucas himself. It's funny you mentioned a tinker toy, because that (I think it's a glow worm) is what he used as his model. He broke the end off and made a loop and called it a spinning ring of charge, or some nonsense. I was wondering what boojum is as a scientific term. There is apparantly something missing about Mermin. They've been known to do things like quote a critic of a book about the book instead of the book itself and say the author said it. Very slippery.

What a thing to be known for. What is boojum? I tried to look it up, no dice. It appears the commentary is that the universe is recreated every instant, I think the observation part is an unforunate misuse of the idea. Oh, I think I get it now. They're talking about quantum measurements being statistical (when really it's our limitation). If Einstein really asked him that, that really shows me how much quantum physics really did bother him. I've been mumbling to myself, at least maybe you make sense. Obviously you've checked their models of atoms, that's normally when the outrage really begins. I hopefully can get a tape of the meeting so you can here all of the paranoia as well.

Don't forget Ferme's contribution, and since the bomb there have been less deaths each year due to war than before. It has a knack for keeping nations from imposing on another nation's sovereignty without a very good reason, usually. Yes, the out of Africa theory. Essentially there is no difference among the human species because we're all African's who eventually started displaying lighter pigments in more northern climates to help with vitamin D absorption.

It has a very good chance of being taken out of context. They like to do that. I haven't had time to catch myself up with Mermin to be sure.

It's funny you mentioned the moon. I've actually had to explain that evolutionary biologists do not study to origin of the moon at these meetings.

It's rational to be pessimistic, but I have had success. It's like learning a new language, the only chance to become as good as a native speaker is to be immersed in the language, as I have been since birth. The format with him is the trouble, that and he's so slippery. The little doubt is the big deal. The first meeting I attended I was met with overwhelming success by many apparently die hard creationism/ID supporters who essentially left realizing they didn't know enough about science to have an opinion on it. With them you have to set up that they have to earn the right to an opinion, while at the sametime trying not to appear arrogant. Interestingly enough Martin, CSS does have papers on their site. Mysteriously though, after Lucas' last vist my friend in this madness (a respected scientist) made it a point to make sure Lucas' ideas got a fair shake (in an attempt to ease the paranoia), and CSS suddenly made all of their papers accessible after donation only. My friend printed most them off beforehand though. They're mainly rants, with less scientific quality than the posts of this or any other forum. I did make all those points to figure out these formats to make them better.

The trouble is all of his content is so paranoid and bizarre (and he has no accountability) that he's hard to pin down, but I did do it a couple of times in our first exchange. I find it interesting that you've made the relationship you did with Right Wing Talk Radio. There is a plan in place: The Wedge Strategy I wish they did work their game plan a little more solidly, however. His overhead's totally botched many things, most insulting Uranium decay and the concept that losing or gaining an electron will lead to a different atomic species. He gets a lot of play by calling himself a maverick and giving a lot of paranoid speech. He talks about vast conspiracies to feed the christian persecution fantasy, so by pointing out what specifically the difference between an ion and an isotope is I looked like "the man" trying to keep the crowd down to many. Anyway, it's all the same tactics as the political ones, as this is a political movement.

Most likely, Robert Gentry, bizarre geology, and odd intepretations of fundamental physics laws. That's his resume. That's whats weird about this one. CCTV. And I'll have no PhD backups, they're sitting this one out (and I really need a good physics backup but I can't find one who would work). I have to attack him the second he misrepresents something, because waiting is what screwed me the first time. I try not to talk about creationism, religion, or ID. I just ask questions for clarification and clear up misrepresentations of science. The most intelligent thing to do is interrupt until they're forced to call the police.

Thanks ecoli. The thing that makes me nervous about this one is the CCTV. I've had success, and very few of these people (creationism/ID supporters) are a lost cause. Generally, they're pretty pissed about being lied to. I know how to talk to them, and what you said is an excellent observation and was part of my failure at the first Lucas visit. I let him butcher everything and then tried to go back and pick it apart after the crowd (with no prior reference) accepted of truth, and I did so because it was a different venue than other meetings. Now I'll make it a point to interrupt as soon as he flubs on something I can quickly make him lose credibility on. As Martin apparantly knows now, swansont the attack is no longer on evolution anymore but a broad attack at misrepresenting all science in order to attack their own misrepresentation. This guy focuses on physics (and oddly, geology) as he has a PhD in Physics.