You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #37: He's a paid schill for the ACSI, too. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
37. He's a paid schill for the ACSI, too.
Behe received $20,000 for testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns.
The case was filed by Association of Christian Schools International, which argued that the University of California was being discriminatory by not recognizing science classes that use creationist books.

The 2005 filing claimed that University of California's rejection of several of their courses was illegal "viewpoint discrimination and content regulation prohibited by the Free Speech Clause."

In 2007, Behe's expert witness report claimed that the Christian textbooks, including Biology for Christian Schools, are excellent works for high school students. He defended that view in a deposition.

In August 2008, Judge S. James Otero rejected Behe's claims, saying that Behe "submitted a declaration concluding that the BJU text mentions standard scientific content. ... However, Professor Behe 'did not consider how much detail or depth' the texts gave to this standard content."

Otero ruled in favor of the University of California's decision to reject courses using these books.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -Intelligent Design: Atheists to the Rescue rug  Nov-29-11 12:50 PM   #0 
  - If you're like me and terminally cynical, you'll look to what they're trying to accomplish.  DCKit   Nov-29-11 12:56 PM   #1 
  - Sorry, any article not correctly identifying Behe is dishonest.  Warren Stupidity   Nov-29-11 12:57 PM   #2 
  - Whatever else you call him he's a professor of biochemistry with a PhD from Penn.  rug   Nov-29-11 01:07 PM   #4 
     - He is a paid wanker for the Discovery Institute.  Warren Stupidity   Nov-29-11 01:17 PM   #7 
     - I see. He's No True Scientist.  rug   Nov-29-11 01:20 PM   #8 
        - He is a paid wanker for the Discovery Institute.  Warren Stupidity   Nov-29-11 01:33 PM   #11 
        - Saying it twice does not add any veracity.  rug   Nov-29-11 01:48 PM   #13 
           - No it makes me wonder if you understand who the players are.  Warren Stupidity   Nov-29-11 01:59 PM   #16 
              - I know exactly who the players are.  rug   Nov-29-11 02:11 PM   #17 
                 - "I'm looking at the entire issue without any dogma whatsoever."  Warren Stupidity   Nov-29-11 02:31 PM   #20 
                    - There's plenty of dogma to go around.  rug   Nov-29-11 03:28 PM   #23 
        - LMAO! +1,000  Sal316   Nov-29-11 04:40 PM   #31 
           - "Behe...tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism"  beam me up scottie   Nov-29-11 04:51 PM   #36 
           - So he's not a "True Scientist"?  Sal316   Nov-29-11 05:12 PM   #38 
              - To anti-science right wing christian conservatives, he's a whore with a degree.  beam me up scottie   Nov-29-11 05:25 PM   #39 
              - Essentially he's like Paul Cameron  NMMNG   Nov-29-11 07:19 PM   #44 
                 - ugh.  beam me up scottie   Nov-29-11 07:37 PM   #45 
              - I can see you're clueless  skepticscott   Nov-29-11 07:48 PM   #46 
                 - Educate me, o wise one  Sal316   Dec-01-11 08:59 AM   #83 
                    - It's funny you play on the NTS fallacy while invoking an argument from authority.  darkstar3   Dec-02-11 01:26 AM   #94 
                    - Keep on shufflin' PZ  Sal316   Dec-02-11 05:38 PM   #97 
                       - "But I will tell you this, I sure as heck know more about theology than they do."  beam me up scottie   Dec-02-11 06:06 PM   #98 
                       - Keep on shufflin'  Sal316   Dec-03-11 10:40 AM   #106 
                          - The Courtier's Reply was written about critics like you.  beam me up scottie   Dec-03-11 11:18 AM   #107 
                             - Thanks for proving my point..  Sal316   Dec-03-11 03:07 PM   #110 
                                - Keep digging.  beam me up scottie   Dec-03-11 03:12 PM   #111 
                       - Yeah, cause I'M shufflin'.  darkstar3   Dec-02-11 07:41 PM   #99 
                          - I don't support Behe's bs. It's crap science.  Sal316   Dec-03-11 10:33 AM   #104 
                             - Really? Because your contributions all over the thread strongly suggest otherwise.  darkstar3   Dec-03-11 01:17 PM   #108 
                                - No, they don't.  Sal316   Dec-03-11 03:06 PM   #109 
                                   - Oh really?  darkstar3   Dec-03-11 04:33 PM   #112 
                                      - Are you a farmer?  Sal316   Dec-03-11 06:49 PM   #114 
                                         - That pole you're stirring with,  darkstar3   Dec-03-11 06:57 PM   #115 
                                            - I'll take that as a "no", then.  Sal316   Dec-05-11 10:03 AM   #118 
                                            - Isn't that what you did in #114?  trotsky   Dec-05-11 10:19 AM   #119 
                    - No, you're clueless in spite of all that.  skepticscott   Dec-02-11 08:08 PM   #100 
                    - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-02-11 08:29 PM   #101 
                       - Nice.  beam me up scottie   Dec-02-11 08:36 PM   #102 
                       - He's a theologian, so presumably, he knows. n/t  laconicsax   Dec-04-11 08:04 PM   #116 
                          - And Dawkins needs to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin before debunking IDiots.  beam me up scottie   Dec-04-11 09:14 PM   #117 
                       - *self delete*  Sal316   Dec-03-11 10:34 AM   #105 
                          - No, go ahead. Say what you were going to.  laconicsax   Dec-03-11 05:52 PM   #113 
           - Well, I've never heard of the guy  rrneck   Nov-29-11 06:16 PM   #41 
     - He's a paid schill for the ACSI, too.  beam me up scottie   Nov-29-11 05:05 PM   #37 
  - I don't understand why they'd HAVE to be "intentions". Why not just super-super ordinate, macro,  patrice   Nov-29-11 01:03 PM   #3 
  - Intention can be ascribed to such things, but it isn't necessary to the phenomena themselves.  patrice   Nov-29-11 01:07 PM   #5 
  - Oh and "What Darwin Got Wrong" is a joke.  Warren Stupidity   Nov-29-11 01:14 PM   #6 
  - It's always nice to get an objective view.  rug   Nov-29-11 01:22 PM   #9 
     - PZ Meyers is an actual reputable biologist.  Warren Stupidity   Nov-29-11 01:29 PM   #10 
        - And he's an actual biochemist.  rug   Nov-29-11 01:49 PM   #14 
  - William Demsbki is a scientist now?  AmericaIsGreat   Nov-29-11 01:36 PM   #12 
  - Actually, a mathematician.  rug   Nov-29-11 01:53 PM   #15 
     - Right  AmericaIsGreat   Nov-29-11 02:22 PM   #18 
     - You do realize that arguments from authority are useless right?  Humanist_Activist   Nov-29-11 02:27 PM   #19 
     - To a degree.  rug   Nov-29-11 03:30 PM   #24 
     - Considering I didn't use either, your mention of them is inapplicable..  Humanist_Activist   Nov-29-11 03:34 PM   #25 
     - Of course there's "to a degrre" here.  rug   Nov-29-11 03:47 PM   #27 
        - to a degree  deacon_sephiroth   Nov-29-11 04:23 PM   #29 
        - Yes, get them on the line, please.  rug   Nov-29-11 04:42 PM   #34 
           - they agree with me, and further point out that the tactics you are  deacon_sephiroth   Nov-30-11 03:11 AM   #55 
        - I didn't say you should do anything, I pointed out facts about the ID movement and their tactics...  Humanist_Activist   Nov-29-11 09:12 PM   #48 
     - Like post #9, yes.  trotsky   Nov-30-11 06:25 AM   #56 
        - #57 is closer.  rug   Nov-30-11 05:27 PM   #64 
           - Glad you admit you launched an ad hom!  trotsky   Nov-30-11 05:51 PM   #65 
              - Not at all.  rug   Nov-30-11 06:00 PM   #66 
                 - No, you did indeed admit it.  trotsky   Nov-30-11 06:12 PM   #67 
                    - And this?  rug   Nov-30-11 06:22 PM   #69 
                       - What can I say?  trotsky   Nov-30-11 06:41 PM   #71 
     - OOO...the Meyers shuffle!  Sal316   Nov-29-11 04:41 PM   #33 
        - I don't understand this reference, but I find it ironic that even here, creationist cretins...  Humanist_Activist   Nov-29-11 09:23 PM   #49 
           - What it comes down to is fear and hatred of atheists, I guess.  trotsky   Nov-30-11 06:27 AM   #57 
           - That I don't get, why discredit yourself in this way?  Humanist_Activist   Dec-01-11 03:05 AM   #77 
           - Considering I'm not a creationist...  Sal316   Dec-01-11 09:00 AM   #84 
              - I don't believe that claim was made.  trotsky   Dec-01-11 11:14 AM   #88 
              - I didn't say you were...  Humanist_Activist   Dec-02-11 01:41 PM   #96 
              - Really? So you don't believe that the universe was created in some fashion by God?  darkstar3   Dec-02-11 11:54 PM   #103 
     - And Dobson is a psychologist, that doesn't make HIM any less an idiot.  Odin2005   Nov-29-11 09:59 PM   #51 
  - "What Darwin Got Wrong" was widely derided by philosophers  muriel_volestrangler   Nov-29-11 02:54 PM   #21 
  - Why are you posting creationism "theories" from right wing conservative christian "think tanks"?  beam me up scottie   Nov-29-11 03:25 PM   #22 
  - Are you saying only sources you approve may be posted?  rug   Nov-29-11 03:45 PM   #26 
  - I didn't say you're not allowed to post crap from the religious right. In fact I applaud your choice  beam me up scottie   Nov-29-11 04:20 PM   #28 
     - I'll be glad to after I remove the assumptions, misstatements, snark and opinion from your post.  rug   Nov-29-11 04:28 PM   #30 
        - I read the article before I posted. It's bullshit and doesn't merit rational discourse.  beam me up scottie   Nov-29-11 04:41 PM   #32 
           - That explains your irrational comments.  rug   Nov-29-11 04:43 PM   #35 
  - It's amazing is it not?  EvolveOrConvolve   Nov-29-11 06:26 PM   #43 
     - We've been told we don't deserve protection under the Constitution because we're not a true minority  beam me up scottie   Nov-29-11 07:55 PM   #47 
  - I don't think that's what gave rise to the movement  Major Nikon   Nov-29-11 06:10 PM   #40 
  - It's been a while since I read "What Darwin Got Wrong."  Jim__   Nov-29-11 06:21 PM   #42 
  - See #21 - philosophers destroyed their point #1  muriel_volestrangler   Nov-30-11 06:32 PM   #70 
     - I've seen post #21.  Jim__   Nov-30-11 08:30 PM   #73 
        - If this is your response  skepticscott   Nov-30-11 09:25 PM   #74 
           - Did you miss my citation from the book?  Jim__   Nov-30-11 10:07 PM   #75 
              - The excerpt from the book doesn't explain anything  muriel_volestrangler   Dec-01-11 05:40 AM   #78 
                 - The excerpt from the book addresses, in part, the excerpt from the review by Block and Kitcher.  Jim__   Dec-01-11 07:09 AM   #80 
                    - It implies that biologists do not take 'endogenous factors' into account  muriel_volestrangler   Dec-01-11 07:55 AM   #82 
                       - No, it doesn't imply that at all.  Jim__   Dec-01-11 09:10 AM   #85 
                          - And by not limiting it to biology, they step away from Darwin  muriel_volestrangler   Dec-01-11 09:53 AM   #86 
                             - Their argument is against the Theory of Natural Selection as the primary driver of evolution.  Jim__   Dec-01-11 11:28 AM   #89 
                                - Not sure this will get anywhere; you say "the authors are right", but don't give reasons  muriel_volestrangler   Dec-01-11 11:52 AM   #90 
                                   - I didn't say the authors are right.  Jim__   Dec-01-11 02:20 PM   #92 
  - I read Fodor's book and it's one giant straw-man argument.  Odin2005   Nov-29-11 09:56 PM   #50 
  - Hey! I had the same reaction to The God Delusion.  rug   Nov-29-11 10:42 PM   #52 
     - And a non-sequitur from rug. n/t  laconicsax   Nov-29-11 11:52 PM   #54 
     - You expected more?  trotsky   Nov-30-11 06:29 AM   #58 
     - Sorry if I went too fast for you.  rug   Nov-30-11 01:24 PM   #60 
     - Except it's not  edhopper   Nov-30-11 01:59 PM   #61 
  - If Intelligent Design exists then there should be a blue print  Angry Dragon   Nov-29-11 11:45 PM   #53 
  - Unrec for posting right-wing garbage on DU. n/t  trotsky   Nov-30-11 06:30 AM   #59 
  - Isn't it interesting how readily it's embraced here?  laconicsax   Nov-30-11 06:17 PM   #68 
  - Back in 2000 my fundy sister confidently predicted...  Silent3   Nov-30-11 04:10 PM   #62 
     - Dembski's probabalistic arguments have been thoroughly debunked by  MarkCharles   Nov-30-11 04:24 PM   #63 
        - I think "irreducible complexity" is an intriguing idea...  Silent3   Nov-30-11 07:52 PM   #72 
           - I think the problem with "irreducible complexity" is that it is an argument from ignorance...  Humanist_Activist   Dec-01-11 02:59 AM   #76 
           - And you nailed it right there.  trotsky   Dec-01-11 06:05 AM   #79 
           - Its particularly funny when they use the eye...  Humanist_Activist   Dec-02-11 01:32 PM   #95 
           - Developing the idea would mean factoring ignorance out...  Silent3   Dec-01-11 07:53 AM   #81 
           - Evolution predicts irreducibly complex systems.  laconicsax   Dec-01-11 11:10 AM   #87 
           - True and any intelligent microbiologist would know how this works in the  MarkCharles   Dec-01-11 01:25 PM   #91 
           - It's a damn good try and might give one pause, but only pause  deacon_sephiroth   Dec-01-11 02:53 PM   #93 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC