Oh - and an atheist! It just keeps getting better.

Quoting ohcomeon: A woman -from Oklahoma - talking about science. Now that's what I am talking about.

Bob's shameless pandering to select constituencies is sure to enrage Eastwest.

A great get, though. Thanks to PZ, I've been a fan of ERV since before it was absorbed by the Borg. Great to put a voice to the voice, so to speak.

I have to admit this is the most pandered to I have ever felt. Even though I know it is pure coincidence -wow! I grew up in Oklahoma the daughter of two college professors, one in hard science. He later became a member of the Board of Regents for OU and was known for fighting for academic freedom. Perhaps Bob knows more about me than I suspected. I guess I must now stop complaining for at least a week.

Quoting bjkeefe: Bob's shameless pandering to select constituencies is sure to enrage Eastwest.

Point(s) of clarification: 1) BW was never really on my map of important people to care about anyway. (I figured after his Saudi junket that there was never going to be much hope for him.) 2) Obama's pandering was the only personal sell-off that I expressed any genuine concern over, and no, "rage" is not the operative word. "Disgust" is more like it. (Seems like he could at least have been subtle about it.) It is nice to see Bob choosing a wider range of DV participants, lately. (As opposed to his usual stock fare of horribly tedious political horse-race DVs.) Maybe I shouldn't "Wright him off" completely just yet. EW

... an impediment to progress. Apart from that, this was fun to listen to. There are few things more appealing than a fired-up grad student, especially in the sciences. Suggestions for the next time: I could have stood a little more elaboration when PZ and Abby were discussing the cutting edge of their research. A few quick inline definitions for some of the terminology, mostly. Others here who know more about biology than I do may disagree and hear this as a request to be spoon-fed -- this is admittedly not one of the areas of my expertise. If two people are going to be dissing creationists, it either has to be full-blooded bashing, or even better, funny stories. Just commiserating with each other got a little cringe-inducing, even for those of us in the choir. I would have liked to hear a little more detail about PZ's syllabus for his introductory biology class, even though I'm already sure I'd like to take it.

Quoting ohcomeon: I guess I must now stop complaining for at least a week.

Negative. You stop complaining only when all of your demands are met. You don't want all the other squeaky wheels to start getting the grease. Which reminds me ... Yet another diavlog where no one had word one to say about all of John McCain's flaws. Grrrrr. ;^)

The snobbish self-righteousness of this pair is just insufferable. Do they really think they'll make the world a better place by gratuitously insulting the vast majority of the population? Is it really necessary to be an atheist in order to be a scientist? I sure hope not, because then the pool of science talent is very narrow indeed. Is it really good that 85% of biology grad students are female? I don't think colleges are a center for free speech. Try saying something critical of feminism, or gay "rights", or pro-religion, or pro-Christian, and you will get a hopelessly intolerant, nearly violent response from the keepers of political correctness. Do these people not know about illiberal the speech codes proliferating on college campuses? I am a scientist, and I love evolution. Charles Darwin rocks. I read books on evoPsych for fun. But the notion that creationists are evil, stupid, uneducated, not-worthy-of-listening-to, and in every other way deserving of contempt, is to completely miss the point. People are creationists for non-scientific reasons, and at some level one has to take them seriously. To do otherwise is just self-defeating - this pair does not help the cause of science by dismissing 90% of the human race.

It didn't bother me at first when I noticed that Anna's anthropomorphized viral subjects somehow were all males or "little guys." Then I learned that close to all of her classmates who are redesigning viruses for their own purposes are women ... now I'm nervous. Hopefully their "bosses" are paying attention to what is being cooked up in the labs on their watch.

Quoting dankingbooks: People are creationists for non-scientific reasons, and at some level one has to take them seriously. To do otherwise is just self-defeating - this pair does not help the cause of science by dismissing 90% of the human race.

Not as long they insist on intruding onto territory occupied by science and scientific education. People who don't even understand the meaning of the word "theory" have no place in discussions of scientific topics, let alone dictating science curricula or legislation regarding science curricula.

Quoting dankingbooks: Is it really necessary to be an atheist in order to be a scientist? I sure hope not, because then the pool of science talent is very narrow indeed.

Ah, Dan, your listening skills are not improving with age. The only thing Abby and PZ said even remotely close to that is that they don't like when kids are brought up suffocated by religion, so that they don't get the opportunity to be exposed to what else the world has to offer.

Is it really good that 85% of biology grad students are female?

Charmed to see you're maintaining your consistent record of a sexist remark in every thread you dribble on.

I don't think colleges are a center for free speech.

If you talk on a college campus the way you usually talk here, I'm unsurprised to hear that you're not drowning in tolerance and acclaim.

People are creationists for non-scientific reasons, ...

On that, we can agree.

... and at some level one has to take them seriously.

And on that, too. We don't, however, have to take them seriously in the science classroom, except in the way that one takes seriously any pernicious infection.

... this pair

First of all. Abbie, will you marry me? A sexy, smart, funny, atheistic, microbiologist chick. I didn't think you existed. I have just finished 3rd year of a 4 year microbiology degree in Glasgow, Scotland. Hoping to eventually go on to do research. My problem is that I enjoy a lot of different subject matters. Found it amusing that two of the most vehement critics of the "science retardation" which is creationism are actually fairly soft spoken and polite when you get them on camera and actually talking. Hopefully more to come from the PZ/Abbie vlog category.

Quoting scted: Then I learned that close to all of her classmates who are redesigning viruses for their own purposes are women ... now I'm nervous.

Plus, don't forget, she has a pit bull. And a blog. R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Quoting Epicurus: Hopefully more to come from the PZ/Abbie vlog category.

I'm for that.

I wonder if anyone else see the irony in a graduate biologist who is manipulating life forms to create new variations of life can totally discount the possibility of "God" as she blithely plays that role, albeit at a rudimentary level.

Quoting piscivorous: I wonder if anyone else see the irony in a graduate biologist who is manipulating life forms to create new variations of life can totally discount the possibility of "God" as she blithely plays that role, albeit at a rudimentary level.

I'd say it comes close to a perfect demonstration of the idea. If Abby can do it, who needs a deity?

Just noticed that Massimo Pigliucci made it as far as BH.tv's sidebar. Progress! Next stop -- the video box!

I would have little falling at her feet in worship, or is that some other stirring?

Yup. I'm sure the first few times someone built a campfire, he or she was said to be playing (at being a) god, too. Perhaps there were even stories told about such people.

Quoting piscivorous: I would have little falling at her feet in worship, or is that some other stirring?

I'm resolutely not going there.

In response to my question about whether or not it was good that 85% of biology grad students are female, bjkeefe writes:

Quoting bjkeefe: Charmed to see you're maintaining your consistent record of a sexist remark in every thread you dribble on.

It seems that bjkeefe's civility is inversely proportional to the sensibleness of my questions. Without in any way prejudging the answer, it surely is a fair question. Will the science of biology be well-served if most (all?) of it's practitioners are female?

Quoting bjkeefe: If you talk on a college campus the way you usually talk here, I'm unsurprised to hear that you're not drowning in tolerance and acclaim.

Again, I raise a reasonable question. Why should the mere question be drowned out in intolerant invective? If it is such an easy question to answer, then please answer it.

Quoting bjkeefe: And on that, too. We don't, however, have to take them seriously in the science classroom, except in the way that one takes seriously any pernicious infection.

Calling somebody a "pernicious infection" is not taking them seriously. This kind of language hurts the cause of science.

Quoting bjkeefe: You really think 90% of all people are creationists? Or are you just indulging your

Quoting dankingbooks: .. it surely is a fair question. Will the science of biology be well-served if most (all?) of it's practitioners are female?

I'd be less inclined to dismiss it had I ever heard you ask anything like, is physics well-served if most of its practitioners are male? You have a history, Dan, and obvious bone to pick. You show it pretty much every time you post here. You always have something snide to say about women, feminism, how your feelings are hurt because no one wants to hear your chauvinistic grunting, etc. Because you are just educated enough to be able to phrase your obnoxiousness in the form of a rational-sounding question is no more impressive than the creationists' latest trick of wedging their way into the science classroom by pretending it's a matter of being skeptical and open to criticism. Big deal. You've learned some spin words. What else you got?

Alright - it is also a fair question, and in a probably futile attempt to get a straight answer out of you, I will ask it: Is it to the benefit of physics that most of it's practitioners are male? Now having asked that question, I will say that the gender imbalance in physics is nowhere near as pronounced as that Abby claims for her biology department. But it is still a fair question. So please, before you level more invective, a serious answer to both questions will be appreciated.

Quoting dankingbooks: Is it really necessary to be an atheist in order to be a scientist?

Abbie's answer (in part):

First, to be perfectly clear, there is no reason why you should think you are on 'the other side' for believing in God. Certainly we could have some fun philosophical disagreements, but my evolutionary biology professors in college were a Quaker and a Lutheran. If they can come to terms with their faith and their science, I really dont have much patience with YE/OE/ID Creationists bellowing about the limits of their own deity. That is a personal problem, not an overlying theistic (or Christian) problem.

The rest.

I have noticed that you are skipping over the part where both divalogers say that most of the professors are male. I think the more important question might be; why has there been such a huge change in only a couple of generations? Could it have anything to do with women finally having equal opportunity in fields like biology? What are all the males doing instead of studying science?

Quoting dankingbooks: Is it really necessary to be an atheist in order to be a scientist?

PZ's answer, in part:

This does not mean that scientists can't be religious. We can encompass irrational beliefs without regret and without obligation—I can, actually, look at my kids in a different way than I would an experimental subject under my microscope. I also do not pretend that I view my children rationally and objectively, untainted by emotion or history, and I'm not ashamed of that at all. So, a scientist should have no problem demanding one standard of logic and evidence in the lab, and dropping that demand when they go to church on Sunday.

Although, to be fair, he does go on to express dubiousness. Not so much that a religious person can't become a scientist, but more that the religious belief may not survive:

Science does erode faith, because faith is not part of the scientific worldview. When you accept a scientific position for scientific reasons, you are dividing yourself if you are trying to simultaneously accept a religious belief that contradicts scientific principles. People can do that, but it takes work. It's far easier to maintain consistency by rejecting one

Science does erode faith, because faith is not part of the scientific worldview. When you accept a scientific position for scientific reasons, you are dividing yourself if you are trying to simultaneously accept a religious belief that contradicts scientific principles. People can do that, but it takes work. It's far easier to maintain consistency by rejecting one or the other of the conflicting ideas, although certainly many people do manage to keep religion and science tidily partitioned.

This kind of stuff bothers me, even though I am an atheist. It seems to miss entirely the actual role of religion in people's lives. PZ, like many of the militant atheists, views religion almost exclusively in terms of belief systems that can be easily debunked, refuted and ridiculed by science and reason. But people who actually practice religion are often minimally interested in a credo. Religion serves the valuable function of cradle-to-grave membership in a community that addresses its members deepest moral, esthetic and ethical needs. It's an institution that provides continuity and fellowship through ritual, historical memory and observance. It provides communal sacred space. It acknowledges and nurtures a sense of wonder, awe and

What are all the males doing instead of studying science?

Prison? Homeless? Waging war? Watching Internet porn? Actually, the cynic in me would say they've moved from biology to other male-dominated majors. I will eat my computer if the 85% figure holds up across the board throughout all advanced science graduate schools.

I find the marriage proposal and the "falling at her feet in worship" a lot more chauvinistic than the other remarks...
A scientist's gender may be relevant if it drives theory from a gender-specific view of the world. Science has been shaped by men for so long that we don't even know how it would be like if women take the lead. Perhaps we will start to understand interactions in ways that are not hierarchical. In the meantime we will have to accept sexism as it presents, whether on your face or hidden behind patronizing support. I'm yet to meet a true "feminist" man. I do know a bunch who are honestly trying...

Quoting Wonderment: ...
PJ and several of the militant atheists portray religion in general as if it were all Taliban and Speakers in Tongues. But most of the liberal religion -- be it Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish or Muslim -- that fills religious instituions for weddings, funerals, birth celebrations and holy days is minimalist on beliefs.

wow.
Brendan...anything insulting to add? Oh wait...its a club member...never mind.

Abigail makes science fun. It was great having her on with PZ. I hope Bh.tv will consider bringing her back as a regular. I love PZ, but think he's always been better when writing about evolution vs. creationism or new aspects of evolution. Abigail is built to order for this environment.

Off topic, but not off title - how ERVs help clarify the fact of evolution.

Agreed. Let's put the bhtv booker(s) on notice. How exactly do you do that anyway? Does anybody know who is in charge or are they subject to influence?

Great points. I knew there was something(s) I was mildly uncomfortable with in this otherwise great diavlog. I'll actually challenge your first complaint. I actually don't mind if scientists talk as if I should know what the fuck they're talking about. It forces me to keep focused and if I really want to know more I can always google it. You have to admit, it sure wasn't a "dumbed down" discussion!

Most "militant atheists" don't give a rats ass about religious people who keep it where it belongs, in the depth of their hearts; and who don't propose that they can answer the great questions of science by reading a holy book. Sure, they may scoff at any supernatural belief if put on the spot, but they don't go out of their way (by and large) to attack people for believing unprovable things. Again, just as long as those people don't claim natural knowledge through their supernatural beliefs. When they do that, they deserve exactly what they get.

Quoting Happy Hominid: I'll actually challenge your first complaint. I actually don't mind if scientists talk as if I should know what the fuck they're talking about. It forces me to keep focused and if I really want to know more I can always google it. You have to admit, it sure wasn't a "dumbed down" discussion!

I almost always prefer it when this sort of conversation doesn't get bogged down in elementary explanation, and generally assumes its audience is going to be able to keep up. There were moments in this one, however, that struck me as just a little too much "inside baseball." I've been reading about this stuff recently (I've just finished Carl Zimmer's Microcosm a couple of weeks ago - Carl is a really good science journalist, I can't praise that book highly enough) and I could just barely follow the bit I dingalinked. When she started talking about the implications of bits of HIV being "coded in sugar," they ought to have been a bit more expansive than merely nodding sagely.

Wow, A left-wing professor attacks Judaism - how fascinating - how unusual - how exciting. Woops, my mistake. Its just another leftie attacking the Catholic Church again. Vox Day has the goods on Mr. PZ. And why do we need these two to drone on about "Religion vs. Science" when our resident BHTV dullards have talked it to death.

OK, I'll buy that. Zimmer is excellent. If you haven't read it, check out Parasite Rex. One of my favorite science books of all time.

Quoting rcocean: Wow, A left-wing professor attacks Judaism - how fascinating - how unusual - how exciting. Woops, my mistake. Its just another leftie attacking the Catholic Church again.

Vox Day has the goods on Mr. PZ.

And why do we need these two to drone on about "Religion vs. Science" when our resident BHTV dullards have talked it to death.

Wow! That's the goods on P.Z. Myers? Devastating.

Quoting graz: Agreed. Let's put the bhtv booker(s) on notice.

I believe we (you) have just done that. At least, that's the way I've always tried to get my suggestions across. Since Bob and others have made clear that they look at the comments, I'd take it as a given. It won't hurt if more people choose to sign on with us.

Awww, what's the matter, rcocean? Some one take a dump on your crackers? Aren't a whole bunch of you going to have your frocks in a knot when UM takes no action against him and burns holy wafers in a bonfire?

Quoting dankingbooks: I don't think colleges are a center for free speech. Try saying something critical of feminism, or gay "rights", or pro-religion, or pro-Christian, and you will get a hopelessly intolerant, nearly violent response from the keepers of political correctness. Do these people not know about illiberal the speech codes proliferating on college campuses?

I wonder where they come down on sex tourism.

Yeah, but look what happened to Prometheus! And then, his brother gave us Pandora and suffering, but not hope, which only arrived with Oprah. And then, Percy Shelley freed Prometheus, and his wife gave birth to Frankenstein. After a hundred years Christopher Lee made monsters handsome and Mel Brooks taught them to dance and sing. Winona Ryder saved Dracula, who was really Lord Byron who fought for Greek independence. And then, Bill Bennett worked for the Reagan administration, along with other neocons who studied with Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom. Victor Davis Hanson writes editorials. And now, there's the Iraq War. That's what happens when humans take gifts from demi-gods!

Quoting Whatfur: wow.

Brendan...anything insulting to add? Oh wait...its a club member...never mind.

You mean gang(of 12) yo, represent, g...
Not me, however, I'm the gang of one. Much to their relief, I'm sure... I work for Scientists as a common sense consultant for their logistical and technical needs. The people I know are no different than you and I, they just happened to like school, science, and wanted to become scientists. Many are religious, even some christians here and there, and yes fur, in case you are wondering, one even buys your global warming is just a natural trend idea. But he's a Scando-astrophysicist, so....(inside joke, sorry) I kid him a lot, and he pretends not to get annoyed, 'cause he wants his CCDs and star trackers to function properly. Not too many Mcgeezer or surge supporters on the list though, sorry.

Thanks to both for contributing a few things at least somewhat new. OK, sure, it was nice to have a new face with the effervescent Abigail Smith. I'm sure on their better days these two might verge on marvelous, but, no, it didn't really seem to happen today, mostly because of the regrettable obsession with barely interesting topics like the social life and politics of being a grad student (been there) and the perhaps justifiable but still tedious put-downs of creationist idiots. Nothing particularly illuminating or inspiring ever "jelled." To me, the whole thing hung out on the margins of boring and barely-justified self-congratulatory kiss-kiss. I'd have preferred blowing all that off in favor of something ranging farther beyond the epigenetics intro--perhaps a more extended discussion of something really fascinating about their own work, the work of others, and the revolutionary big-picture implications of same, saving the "social, etc.)topics for coffee with friends. Didn't hold a candle to some of our other science pairings (which do btw sometimes include eminent women researchers) as with the "Stupid Primates" edition by Joshua Knobe and Laurie Santos (May 3rd). Some of the comments from

Quoting AemJeff: Wow! That's the goods on P.Z. Myers? Devastating.

Yes it is and I'm glad you agree. Vox Day has many items detailing PZ's stupidity and has challenged PZ to debate many times. Of course PZ has declined since like most atheists he can only function in a safe, protected, left-wing echo chamber.

Miss Smith's mannerisms and speech patterns remind me of my daughters. There is a hint of what I call "Mall Chirp", which belies a razor sharp brain, and a strong work ethic and true enthusiasm for what she does. And she just might come up with a cure for AIDs. Unless Kevin Hovind gets out of jail and beats her to it.
The Hellene, an equal opportunity sceptic and an amateur at everything.

Quoting Hellene: Unless Kevin Hovind gets out of jail and beats her to it.

You funny! I'm sure Hovind isn't wasting the time he's spending behind bars. We may see big things any day now.

Quoting Eastwest: Some of the comments from the peanut gallery here owe more to infatuation (yawn) than to substance. Sounds like some people just can't land a date and have to take that energy out on the comments section. Ho hum.

Yes. This was exactly my impression from reading the comments. Ms. Smith seems very nice, although this conversation was not particularly interesting to me. If bloggingheads decides to bring her back, maybe they could pair her with someone else, say William Dembski.

These guys mention a lot of persecution, but i'm skeptical. What's the cool news in this area? To the extent they relish battles with creationists, I get the sense this is not very interesting.

Quoting Happy Hominid: I'll actually challenge your first complaint. I actually don't mind if scientists talk as if I should know what the fuck they're talking about. It forces me to keep focused and if I really want to know more I can always google it. You have to admit, it sure wasn't a "dumbed down" discussion!

In a previous diavlog, about the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, I used the word "pussy". Now in the current post I am referring to a kitty cat, but in my comment on the Uganda diavlog, I was using the word in a different sense, albeit one that made a very important point (i.e., non-gratuitous). The bloggingheads nanny censored my language and rendered my comment meaningless. Fine - they are entitled to their prudishness. But now I ask why they are not equally insistent about editing Happy Hominid's language?

The speaker mocked the argument of Behe (microevolution ok, macro god directed), while accepting Dawkins (Dawinism, selfish gene). But then, they provide no proof. They are intolerant, chauvinistic, educated, etc. Incredibly intolerant, non-predictive, stupid intellectiods.

Quoting rcocean: Wow, A left-wing professor attacks Judaism - how fascinating - how unusual - how exciting. Woops, my mistake. Its just another leftie attacking the Catholic Church again.

Vox Day has the goods on Mr. PZ.

And why do we need these two to drone on about "Religion vs. Science" when our resident BHTV dullards have talked it to death.

Vox Day is a tool. I read his book the "irrational atheist". Talk about straw men and logical fallacies. He seems to be the personification of such things.

Quoting Whatfur: wow.

Brendan...anything insulting to add? Oh wait...its a club member...never mind.

Hard as this might be for you, a person permanently on the hunt for things to take offense at (when not dishing it out, I mean), I don't have a real problem with Wonderment's response. In fact, I agree with much of the spirit of it, although I might not go quite as far in praise as he does. If you're going to hear that as my being soft on a fellow traveler, that's your problem. It's your problem that you remain unable to distinguish between the bile you spew and a post that contains thoughtfulness and nuance. It's your problem that you continue to insist on viewing the world solely through the lens of "with us or against us." You are forgetting one thing. As I'm sure I've said before, I don't have a problem with religious people who treat their faith as a private affair. I don't even have much of a problem with people whose moral considerations are informed by the teachings of their church, temple, or mosque, provided they are able to admit where their faith-based thinking is insufficient for achieving

Hellene: I didn't have the same reaction in this specific case, but I do like the phrase "Mall Chirp."

Quoting handle: You mean gang(of 12) yo, represent, g...
Not me, however, I'm the gang of one. Much to their relief, I'm sure...

No, no, no. We are open, inclusive, and always welcoming to new inductees. And the purity test doesn't really hurt that much at all.

There's a recent radio interview with PZ available here (direct MP3 link). It's pretty good, and the show starts off with one of my all-time favorite songs. About 30 minutes long. Among other subjects, PZ talks some more about his non-problem with non-crazy religious people, and, by contrast, the latest jihad launched against him by professional outrage-feigner William Donohue. He also talks about why he no longer debates creationists (attn: rcocean, and see also here, here, here and here).

Quoting Epicurus: Vox Day is a tool. I read his book the "irrational atheist". Talk about straw men and logical fallacies. He seems to be the personification of such things.

Vox Day has this response to PZ which seems to settle the matter: While it would be highly unusual for PZ to get fired over what was nothing more than a silly statement of intent, when one considers the hostile attention he has brought to his university backwater, I expect he has been warned that he will be disciplined if he is stupid enough to carry on with the announced cracker abuse. The delinking of Pharyngula is an obvious shot across the bow, as is the statement by the university spokesman distancing the university from PZ's views. At this point, only an utter idiot would proceed with flouting the university's authority and its distaste for bad press; proceeding as planned would offer clear justification for a firing on the basis of blatant insubordination.

We already know that PZ is a coward at heart - he is "the Fowl Atheist" after all - so he'll be warned to leave the crackers alone, the stolen crackers

rcocean: Hope you saw this.

Quoting bjkeefe: And the purity test doesn't really hurt that much at all.

Actual transcription of Brendan's induction:

This isn't so ba... What's that light? The light! THE LIGHT -- IT BURNS!! THE LIGHT! NO! NO! OH NOOoooooo!!!!

The tapes from my own induction ceremony were (unfortunately) accidentally destroyed.

Quoting rcocean: Of course PZ has declined since like most atheists he can only function in a safe, protected, left-wing echo chamber.

Heh. You mean like BHTV, where the likes of you are prevented from expressing their opinions by the liberal overlords?

Abby is awesome! I love her to death. She also did a couple of shows with Reg, (the Infidel Guy). Y'all should go check them out. http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.ph...wItem&item=847 She debated a quack named Dr. Horowitz on one show but I can't seem to find it. It was a great debate, Abby held up very well against an idiot who was so condescending and arrogant that I wanted to jump through the Stickam lines and strangle him. He gave me the creeps. She put him in his place, while being polite and sweet the whole time. It was hilarious. You can try your luck finding the archive, I have to run do some errands and need to stop searching. It was a debate about whether HIV was man-made. http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.ph...act=categories

I read PZ's refusal to debate Vox Day. Lots of insults but otherwise offers no valid rationale. BTW, I'm Sure Vox would agree to appear on BHTV since PZ doesn't "trust conservative Radio".

On epigenetics, let us heed Margaret Sanger, who said, "I prefer scrambled eggs - there's no need going farther than elbow-deep. Oh, and my dog loves them too!"

Even though I enjoy reading him, I'm inclined to wonder if PZ has a net negative influence on public perception of evolutionary science. Compare his attitude when speaking of or to creationists with Ken Miller. Miller has a much better chance of reaching religious folks who may be having doubts about the creationist dogma. I guess I'm just worried that PZ and Dawkin's abrasivenesses means they usually just end up preaching to the choir, when public education would be served better by them being more inclusive to a wider, possibly religious audience.

Quoting rcocean: I read PZ's refusal to debate Vox Day. Lots of insults but otherwise offers no valid rationale. BTW, I'm Sure Vox would agree to appear on BHTV since PZ doesn't "trust conservative Radio".

Thanks for at least making the effort. To me, there is one valid reason that obviates the need for any others (although I feel PZ expressed other valid reasons): debating creationists gives them credibility that they don't deserve. It is not science. Full stop. I gave those extra links, to Dawkins and Scott, to indicate that this is part of the conspiracy, uh, I mean agreed-upon view of the best tactics. Recall the last time Kansas was going down this path -- virtually no scientist would show up to testify during the school board hearings, for that exact reason -- don't give undue credibility. You may disagree with that, but that's the way they see it, and I think they're right about that. But hey, personally? I'd be delighted to see PZ and VD, here on BH.tv.

Quoting AemJeff: Actual transcription of Brendan's induction:

The tapes from my own induction ceremony were (unfortunately) accidentally destroyed.

ROTFLMAO
Thanks guys I was beginning to feel excluded...sniff. I must confess, I did join briefly, just so I could see the 12 Monkey logo zoomed in (which is cool), but stopped short of the hazing, which appears, from the transcripts, anyway, to be delightful, but somewhat of a departure from the "little girl" picture painted by our friend. I was expecting maybe a tea party? Promise me I won't emerge a born again socialist who spits on the flag and hates the troops..

I am an agnostic Physician. This diavlog illustrates the accusation that some atheists just replace religious belief with the theory of Evolution. I felt there were some logical inconsistencies, if the "tape of life" is rewound, the playback will be different because of randomness and uncertainty. How can any virologist expect to develop a vaccine for a "moving" target? The influenza vaccine is tailored to observed virus types monitored by "Sentinel Sites", the vaccine composition is adjusted on a yearly basis. It is impossible to predict what will be next years virotype, it the nature of the random process of evolution, I don't know the details of Lenski's research, but it appears it proves random change modulated by the environment, the change itself cannot be predicted beforehand. Just like conventional believers think that prayer can affect health/disease states, the "evolutionists" believe that Evolution will bring forth desired variations in life forms that will be beneficial to Mankind. Last year, even some chemists wrote about using evolution to find enzymes that can digest cellulose to generate bio fuels, eliminating the living organism step altogether! I hope that this young virologist succeeds, but I doubt she will. On the meantime, the

Quoting SkepticDoc: I felt there were some logical inconsistencies, if the "tape of life" is rewound, the playback will be different because of randomness and uncertainty.

Maybe you're refering to something other than what I have in mind, but weren't they talking simply about a record?

Quoting SkepticDoc: How can any virologist expect to develop a vaccine for a "moving" target? The influenza vaccine is tailored to observed virus types monitored by "Sentinel Sites", the vaccine composition is adjusted on a yearly basis. It is impossible to predict what will be next years virotype, it the nature of the random process of evolution, I don't know the details of Lenski's research, but it appears it proves random change modulated by the environment, the change itself cannot be predicted beforehand.

I'd guess that the state of the art in virology is a moving target, as well. A current grad student may have access to models and theories that aren't apparent to people even a little further along in their careers. Speaking in the abstract, even if you can't predict specific changes, you may be able to predict patterns, and build guards against broad categories of mutations.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Just like conventional believers think

Quoting handle: Promise me I won't emerge a born again socialist who spits on the flag and hates the troops..

I'm afraid I'm going to have to pointedly ask where you gained detailed knowledge of our bylaws.

The synthesis of human insulin and the newer variations are the farthest from a random process. The amino acid sequence was determined by painstaking chemistry and then the amino acids were assembled in the desired sequence. Chemists experimented with some substitutions that have produced both long lasting basal insulins and short acting versions that do not exist in nature. I like to go back to basics, random mutations produced slightly different organisms, if the difference provided some advantage that allowed more of the different organisms to survive and reach reproductive age, the change was perpetuated and the organism evolved without a "Designer". If you want to call the chemists "designers", that would be reasonable.

Isn't being a black box empiricist and a skeptic one of the successful adaptions of the culture of medicine. I suspect engineers and doctors have less religion in them than even the most allegedly atheistic scientists.

Quoting bjkeefe: To me, there is one valid reason that obviates the need for any others (although I feel PZ expressed other valid reasons): debating creationists gives them credibility that they don't deserve. It is not science. Full stop.

I think we need to get a little more creative here. I would like to experiment with a new tactic. Let them teach "creationism" in school, only with one condition: that evolution is taught in houses of worship. The trick is, however, that scientists and teachers need to use the same strategies as our traditional religious leaders and exploit fear, ignorance and the need for a hope-bearing promise. So, we should point out to the congregations that those that don't believe in evolution are doomed to "devolve". They will turn into slugs, worms and all kinds of slimy creatures. Furthermore, we should also point out that the natural course of evolution, for those that believe in it, is to become "godly", and in fact, some of us are already well advanced in that path (!). These godly beings who are a race reminiscent of Rambos, but Brad- and -Angelina- looking, are the only ones that can defeat the Beast (which, in turn, feeds from slugs and worms). So there

Quoting SkepticDoc: The synthesis of human insulin and the newer variations are the farthest from a random process. The amino acid sequence was determined by painstaking chemistry and then the amino acids were assembled in the desired sequence. Chemists experimented with some substitutions that have produced both long lasting basal insulins and short acting versions that do not exist in nature.

Granted. But once it's established that the bugs will, if they have the right programming, do sophisticated things, then the evolutionary vs. direct engineering distinction doesn't seem as important. The evolutionary approach is difficult and complex, but if you can understand what stresses to apply, the patterns of change, statistically, can be predicted. For example, there have been experiments that show populations of E. Coli whose ability to metabolize lactose had been compromised, repeatedly, predictably evolving the ability when they were provided with a lactose only environment. In other words, the process may be stochastic, but it's not unpredictable. That sounds to me more like an engineering problem than an insurmountable theoretical obstacle.

On the July 5 diavlog, John Horgan commented on the limits of Medical Science. We may know which genes may be associated with certain diseases, but short of sterilizing the carriers of certain genes, there is nothing we can do with the information, yet!

Quoting AemJeff: Granted. But once it's established that the bugs will, if they have the right programming, do sophisticated things, then the evolutionary vs. direct engineering distinction doesn't seem as important. The evolutionary approach is difficult and complex, but if you can understand what stresses to apply, the patterns of change, statistically, can be predicted. For example, there have experiments that show populations of a E. Coli whose ability to metabolize lactose had been compromised, repeatedly, predictably evolving the ability when they were provided with a lactose only environment. In other words, the process may be stochastic, but it's not unpredictable. That sounds to me more like an engineering problem than an insurmountable theoretical obstacle.

Like Cheney was quoted: "So..?" We can force/select bacteria to act on some substrates and it is unlikely this will have any impact on Human Medicine. Maybe we can grow bacteria and fungi that can digest garbage and toxic pollutants, the impact will be marginal, it will be more effective to reduce garbage and avoid chemical spills or generation of toxins. The significant evolutionary changes take longer than the average human lifespan, we need to be more pragmatic on the funding of Scientific Research, maybe

Quoting SkepticDoc: Like Cheney was quoted: "So..?"

We can force/select bacteria to act on some substrates and it is unlikely this will have any impact on Human Medicine. Maybe we can grow bacteria and fungi that can digest garbage and toxic pollutants, the impact will be marginal, it will be more effective to reduce garbage and avoid chemical spills or generation of toxins.

The significant evolutionary changes take longer than the average human lifespan, we need to be more pragmatic on the funding of Scientific Research, maybe instead of getting involved in "octopus porn", Professor Myers can spend some time trying to eradicate MRSA.

I don't know how to answer you. Either a thing is doable or it isn't. Your argument seems to be that it isn't. Mine is that there don't seem to be any long term obstacles. One observation: The third paragraph (The significant evolutionary changes take longer than the average human lifespan) is based on a premise that isn't really true. The operative time periods are far shorter than that. In ten days, about 150 generations of E. Coli come into being. More than 5000 generations per year. A billion E. Coli will easily fit into

I should have been more specific, but after all, this is just an Internet Forum, not a peer reviewed scholarly journal. The magnitude and relevance of change is relative/subjective, who knows, if another asteroid hits Earth, after another 65 million years some other intelligent life form will roam the planet. I just won't know what it will be. Some things will "just happen", the Lyme disease pathogen for example, the Buddhists may call it Dukkha.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm afraid I'm going to have to pointedly ask where you gained detailed knowledge of our bylaws.

Ah, um... I'm thinking this might be an opportunity to spend... ah.. more time with my family... but keep an eye out for my new book.

It would be interesting to work out the computing power required to model the impact of planned vs. stochastic genetic development. It is quite possible that consciousness could be our doom--we consciously develop efficient systems whereas natural selection seems to have developed redundant systems. We improve the quality of life through efficiency for some period of time until we are destroyed by a black swan. It probably isn't a very ripe field of science, since there aren't any winners in an apocalypse. You can't run experiments. The best plan is to work to make life now better and forsake the future except to the extent you can actually make meaningful predictions about it.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Maybe we can grow bacteria and fungi that can digest garbage and toxic pollutants, the impact will be marginal, it will be more effective to reduce garbage and avoid chemical spills or generation of toxins.

A somewhat valid point, especially considering the immediate future, but I don't see why it has to be either/or. We should certainly do all you propose, no question. On the other hand, trying to change people's behavior is probably at least a hard a problem as coming up with some technological remedies. Especially on the scales required, and especially considering how short-term thinking and other motivations against changing behavior are so well-funded. We have a lot of smart people with a wide range of skills and strengths. Some are better suited to exhorting people to clean up their acts. Others are better at fiddling around in a lab. I don't see why we can't encourage both, and why it isn't better to pursue a multi-track approach.

You might like this blistering and eloquent screed by Charles P. Pierce: "Greetings from Idiot America." Link courtesy of PZ, who, in case a cracker is not enough to feed your outrage, has gathered up links to "a little collection of past articles that will serve to infuriate and enlighten."

I think Wonderment's reduction of "sensible" religion to mere practice bothers me more than the repeated assumption that there is absolutely no way to defend the creedal contents of religious beliefs. I also dislike this view that religion is fine as long as you keep it private--as though it's like masturbation. What does it even mean to keep it private? Does it mean that it's a violation of propriety to pray before eating, if people can see you? Or that it's somehow wrong to endorse a public policy for religious reasons? EDIT: I realize now that people are going to challenge me on the creedal contents of Christianity. I'm perfectly willing to argue those, but I'm not entirely sure this is the forum to do that. Maybe we could take it to BJ's blog, or to a more general forum on Bloggingheads? (If that's what people want.)

Quoting Bobby G: I realize now that people are going to challenge me on the creedal contents of Christianity. I'm perfectly willing to argue those, but I'm not entirely sure this is the forum to do that. Maybe we could take it to BJ's blog, or to a more general forum on Bloggingheads? (If that's what people want.)

I've seen people complain about off-topic posts in the past. My view is that a free-ranging discussion is almost always a good thing. The threading feature of the forum software helps to keep clear what's related to what.

I think Wonderment's reduction of "sensible" religion to mere practice bothers me more than the repeated assumption that there is absolutely no way to defend the creedal contents of religious beliefs.

It's not a reduction. It's an observation about the many facets of religion that are important to people besides, instead of, or in addition to belief.

God, I love Pierce. I have less time nowadays, so I don't visit Alterman's blog as much as I used to, but the highlight is always when catch the brilliant rants that Charles Pierce writes in form time to time. I wonder if he would ever do BHTV? And who he would match up with. Pinkerton? Frum? talk about "must see BHTV!" I've only seen the second half of this diavlog, and am less thrilled with it than some commentors. But all in all pretty interesting. PZ is solid and Abbie brings nice energy. Hope they both come back.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I've only seen the second half of this diavlog, and am less thrilled with it than some commentors.

First half is better, if you haven't already watched.

Oops. My apologies. I agree those elements are extremely important.

Bobby G:

I also dislike this view that religion is fine as long as you keep it private--as though it's like masturbation. What does it even mean to keep it private? Does it mean that it's a violation of propriety to pray before eating, if people can see you?

A fair gripe. I'm sorry not to be able to give you a succint or complete answer. This is going to be another one of those things about which I wave my hands for a while in an attempt to avoid saying directly, "I know it when I see it." I have no problem at all with prayers before eating. In fact, I admire the instinct to be reflective and thankful for one's good fortune. I am happy to be at a friend's house and respect the moment, or even share it. If I see it in a restaurant, I am not at all bothered. If I hear it in a restaurant, I am not at all bothered. If the people are close enough to me, I'll likely even shush for the moment. What would bother me, in this example, would be if the people at that table demanded that everyone else in the restaurant

How come I find PZ Myers irritating and condescending at the same time that I respect and enjoy http://www.kroto.info/ and http://patcondell.net/? (I learned about Pat through Kroto's http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/ presentation) I resist trading a set of conventional religious beliefs for "evolutionism"!

Quoting SkepticDoc: How come I find PZ Myers irritating and condescending at the same time that I respect and enjoy http://www.kroto.info/ and http://patcondell.net/?

Good question. Can't imagine why. Pat Condell rocks, but he strikes me as even more in-your-face than PZ. Maybe that's what you like? Don't know anything about Kroto. Thanks for the tip. I thought I had watched all of Beyond Belief 2, but his name doesn't ring a bell.

I prefer to think that Pat and Harry are just pursuing and promoting the truth. I regard Evolution as the best retroscope for life forms, but totally useless for advancing quality of life or health. Can you take Evolution away from Myers or Shermer? It seems to me they cling to it like Catholics to Dogma.

FYI: http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondB...atch/kroto.php

SkepticDoc: First, thanks for the more specific link to Kroto/BB2 in your other post.

I prefer to think that Pat and Harry are just pursuing and promoting the truth.

I regard Evolution as the best retroscope for life forms, but totally useless for advancing quality of life or health.

Can you take Evolution away from Myers or Shermer? It seems to me they cling to it like Catholics to Dogma.

Hard to know where to begin here. Do you think Myers or Shermer aren't pursuing and promoting the truth? And what would it mean to "take Evolution away" from them? You want them to renounce it as a scientific theory? Stop defending it against creationists? Do you think they "cling" to it like "dogma" because it's purely faith-based, and that there's little or no evidence for it? Myers is a biologist, after all. Would you also ask a physicist to stop clinging to, say, the conservation of mass-energy? As for Shermer, I can only guess what you might mean, and if I'm right about what I'm guessing -- that he has recently talked about growth in societal structures in evolutionary language -- I can only say that it seems at least like

Quoting bjkeefe: SkepticDoc:

First, thanks for the more specific link to Kroto/BB2 in your other post.

... which, now that I've watched, I remember from the first time. But worth seeing again. Thanks.

That was quite the cheering response. I now want to subscribe to your newsletter. I too would hate to pray in a computer room--I generally pray behind closed doors because I'm afraid that if I pray in public part of my motivation for doing so is to somehow display to people that I'm better than them because I'm praying. I'd rather not stir up such feelings in myself, so I tend to be as unobtrusive as possible, say when I pray before meals (I'm even loathe to pray before my agnostic spouse, though she assures me she doesn't mind). Despite all this, I know people who are quite comfortable to pray in public, and I certainly wouldn't want them getting dirty looks for it. Shutting the whole place down, though--that would be unacceptable. Incidentally, have you ever experienced such a thing? I haven't, but I grew up in the midwest, not the south, which is the only US location I can imagine such a thing happening.

Quoting bjkeefe: SkepticDoc:

Finally, I don't really know what to say about evolution "advancing quality of life or health." Seems to me that knowledge is always a good thing, even if there aren't immediate, obvious, direct applications. I'm reminded of Michael Faraday being asked by an MP of what use was this electricity stuff.

And stop capitalizing "evolution." I get your point, already. You're becoming as tiresome with this as Republicans who insist on saying "the Democrat Party."

If you look at evolution as something of the past (retroscope), at least it would give you a sense of the general direction of change, and the external factors that have shaped those changes. However, we should also look at evolution in the present and the future, as it certainly hasn't stopped. Since we are, more than ever before, able to effect change in our environments, both internal and external, we are affecting evolution. We better be prompt to understand, as comprehensively as possible, the scope of consequences to our interventions. As an example, when we develop better treatments for genetically transmitted diseases, we are affecting evolution by facilitating the transmission of those genes to future generations. As a physician, I have to be able to understand my

Quoting bjkeefe: And stop capitalizing "evolution." I get your point, already. You're becoming as tiresome with this as Republicans who insist on saying "the Democrat Party."

I have never seen "evolution" capitalized before. Is this some trend of equating evolution with God that I missed?

Quoting Bobby G: I have never seen "evolution" capitalized before. Is this some trend of equating evolution with God that I missed?

Close. I read it as an attempt by SkepticDoc to cast it as a dogma, about which people are reverential or otherwise irrational.

On a previous "Science Saturday" there was a quote along the line of "Physics is the only Science, the rest is stamp collecting" (capitalization on purpose!). The early scientists that worked with electricity never claimed to have a unifying theory of everything, many (most?) "evolutionists" claim that the theory is the basis for everything. There is even the transmogrification of genetics! Darwin was apparently a geologist that happened to notice variations in species, his theory does not depend on genetics, although genetics provides the mechanisms of the transmission of the phenotypes (variations?), did he evolve from a geologist to a biologist? The physical sciences allow the progressive, purposeful development of structures, appliances, "stuff" that is useful (see how far electricity and its applications "evolved" into our present medium for exchange of ideas- just look at your computer screen!). Biology will never be able to produce such equivalent fantastic animal products without an onerous moral price (the vegetable world is a different situation).

I've been thinking a lot about about PZ Meyers's scrum with the Catholic League. I picked up on the thread from PZ's blog on Science Blogs (which was a new site for me). I'm a bit shocked to see that the issues of evolution verses creationism atheism verses deism has really gotten this acrimonious. I guess I live in a nice little refugium of evolutionary and philosophical sanity here in Happy Valley in Western Massachusetts. Frankly I have considered evolution and empirically derived scientific atheism to be settled issues (at least in my mind) for so long that I have lost touch with the acrimony over the issues. It is a bit astounding to me that these are still issues being passionately debated. What is more I find it hard to believe that it is such a source of acrimony. Hey believe what you want and let the next fellow believe what he or she wants. I don't understand why some student would disrupt a catholic mass and I don't understand why people would demand anything beyond some minor penalties for the young twerp doing so. The heated issue

Richard:

So what's the big deal? Fine him $50 for trespassing and forget it. If he does it again fine him $100 and let him cool his heal in the county slammer for thirty days. He will get sick of the baloney sandwiches and no internet and cut it out.

Your proposal itself is a pretty big deal. Are you seriously saying that what the student did was a crime, and that the state should be in the business of punishing someone for not accepting someone else's superstition?

If I recall correctly the way the Jesuit priests and the nuns explained the consecration of the host at the time to me was that the conversion of the flour wader to the body of Christ in the Catholic Mass was entirely metaphorical and not in any way to be considered literal. They taught us that the theological and philosophical issues were the point and not the actual physical objects. It was if anything much more about to an introduction to Saint Augustine's philosophy than human sacrifice. When did this change?

About five hundred years ago. And, as an

Brendan

Quoting bjkeefe: Your proposal itself is a pretty big deal. Are you seriously saying that what the student did was a crime, and that the state should be in the business of punishing someone for not accepting someone else's superstition?

After I wrote the previous post I was thinking about the student and sought out his account of the episode, if it is to be believed, I would certainly say he is guilty of nothing approaching a crime. It appear that he is (was?) a practicing Roman Catholic simply attempting to explaining his religion to a friend. Certainly his behavior in reaction to the over the top actions of the "church woman" who physically accosting him was reasonable. I had gotten the impression in one of the accounts on Science blogs (IIRC) that he was involved in some kind of planned protest during the mass. If that was the case it seems to me that he might be guilty of trespass. If for example he had behaved in a manner similar to the people who actively disrupted and mocked Roman Catholic services in the San Francisco area that

Quoting Richard from Amherst: After I wrote the previous post I was thinking about the student and sought out his account of the episode, if it is to be believed, I would certainly say he is guilty of nothing approaching a crime.

Ah. Good on you for following up. Sorry, I guess I had assumed you already knew his side of the story. I must have read it elsewhere, but I had thought that it was retold on PZ's blog, or was an obvious link from him or ERV. Anyway, case closed on that part.

I really don't get it on a gut level what the human need to ram one's religious beliefs down the throat of the general public is motivated by except perhaps self affirmation.

I think that's probably part of it, especially at the root of a particular religion's beliefs. Some people will tell you that it's a fundamental requirement of their religion that they go out and share/spread/teach. This always strikes me as something that must stem back to the early days of that particular sect, when it was trying to grow and basically recapitulated the Amway sales model. And, of course, if you believe in something strongly enough

no the 85% (if accurate) is only for biology as far as i know. It is pretty interesting to see the field being so dominated by women. It makes me think maybe Larry Sommers should not have been run out of Harvard on a rail for suggesting that factors besides sexism might play into the gender imbalances in various fields. as a side note - I love the whole epi-genetics thing. The main point i got out of what i've read ( and this diavlog) is that the way we live our lives can effect our children (up to conception). Methylation ,for example, is effected by smoking cigarettes and can effect the metabolism of your child. neat! and scary!

i'm still in search of a truly masculinist woman. some try - but no real masculinists yet.. sigh. seriously, equality and acceptance of differences are pretty sweet characteristics. maybe you should give something like that a try...

Quoting popcorn_karate: i'm still in search of a truly masculinist woman. some try - but no real masculinists yet..

sigh.

seriously, equality and acceptance of differences are pretty sweet characteristics. maybe you should give something like that a try...

According to your post, I must be a total failure in articulating what I think. I not only accept the differences, I celebrate them! How boring (to me) if we were all exactly the same! Of course, equal rights, equal opportunities, but certainly we don't have to be the same. My point is that we are moving away (it seems) from a massively male dominated civilization (with many, many masculinist women) to a more "balanced" (male-female) one. During transitions there are always wide swings. While that balance is being worked out, there will always be extremist for both sides. And it is understandable. What I pointed out is that sometimes, although at an intellectual level, a man may support equality, inadvertently, they may make patronizing or sexist comments which contradict the principle they are trying to support. I acknowledge the good intentions, when they are there. At other times the support isn't such, but it is only a facade of political correctness. I think that if we understand this process and why it happens we may

Some comments from somebody more eloquent and balanced than myself: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/re..._sacrilege.php

Watching this video was nearly a complete waste of an entire hour. I am always waiting for an evolutionist to actually deal with ID (creationist) arguments using the science they claim to own. It never happens. Why all the time spent and all the hot air ridiculing people without actually saying anything informative or to the point! What about irreducible complexity of systems. What about the irreducible complexity of even one protein. Why is Michael Behe hopelessly funny. I found his book Edge of Evolution very profound. How can PZ even dare to compare the complexity of proteins, organelles, cells, systems, organism, ecostystems, etc. to the so-called complexity of sand on the beach. You have creationist arguments coming out of your ears, but in your magnanimity you do read their books, yet, this is the analogy you come up with. That is what is ridiculous. (sorry, I cannot get my question marks and other punctuation to work properly)

ID is not conducive to Scientific Research. Many atheists have hijacked Evolution as their "justification for belief". I will recommend that you become familiar with John Haught's work: http://www.google.com/search?q=john+...L_enUS227US240 We should not confuse the fantasy of ID with genuine questions of why there is anything at all in the Universe.

Quoting science major: Watching this video was nearly a complete waste of an entire hour. I am always waiting for an evolutionist to actually deal with ID (creationist) arguments using the science they claim to own. It never happens.

Why all the time spent and all the hot air ridiculing people without actually saying anything informative or to the point! What about irreducible complexity of systems. What about the irreducible complexity of even one protein. Why is Michael Behe hopelessly funny. I found his book Edge of Evolution very profound. How can PZ even dare to compare the complexity of proteins, organelles, cells, systems, organism, ecostystems, etc. to the so-called complexity of sand on the beach. You have creationist arguments coming out of your ears, but in your magnanimity you do read their books, yet, this is the analogy you come up with. That is what is ridiculous.

(sorry, I cannot get my question marks and other punctuation to work properly)

Cool! A guy who calls himself "science major" and uses terms like "irreducible complexity" like they mean something. Care to proffer a definition and maybe a proof of "irreducibility" in even one case? Why not start with flagella?

Quoting so-called science major: (sorry, I cannot get my question marks and other punctuation to work properly)

Thus spoke another IDiot. As to why those of us in the reality-based community use mockery, it's because that's all your beliefs merit. Treating your claims in any other way affords you respect that you have not earned and do not deserve. None of you is interested in science. What you're interested in doing is using sciencey-sounding jargon to impress the yokels and to provide cover for politicians like Bobby Jindal and George W. Bush. Creationism/ID is not science. It boils down to a single belief: "This is too hard for me to figure out, therefore God made it." If you want to believe that, fine. But it's not science. The name of the game in science is to ask: What can we explain without resorting to the supernatural?

Quoting science major: Watching this video was nearly a complete waste of an entire hour.

If you believe youre going to live forever after death, isnt the concept of 'wasting an hour' rather inane?

Quoting science major: Why is Michael Behe hopelessly funny.

Because he didnt bother to Google 'HIV' before he wrote 'Edge'. He couldnt have made a bigger mistake if he had tried. He has also made an ass of himself when responding to my essay by calling me 'a mean girl.' The 'best' Creationism has to offer, ladies and gentlemen.

Quoting ERV: If you believe youre going to live forever after death, isnt the concept of 'wasting an hour' rather inane?

Because he didnt bother to Google 'HIV' before he wrote 'Edge'. He couldnt have made a bigger mistake if he had tried.

He has also made an ass of himself when responding to my essay by calling me 'a mean girl.'

The 'best' Creationism has to offer, ladies and gentlemen.

The videos are no longer available, any other place to view them?

Quoting SkepticDoc: The videos are no longer available, any other place to view them?

Those are links to articles I wrote on my blog, no videos. Here are the old ERV links, if youd like to see the original comments: One, Two Before you get into a tizzy, Behe already admitted I was right on his Amazon.com blog (several weeks after he had a temper tantrum about what an awful little girl I was). Well, technically he admitted a nice fellow named Ian Musgrave was right, even though I wrote the essays (Behe couldnt lower himself to be corrected by a lowly female pre-grad student).

Sorry, the unavailable videos were on your blog: http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot...lagiarism.html What happened? Another Behe mess FYI: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michae..._of_evolution/

Ah! Thats Harvard/XVIVOs animation called 'Inner Life of the Cell'. William Dembski and other Discovery Institute fellows became fixated on (obsessed with?) 'Inner Life' late 2006. They have been showing 'altered' versions of it at all of their lectures/presentations, attempted to put screen-shots in the Discovery Institute 'text books', and, they attempted to put it in 'EXPELLED'. Its very strange.

Thanks, I had watched that video previously, a truly fantastic work of medical illustration! A tangential note, many that have watched the PBS "Evolution" DVD, claim that evolution guided stopping drug therapy on multiple drug resistant HIV, to allow the "native" virus to flourish and then treat it with conventional drugs. I don't treat any HIV patients (refer them to the ID specialist, leave the driving to the expert!) but I have never seen that approach in practice, furthermore, a Medline search did not come up with any hits. Don't you think that is a perversion of evolutionary concepts? when Physicians have an infection resistant to current drug therapy, they change to more powerful guns! The treatment for MRSA is more potent antibiotics, empirical use of vancomycin until the C&S report is available.

You have to remember that HIV-1 and MSRA are very very very very different creatures HIV-1 operates as a 'quasispecies'-- Like a cloud of viruses that are all the same, but different When an HIV-1 positive patient takes an antiretroviral, there are naturally viruses, already in that patient, that are resistant to the drug. That resistant virus is usually 'less fit' when compared to the rest of the viruses, but in the presence of the drug, they are the only ones left 'alive'. So, even though the virus is 'less fit', it can still infect/replicate, and slowly compensatory mutations will make that drug resistant virus just as 'fit' as a 'wild' virus, even when the drugs are taken away. BUT! HIV-1 'hides' in cells. If a non-resistant virus is 'hiding' in a macrophage as a provirus (hiding in the macrophages DNA) while the patient is on drugs, its safe. These latently infected cells can spontaneously start producing viruses. So, say you have an HIV-1 patient. They initially responded to anti-retrovirals. Their viral loads started going up again. They responded to second generation drugs. Their viral loads started going back up. Your treatment options are disappearing... so, you take them off drugs completely. Those 'ancestral' viruses that were hiding in cells during

Do you have the citation from a peer reviewed medical journal? In the few HIV patients that I have been involved with that approach has never been practiced, are my ID consultants uninformed?

Your infectious disease friends are operating off of 2008 medicine and not 2001 medicine :P We have lots of new options today that were not available in 2001, when 'Evolution' was made (and when people were getting resistant to HAART, so 'no drugs' was a popular idea). So as long as there are new drugs to try, everything is cool! No new drugs to knock the resistant viral loads down, 'no drugs' starts to look attractive again. Pff talk to them, dude! Im a basic scientist, I have no idea what clinicians are prescribing :P

2004 "holistic" treatment guidelines (most recent?): http://www.guidelines.gov/summary/su...793&string=hiv

HIV Resistance Testing

Because drug-resistant virus can be transmitted from one person to another, patients presenting during or shortly after primary infection should be tested for transmitted drug resistance (B-II). A resistance test at this stage is likely to detect the resistance pattern of the infecting virus strain. The results of early resistance assays may be useful in guiding therapy, even if treatment is deferred for many years (B-III). With time, however, resistant virus will be overgrown by wild-type virus, and resistance tests will be less sensitive in detecting acquired resistance. A baseline resistance test for a patient with chronic infection is helpful only if it yields positive results: the absence of resistance does not mean that the patient does not harbor drug-resistant virus. Resistance testing should be offered to antiretroviral-naive subjects (those who have never taken any antiretroviral medications) who are initiating therapy and who have been infected for less than 2 years and perhaps longer. It is often difficult to ascertain how long a person has been infected, and consideration should be given to testing when the duration is uncertain and the expected regional