Michael Behe Presentation at Penn State

Lehigh Professor Michael Behe gave a presentation at Penn State and this article caught my eye: "Author defends intelligent design". There were several things, starting with the title of the article. Apparently the reporter saw this as defensive in nature and I think that was understood from Behe's own presentation or the opinion of the author going into the presentation.

Apparently Behe started with a disclaimer that his beliefs were not supported by Lehigh University nor his colleagues. He supported his position by identifying what he considered obvious indicators of intelligent design. OK, here is one of my many question, 'obvious to whom?'. Just because they are obvious to him doesn't make them obvious to anyone else. in fact if they are so obvious, why doesn't his own colleagues see them?

Well I guess they sort of do because another comment Behe said was

" . . . that those in the science field agree that aspects of biology appear designed . . ." [I am quoting the article, these may not be Behe's exact words].

Please note another point I have made in other posts, 'appear designed'. Since when is the appearance of design the confirmation of design, let alone intelligent design? How about never! Just because things share an appearance doesn't mean they must be designed, nor does it mean even if you manage to prove design, that there is a guiding intelligence behind it! You could make the argument for Natural Selection could very well be the guiding 'force' behind the appearance of design, but you would never hear that from Professor Behe.

Then Behe went off on his usual material on how non-living things that have been obviously designed and how that easily supports his contention. I have to disagree. His whole idea of irreducible complexity has been a non-starter for any serious scientific research, another point behe admitted during the Dover Trial. Neither he, nor anyone he knows, is performing the research to prove his ideas. Of course he claims a massive conspiracy of silence to quiet down his supporters . . . Hmm so how many bills were offered in the Pennsylvania Legislature against him? I am of course referencing Oklahoma State Representatives trying to silence pro-evolution advocate and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins. Hmm, so which side of this discussion can be accused of a conspiracy?

Here is the fun part, and one he certainly stated during the Dover trial.

"Many people think science should stay away from something beyond nature," Behe said. "I disagree."

So here is a basic question, should science address things beyond the bounds of the 'natural'? I have a better question, by what possible methodology can science do this? None that I know of! This is not a question for science, but a question for metaphysics. Behe did state that for intelligent design to be accepted as part of science the basic definition of science would have to change to include supernatural causation. He's just re-stating the opinion that pretty effectively destroyed his own arguments during the trial.What I also question is this:

"A conclusion of intelligent design is rationally justified," Behe said.

Granted I wasn't there to hear his presentation, but I read the Dover Trial transcripts, I have read his "Darwin's BlackBox" book and a number of other books on Intelligent Design and I do not find a shred of empirical evidence to support his conclusion. It all comes down to 'appearance' and 'belief'.

The final point I found interesting was the two student reactions to his presentation:

"I thought it was very comprehensive but it was chockfull of fallacies," said Tristan Buckley (sophomore-film).

Tim Chopourian (freshman-meteorology) agreed, adding that "it felt like what he was doing was explaining evolution but where we have blanks, he filled those in with God," he said.

'Chockfull of fallacies' and 'filling gaps with God'. Apparently not a very effective presentation. I'm sure other students from the group that sponsored him, the Science and the Bible club, have a different opinion. I would be interested to know if those two are members of the club, or if any members of the club offered any other opinions of the talk. In fact I email the club advisers with those questions and I am very interested in the result.

I do applaud the club for bring such a speaker on campus to give his presentation. I can understand why they would sponsor him and not say the Biology Department, but that is neither here nor there. The fact he has such a forum open to him is a pretty considerable argument against any form of conspiracy. I wish he, and his compatriots, over at the Discovery Institute would do the actual science to support intelligent design and get away from this 'appearance = fact' argument. But so far, the science side has been very quiet!

Hey Kettle, Pot calling!

Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer himself, had a great post, "The Discovery Institute has no shame", something anyone who has spent any time wading through their news releases will realize. But this one is a cake-topper to be sure. The Discovery Institute, those toothless-piranhas, those orders-of-magnitudes-less-than-stalwart fellows, are claiming religious bias is behind the reason Texas didn't get behind their Strengths and Weaknesses (S&W) argument. I kid you not, religious bias!

Read it for yourself, "Texas Board Meeting Recap for Thursday". I loved how Phil put it, " . . . it’s like Jeffrey Dahmer telling you to be a vegetarian." Luckily the Texas Freedom will not let anyone forget it too soon. It's well documented in their post "Hypocrisy and Faith-Bashing" how the DI is doing their best to push their own religious agenda on other folks, gets upset if anyone talks about a religious belief that doesn't originate at the DI.

I think they better look closer to home as to why their S&W didn't fare too well. Could it be because scientists are not fooled by their hidden agenda? Could it be that the public is catching on to their latest tactic? Could it be their own defense tends to alienate many people? How about all that and more! What are some folks going to think when "Board chairman Don McLeroy endorsed a vicious book charging that scientists who support instruction on evolution are “atheists,” parents who want their kids to learn about evolution are “monsters,” and pastors who see no conflict between faith and accepting the science of evolution are “morons.”"

What I expect to see happening is the whole S&W will go the way of the "Teach the Controversy" and "It's only a Theory" tactics and the 'Critically Analyze" will become the new watch words. That is until the next Dover-style lawsuit and they evolve (pun intended) into some other tactic. Ever since Edwards v. Aguillard the whole Intelligent Design movement has been undergoing a pretty constant evolution. They have been doing their level best to distance themselves from connections to Creationism, they have been claiming the mantle of scientific 'theory' without any actual science. The evidence during the Dover trial, not just the 'crdesign proponentist' cut and paste typo, but the testimony of Michael Behe himself . . . they all show how quickly this particular leopard will change it's spots, usually in response to a defeat.

I heartily recommend that people would read the Wedge Strategy document for themselves and they might also like to read "Understanding the ID/Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" by Eugenie Scott, NCSE to better place the strategy in context. For fun you can also read what the DI says about the Wedge Strategy. In my opinion this is a wonderful example of spin doctoring, because the original document was never meant to be made public.

Mixed Decision in Texas

While the Discovery Institute is claiming a big win ("Big Win in Texas as State Now Leads Nation in Requiring Critical Analysis of Evolution in High School Science Classes"), anyone who actually reads the news and understands what happened in Texas would view it as a split decision, probably leaning more toward pro-evolution than against it. But as usual their spin doctors are making claims that have little to no basis in reality.

My scorecard calls is a win for Science, but by a decision, not KO. To the good, Texas rejected repeated attempts to insert the whole "Strengths and Weaknesses" argument into the school standards. They also rejected the majority of the little things the Creationist head of the Texas State School Board tried to slip in last January. From that point of view the Discovery Institute failed! They have been banking on the S&W more than any other tactic, as we see in many states where they are leading the charge for changing the school science standards. OK, 'leading the charge' is a bit misleading. They are more shoving from behind than leading form the front. The Discovery Institute does not lead! They prefer to set up other people for failure, as we certainly saw in Dover.

If this is such a victory, why does Don McElroy, the head of the State School Board, chalks it up in the losing column? CNN had a decent article ("Texas board comes down on 2 sides of creationism debate"). John West, of of those less-than-stalwart fellows at the DI, claims that "Texas has sent a clear message", yet the message doesn't seem to be that clear to me. Actually the only message I get from Texas is that the DI doesn't know what a clear message is, as evidenced by their own new releases.

Texas did include language that may result in a Dover-style lawsuit if a teacher tries to bring their religion into the classroom under the guise of science. The blog "Little Green Footballs" has a nice little video that can show you a bit more about McElroy, including referring to the Big Bang as "Darwin's Big Bang" and misrepresenting Stephen J. Gould, as so many Creationists tend to do.

But the bottom line is that the next battle in Texas will be on the teachers and how they try and implement the new slightly more confusing state standards. The stand does say that the material used to critically analyze science has to be scientific in nature, and as long as teachers adhere to that, this Big Win by the DI will be a little fizzle. But on the other hand if the State of Texas approves textbooks that are anything like the DI's own publications, then teachers might have problems because those texts certainly won't be an aid in teaching any scientific theory.

I stand by my previous posts. the High School science classroom is not the right venue to analyze and critique scientific theories. It's the right venue to teach an understanding of those theories, what they are, how they were derived, and why they are so important. You know, the basics! Without that grounding there can be no critical analysis! But the DI still thinks this is a huge victory. The only people that will suffer are the children of Texas and maybe the teachers who try and do the right thing, rather than the politically expedient thing.

Arguments XXIV -- Strengths and Weaknesses Venue

I previously posted what I thought about the whole 'Strengths and Weaknesses' argument last year. Basically I disagree that a scientific theory has weaknesses! I know some folks want to disagree, but let me re-cap and you will at least see where I am coming from. Basically I said that a theory is based on what we know, how we know it, and why we know it. It gets tested, evaluated, measured against the existing evidence until it reaches the pinnacle of science, that of a Theory. Weaknesses in the theory would have been uncovered LONG before reaching that level! That's part and parcel of scientific methodology. Now that is not to say a Theory is perfect, or even complete. There are things that we do not know yet, but are they weaknesses?

Take a Bridge. You are building a bridge across a canyon, you aren't done yet, so does the bridge have a weakness because you haven't finished it? No! A weakness in the bridge would be something that when tested fails the test! A poor concrete poor, rust on a load-bearing truss . . .. That simple fact you haven't reached the end point isn't a weakness, but an indicator of future work to be done.

OK, that's my point about weaknesses in a nutshell, but what I really wanted to address was the most appropriate venue for dealing with the things we don't know. The real question here is the High School Science Classroom the appropriate venue for dealing with those issues? Now keep in mind the usual route to the HS biology class. Students get introduced to basic science methodology and many theories up to the point of studying biology and evolution in the 9th or 10th grade, which seems to be the norm around the country. So here you are, in the 9th or 10th grade, and you are getting into more detail about a specific theory, like evolution. Is this the right place to bring up the list of known unknowns? (The things we know we don't know, as opposed to the things we don't know we don't know.) There is the rub!

I do not believe it is. I think upper-level undergrad and graduate levels need to examine these areas, but the focus of HS science should be on the theories and the things that we do understand, and why we understand them, even how we reached this point of understanding. At best you might list some of the things we don't know yet, recognizing that it would be an incomplete list. But they are not weaknesses!

If you ant, go on Evolution Debate forum on Topix and see what some people think are weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution. Here are a few of the more common ones:

• Evolution doesn't explain how life started on Earth -- True, but is this something we don't know about Evolution, or Chemistry? Abiogenesis is a separate area of study that is related to evolution, but evolution does not require to know it to understand how life has changed.
• Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- Not true, for a number of reasons. The most basic is the Second Law applies to closed systems, and the Earth is definitely not a closed system.
• The odds of Evolution being true are too high -- Are they? Who has calculated these odds with any degree of fidelity? No one, you have to understand the parameters involved to calculate the odds.
• Randomness cannot explain complexity -- First of all, no one is saying Evolution is a random event. There is a random component (Random Mutation), but there are also components that select the results (Natural Selecting, Sexual Selection . . .) that are not random at all. So no one in Evolution is claiming that Randomness explains all.

OK, here is the rest of my point. Not one of the so-called weaknesses is an actual weakness in the theory of evolution, not one! The first is something we don't know in a related field, but the rest are misconceptions about evolution that anyone who actually understands the theory would know to be false.

This is what I am talking about, introducing a school standard that specifies 'weaknesses' must be covered and you are requiring a teacher to find weaknesses where there are none! What are they to do? Lists these as actual weaknesses when they are not? Create up a few more that make as much sense? Or start a conversation about the things we don't know?

So before we get students to the point of understanding the theory, we are going to start discussing the points of it that we don't know? Seems to violate the basic rules of teaching any subject. Get them well versed in the Theory and the Methodology and at that point they are in a position to understand the things we don't know. That can't happen in a high school science class! It's too soon and to easy to misinterpret as weaknesses.

Which is exactly the reason groups like the Discovery Institute are pushing so hard. They know there are no actual weaknesses in the theory, but if they build enough doubt in someone early enough in their understanding, then it will take much more work changing that preconception. This is nothing more than another gutter-style tactic i have come to expect from those folks over at the DI. They have failed to show how their own pet idea, Intelligent Design, is science, so they are trying to tear down science education!

Don't let them! Science is too important to our future to let it be damaged! The 'Strengths and Weaknesses' argument is a sham, a despicable tactic, and something we should toss out with the trash.

The Discovery Institute up to their usual tricks.

I am shocked that the Discovery Institute has any knees left, mainly because of the number and intensity of their 'knee-jerk' reactions to anything that doesn't completely and totally agree with them. So for your entertainment pleasure, the latest set of prevarications from those less-than-stalwart fellows at the DI. A pretty typical press release "San Antonio Express Article Misstates Facts on Texas Board of Education and Kansas" from their website targets an article from the San Antonio News "Theory of Evolution Faces New Debate".

In reality I disagreed with the San Antonio article on two points. First of all the use of the word 'New' in the title. This is not a new debate, this is the same debate we have been having ever since fundamentalist Creationists realized their ideas were based on their own internalized belief system and to the rest of the world they were just flakes. My other minor point of contention is that I think they gave Casey Luskin way to much room in the article. Oh yea, one single word from Casey is way to much, but that's neither here nor there. The fun part is watching the DI squirm and change things to their liking.

In their own article they state:

"But the article also states that the Texas Board of Education "voted with the science experts in January to remove the 'strengths and weaknesses' standard" from Texas science standards. The Board did indeed vote to do this (to its shame). But in repealing the strengths and weaknesses language, Board members did not vote "with the science experts." The Board appointed six science experts to review the draft standards. Three of the experts opposed the “strengths and weaknesses” provision, but three of the experts supported the “strengths and weaknesses” language! So it would be much more accurate to say that the Board in January sided with some of their experts while ignoring others."

I believe the SA article is completely correct, the Board voted with the science expert in removing the strengths and weaknesses argument from the science standards. I think it is rather disingenuous of the DI to claim that West and Meyer, of the DI, should be considered 'science experts'. So the Board did vote with science experts and voted against the three Creationists who got on the board through politics rather than scholarship.

Of course the lies and misdirection continues:

The article also erroneously claims that in 2005 the Kansas Board of Education “approved new science standards allowing the teaching of intelligent design, which posits that a supernatural creator is required to explain life's complexity.”

Actually, the Kansas science standards adopted in 2005 did not include intelligent design. Here is a direct quote from the introduction to those science standards (since repealed): “We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design, the scientific disagreement with the claim of many evolutionary biologists that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion."

This is the standard whine that just because the standards didn't mention ID, that the Kansas standard would prevent ID from being taught. Again the SA article is honest, that the Kansas standards (since repealed in Kansas) would have allowed the teaching of Intelligent Design and even multiple other variations on Creationism, even though the language didn't specify ID as a curriculum topic. The DI's position is a lie, a canard, pure BS.

You might look to the East slightly and see what is happening in Louisiana. Even though the standard doesn't mention ID as a curriculum topic, the enforcement agency removed all mention of 'not teaching religious-based alternatives' from the rules. In other words a teacher in Louisiana will be able to toes out the science text and bring in the Bible directly -- and there is little anyone will be able to say, short of a Dover-style lawsuit. Sure the DI is sort of right, the Kansas standards didn't advocate ID directly, but the intent was what the SA article was reporting -- and they got the intent right.

The article closed with what I have come to expect from the DI, another restatement of what ID is supposed to be:

"Of course, the article’s definition of intelligent design (ID) is equally fallacious. Intelligent design does not posit "that a supernatural creator is required to explain life's complexity." ID claims that we can use empirical evidence and logic to detect whether some features of life and the universe are better explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected cause of chance and necessity."

How many ways have they 'officially' refused to identify who they believe to be the Designer? It's hilarious, they will wink and give a nod to the Christian God, but formally they won't say it because they think no one will take them seriously. I got news from them, as a scientific organization, no one takes them seriously. It's only their politicking and marketing that people worry about -- just watch what has been happening in Texas and their typical reactions to understand that.

Am I against Intelligent Design?

We [evolution supporters] haven't closed the door on anything. What we have said, repeatedly, is that the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) need to do the research to support their position. Since they are unwilling or unable to do so, it does not belong in the science classroom, it is not a scientific theory, it's apparently a non-starter because they cannot make any headway in doing actual science.

How many real scientists act like they do? Since when do an actual working scientist postulate an idea, declare victory, and dare anyone to disagree with them? Never! Because that's not scientific methodology, but that it what they [ID proponents] are doing. An actual scientist does the legwork, makes the case, and then lets other scientists review and critique the work. They just keep trying to end run the actual work part.

If they want in the science classroom they have to do the work and then I will stand right next to them lobbying for their inclusion, but until they do so, don't come asking for my acceptance, they haven't earned it.

Let's see what do we get when we ask for science, we get long diatribes whining about evolution -- which does NOTHING to support ID.

What else do we get when we ask for science? We get popular press publications where the evidence and methodology is conspicuously missing. Of course in the POPULAR media, there really is no requirement for proof.

What do we get when we ask for science? We get a list of 44 documents CLAIMED to support ID presented to the Ohio State School Board -- however when examined the articles only mention ID and do so in the negative. Even the authors were surprised their work was presented so.

What do we get when we ask for science? We get unsupported conclusions, allegations of conspiracies, political and legal meanderings.

What we do not get is SCIENCE. All they have to do is the work, the real work, support their claims with more than belief, innuendo, and conjecture. Until they are willing to do that we will keep them relegated with the psychics, astrologers, and palmists -- where they belong. You earn a place at the table, and you don't earn it by whining.

So right now today I am anti-Intelligent Design for the simple reason it is not a scientific discipline. Not because it cannot be, but because its supporters have not taken the steps to make it so. They would rather whine, make arguments of logical fallacy, and appeal to emotions -- none of which makes what they have to say in any way science.

Showdown in Texas (25-27 March 2009)

I know, sorta corny title, but entirely appropriate. This week the Texas Board of Education is having their last set of meetings and are scheduled to vote on new school science standards. It will be loud and boisterous, and hopefully productive. Now is a good time for a few highlights:

• For me things started with the firing of Chris Comer, the former director of science curriculum just before a scheduled review of the science curriculum. That was back in Dec 2007 and is actually the first post I made to this blog (Is Texas Stepping Backwards).
• In 2008 Texas was 'blessed' with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) moving near Dallas and asking for permission to award Master's Degrees in Science. It was also this year that they reviewed their curriculum and the experts recommendation was to teach Evolution without any watering down. Apparently this was met with disfavor by some members of the School Board, in particular their president Don McLeroy, a creationist dentist. Gee, wonder how come Chris Comer got canned?
• So what does Don do? He appoints a 6 member team to re-review the science curriculum and stacks the deck with two members of the Discovery Institute and a Creationist, I believe. I guess there weren't enough Creationists around Texas, Don had to import them. Of course they immediately stated pushing for their version of 'academic freedom', which has little to nothing to do with actual academic freedom.
• Well heading into 2009 we see the ICR's request to award MS degrees was turned down. The recommendation voted on by the school board eliminated the DI's slant, and things seemed to be calming down. But as we all know, appearances can be deceiving.
• So far this year McLeroy slipped in several unscientific phrases to the science standards, AFTER the voting has already been done. The ICR got to Leo Berman and he is sponsoring a bill that would alleviate the ICR, and organizations like them, from any possible State oversight -- allowing them to award whatever degree they want in whatever discipline they want, whether or not they actually teach it. Isn't that special! There is also a bill to offer the same sort of 'academic freedom' nonsense passed in their neighbor to the East. What do you know, Texas is following Louisiana's 'lead', they should be so proud!
• Now this week the School Board finishes their meetings, listens to many public statements and votes on the school curriculum. Steve Schafersman will be live-blogging the proceedings, a chore I would not wish on any sane person. Let's give Steve a vote of thanks and keep an eye on things.

Now why is this of import to you, probably a non-Texas resident. Why am I a native NY'er now living in Ohio care? Well Texas and California are two of the most populous states and what they say influences a lot of textbook publishers. So even if your state doesn't support it, your kids might be exposed to religion in the guise of science simply because your voice wasn't loud enough to overturn the Elephant-In-The-Room Texas when it came to determining textbook contents.

Now I like Texas and the people there are as big-hearted as any I have ever met. I have been in many parts of the State from the desert west to the metropolitan Dallas and many points in between. For a time I lived just over the border in Shreveport and spent many a weekend exploring East Texas. My Mother-in-law lives just outside of Dallas, so my wife and I visit there regularly. I really did find it hard to believe that Texas would fall for this line of non-thinking! I hope the School Board sticks to the vote they has earlier in the year and holds true to the teaching of Science. If they do I can't wait to see how those ID'iots over at the DI spin it. If the people of Texas fall for these machinations, then the people I feel sorry for are the people of the Great State of Texas themselves because they will be hurting themselves and the education of their own kids!

Boojum hunting in Oklahoma

Yes, it's finally time to begin a new Boojum hunt! The object of the hunt is to investigate the 'circumstances' behind Richard Dawkins recent appearance at UO. Seriously folks! Just before Richard Dawkins was scheduled to appear, a very foolish representative of the people of Oklahoma introduced two bills designed to keep him out! I kid you not! I read it first on the PZ Myers blog and this is about the follow-up: "Suspected Criminal Richard Dawkins Under Investigation" and had to read it a second time to make sure it wasn't an April Fools joke a week early.

"Oklahoma State Representative Rebecca Hamilton (rebeccahamilton@okhouse.gov) requested substantial information relating to the speech from Vice President for Governmental Relations Danny Hilliard. Representative Hamilton's exhaustive request included demands for all e-mails and correspondence relating to the speech; a list of all money paid to Dawkins and the entities, public or private, responsible for this funding; and the total cost to the university, including, among other things, security fees, advertising, and even "faculty time spent promoting this event."

Where in the world is this mess going to lead? Are Universities going to have to start getting the OK from the legislature for speakers? Is this sort of activity really what the people in Oklahoma need from their representatives? Sure, there are no other issues facing the people of Oklahoma right now!

This is nothing but a Boojum hunt, which for those of you more literature-minded is a dangerous form of the Lewis Carroll Snark. If you prefer, call it a good old fashioned witch hunt! Pretty soon the only speakers you will be able to get, without significant 'oversight' from the Legislature, are those with nothing at all to say! Forget academic freedom, forget hearing controversial information, forget teaching anything at all! This is ridiculous and I hope all of Oklahoma contact Representative Hamilton and express their displeasure.

Oh and before I forget, it wasn't Representative Hamilton who introduced the two bills designed to prevent Dawkins from coming into the State, but another one of her apparent ilk named Todd Thomsen (todd.thomsen@okhouse.gov). she is just the one apparently engaged in the hunting of the Boojum.

Here are a link to the two bills, read them for yourself. I think they are hilarious! Here is just a sampling:

"A Resolution expressing disapproval of the actions of the University of Oklahoma to indoctrinate students in the theory of evolution; opposing the invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak on campus; and directing distribution.

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry, not indoctrinate students in one-sided study and thinking; . . ."

How can you possibly reconcile in your mind opposing the invitation and yet then follow up right away and talk about free inquiry? Oklahoma, you aren't very particularly OK right now. You need to put a leash on those two! Remember, this is the same group who wished to pass a bill concerning academic freedom? See why I keep saying that bill, and the others like it, have nothing whatsoever to do with academic freedom! Here is more evidence to show you that they care little for freedom of any kind!

Follow up on "Why Science Works!"

The conference is over and while there hasn't been a lot of news released on it, John Lynch, ASU, and blogger extraordinaire (Stranger Fruit) was kind enough to mention that he not only attended, but he gave a presentation on why he felt that evolution was not an unchallengeable orthodoxy and why creationist claims about being stifled or expelled do not hold up when examined in light of scientific practice and the history of science. The list of attendee is quite interesting, representatives from science, philosophy, law, even the British House of Lords was here. Take a gander at the confirmed attendee list. Would have been interesting to attend.

Funny how the DI hasn't yet posted anything about it. Could it be they are too busy whining about not getting an invite to the Vatican to play with the big boys and discuss evolution? Looks like Ben Stein didn't get invited either, I bet the rest of the participants breathed a sigh of relief that it would enable them to get some work done and not listen to unsupported allegations!

Turnabout is fair play!

Kem Ham is off his rocker -- well that's old news, so how about "Ken Ham has provided more evidence he's off his rocker." Does that sound better?

So what has he done now? Well about a year ago Michael Zimmerman was scheduled to do an interview last year on a fundamentalist Christian radio show. Michael is from Butler University and one of the driving forces behind the Clergy Letter Project, which I have mentioned several times. Well when he went on the air he discovered that Ken Ham was also on the line -- fully prepared to debate him. This is the best part:

"When asked why neither the host nor Ken had the courtesy to inform me that I was to participate in a debate rather than in an interview, I was told that they believed that I wouldn’t have accepted their offer had I been told the truth. When I questioned them about the deception, I was told that since the debate was to further God’s wishes, a minor deception of this sort was acceptable."

So Kennie and his buds ambushed Michael. And of course this "minor deception of this sort was acceptable" in the eyes of God! Why, because little kennie Ham says so! How many times have I mentioned the "Liars for Jesus" Club, apparently Ham is a charter member.

OK, so why is this funny a year later? Apparently the BBC turned the tables on one of little kennie's pets, Jason Lisle, who was surprised to find that a scheduled interview on the BBC was actually to be a debate with Genie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Of course kennie is crying all sorts of moral outrage!

So I guess it's OK for kennie to rig the game, but it's terribly unfair for anyone else to! That takes balls, little kennie! I guess he figured no one would remember. I got the story from the Clashing Culture Blog and also saw it on Exploring our Matrix! I probably should pop over and read kennie's words, but not until I've had breakfast. Can't handle kennie's hypocrisy on an empty stomach.

Addendum: I did wander over to AiG, after getting something in my stomach, and looked at what kennie had to say. He railed against the BBC and even claimed the same thing happened to him -- of course offering no details for verification. So in my opinion Kennie is just cheap version of Bill O'Reilly. You might remember when Bill was railing against paparazzi, yet he had no issue using the identical tactics to ambush politicians? Well Kennie is just upset because someone used his own tactic against him. Seriously hypocritical! As Bugs Bunny would say "What a maroon!"