Friday, November 09, 2007

Get off the streets! GET OFF THE STREETS!!


LILO IS OUT OF REHAB!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

FUNNIEST AMAZON POST EVAH!

Holy CRAP! Michael Behe is now officially in the running for 'Most Delusional Sentient Being in the Universe.' And this is exactly why students should engage Creationists. Not only is it a learning experience for the student, it pops a hole in the Creationists bloated egos. Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins-- They make Lilo feel important. Some mouthy kid from a corn farm smacks him, and he cant get off on it.

ROFL! AND ITS GONNA TAKE HIM A WHOLE WEEK OF POSTS!!! AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

Hey, Behe, unless you just got a time machine and:

  1. Stopped yourself from publishing 'Edge', or
  2. Blew up about 20 HIV-1 research labs 15 years ago
Youre screwed, dude.


I think this pathetic Amazon post also highlights another important thing for laymen to remember about Creationism. You know how another one of their talking points is "More and more scientists are becoming Creationists every day!"?

Um.

Where are the scientists coming to Behes defense against my points? Im not doing this alone-- Ian Musgrave has been awesome. The PT crew has been awesome. My research mentors have been awesome. PIs Ive emailed have been awesome. Virologists and biochemists and other biologists have come out of the woodwork in my comments and other message boards to add more depth to the science behind my essay.

Where are the Creationist scientists backing Behe up? Ones that dont have to quote review articles?

This disparity highlights another fundamental difference between Creationists and Scientists:
Creationism = Arrogance
Science = Teamwork

19 comments:

Art said...

Behe: "Musgrave asserts that my response to her was scientifically inadequate and uncivil. I disagree strongly on both counts. Next week I explain why."

And he's got not one reason so far. I will have my popcorn ready next week.

Apparently though, Behe thinks he's too important a figure to be torn to pieces by the common foot soldiers of science. It's beneath his dignity, it would seem. He wants attention from the big public figures.

Sure, Dawkins could easily tear Behe a new cloaca. But why waste Richard's time, when almost anyone actually engaged in doing science can totally demolish him? Ah, the humiliation of being bested by "mere" students, eh, Behe? Students, though, who are involved in research, unlike Behe's peanut gallery sniping from the sidelines.

HalfMooner

Annyday said...

Why does he feel the need to inform us that he's planning to respond? It's like he's rolling out the red carpet ... for himself ... so that people will appreciate it when his inevitable rebuttal does come.

Bill said...

Rolling the red carpet?

It's more like painting a large sign to tape to his back that says "Kick Me!"

Behe has NO argument because he's wrong scientifically. As in not correct.

Why he doesn't just ignore Abbie is beyond me.

If I were Behe I'd be in the tropics, sipping a coconut drink and ignoring teh intertube.

That be me. Smoking Behe.

waldteufel said...

I'm an old fart geophysicist and structural geologist.

After I read this post from you, I just said to my wife: "If I had a daughter, I'd want her to be just like Abbie . . . ."

'Nuff said.

Great work on your part, and I'm sure that you have a very productive future in science.

Laneman said...

Abbs:

Nice work. You know, with the likes of Behe, Robertson, Dobson, and their wacko followers the medieval era never really ended. The standard education teaches us that there was a time called the middle ages (or dark ages) that eventually gave way to the enlightenment at the start of the renaissance. Though it is clear that did happen, the middle ages never totally went away. The middle ages characterized by ignorance, religiosity, mysticism,is alive and well today as is explemified by the likes of creationists. The sad fact is it seems that we are headed back to a new dark ages. You are a light in the on coming darkness.

BTW did you see the Dawkins review of Behe's book in the NYT? Here is the link: http://tinyurl.com/39csrr

Ian said...

Lindsay Lohan is reasonably good at her job (when she's sober enough to do it), and she appears to be trying to deal with her problems. Until Behe goes back and re-takes intro biology classes, the LiLo comparison isn't fair.

OTOH, the Mean Girls analogy works when you compare the overhyped Lohan, who's acting is hurt by her over-the-top lifestyle, with the then relatively unknown McAdams, who's by far the better actress....

386sx said...

OMG I just noticed that the "Hello again, Michael Behe!" article is featured on richarddawkins.net. It's right below "Church row evolves over fossil boy" and a little bit above "Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation".

386sx said...

It's a little bit below "Georgia plans service to pray for rain", and in the "Church row evolves over fossil boy" article there's a bishop who say his family most certainly didn't come from no monkeys.

Annyday said...

If you have to roll out your own red carpet, it's at least twice as humiliating as it is ordinarily edifying.

It's like the presenter at a lecture introducing himself and talking for three paragraphs about how great he is. It's just SAD.

Bile said...

I swear to god this man is going to give me a stroke sooner or later with his blabbermouthing.

And I don't mean swearing in the 'honoust' sense of the word.

Even I can understand his errors. I think that must be about the gravest insult that Behe has endured, being 'understood' by a 24 yr old boy who is making a living by washing (old) peoples' butts. (I hope that dind't sound to cocky, being the culprit of his embarrassment and all)

Torbjörn Larsson said...

I feel like a cantankerous contrarian curmudgeon today, as I have a list of 'disaggriveances':

* Behe: After all, if reviews by the likes of Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne fail to engage the arguments of the book, and instead rely mainly on bluster and non sequiturs, then that’s solid evidence that no good replies exist.

I disagree with this. I haven't yet read Dawkins review (but now I have the opportunity, thanks to Laneman) but if memory serves Coyne claimed that there was nothing new of substance to engage.

And in general, you can't jump from "answers to the challenges and arguments posed" to "fail to engage the arguments" if arguments are lacking or too poorly expressed. And somehow Behe manages both of the later, by ultimately relying on his irreducible simple argument of "That's not evidence, because...". (With thanks to Chris Noble.)

* another fundamental difference between Creationists and Scientists

I disagree with this, in a fashion. Surely scientists as individuals can be arrogant and the discipline as factually based come over as such. Likewise science has competitive elements (to strip away that which doesn't work).

But of course scientists could back up other scientists then they are correct. IDC'ers doesn't do that, probably because they have no factual basis to agree on.

* Behe Pink.

My stomach disagree with this. I thought Lindsey Lohan's skin tone was too colored to bear it, but with enough foundation it looks nice. But somehow ghastly too. I can't put my finger on it - and I won't. :-\

Behe Punk would work tho' - LiLo bears her drug habits quite naturally.

* My Firefox have to disagree with South Park photos.

It took two minutes to clear the formatting up, and all I got to show was this lousy colored ribbon on top of a too small mount box. :-P (Opening the jpg in a separate tab was no problem though.)

* a cantankerous contrarian curmudgeon

Finally I have to disagree with myself, as I find the new artzy blog pic highly agreeable.

Torbjörn Larsson said...

Okay, forget the formatting complaint. When I posted my comment I see that the picture elements are coming up fine several times just to be interrupted.

(Perhaps my newly updated NoScript scan the particular jpeg too slowly in that particular tag environment, and/or that the onblur try-catch operation interferes.)

In any case, the picture mount looks fine to me.

ERV said...

LOL You all are friggen hysterical :P

Kristjan Wager said...

I am looking forward to him demonstrating why his response is not scientifically inadequate - uncivil is acceptable, if there is any science, but since he went over to the dark side, he has failed to provide any science at all, so this would be a novel experience (he has done a little science-sounding speech, but that doesn't make it science).

quantok said...

When Behe dreams, does he now dream of a great burning eye watching him from the top of a blog?

"I SEE you!"

Less Lilo, more Frodo...?

Oleg said...

The first installment is up on Behe's amazon blog. Part 1.

Quick translation: WHAAAAAH!

Bill said...

The only thing I gleaned out of Behe's First Reply is that Abbie needs to wash her hair.

Judging from Behe's picture he doesn't look like much of an expert on that subject, either.

Typical.

firemancarl said...

Gosh, I swear Behe and his hommie Dembski sit around say things like "Golly gee willikers Bill, creationism sure is swell! Now, if we can just convince Abbie that AIDS is a by product of our lord and saviour Jebus!"

Shmucks!

Nigel said...

I see the next in "Behe's Great Rebuttal" seial is up on his Amazon blog.

Virtually content-free and pompous, simply reiterating his dislike of ERV's mode of expression.No science, not even his version of it.

Tough, Behe.

I for one am happy that young scientists can be pugnacious and combative in expressing their views on subjects in which they have some expertise.