Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
After a couple weeks of silence, Ellis Washington finally replied -- in a manner of speaking -- to my challenge to him about endogenous retroviruses and evolution. Which is to say that he ignored the challenge, admitted he doesn't know a damn thing about evolution, and tried to change the subject -- just as I predicted he would. And along the way, he makes some truly funny arguments. The subject line of his email really sets the stage perfectly for what was to follow:
I don't know much about ERVs, but I know a lot about Reason and Veritas
This perhaps requires some translation. By "veritas" he means "the Bible, as literally interpreted by me." And by "reason" he means "simplemindedly declaring that anything that conflicts with the Bible must be false, so I don't have to actually make a substantive argument about any subject I just have to refer to the Bible." This is Kirk Cameron-level idiocy. He begins:
Thank you for your response which didn't really get to the heart of the matter:Believing in a "theory" that the creator (Darwin) of such a theory knew before and after he wrote, "The Origin of Species" was full of holes, unbelievable and unsustainable, for you to follow such a man is like following a cult leader. Your position ipso facto (inherently) indefensible.
Here he shows his complete lack of reading comprehension skills. Like most fundamentalists, he thinks that everyone must think like him -- meaning everyone must base their beliefs on appeals to authority and infallibility. Rational people, of course, do not base their beliefs on such things and therein lies Washington's problem -- he simply doesn't understand how one makes a rational argument.
In my original reply to him, I had already explained to him that his misattributed and out of context quote of Darwin, upon which he is basing so much, has precisely nothing to do with the validity of evolution. Here is what I wrote, which is as valid and unanswered now as it was when I wrote it:
I do not have "faith" in any theory. I judge all scientific theories in exactly the same manner, by their ability to explain the data and predict the nature of new data before it is found. The theory of evolution explains a vast range of data exceedingly well and has made thousands of successful predictions over the last 150 years. As for your quote from Darwin - standard issue creationist quote mining - you can't even get the source right. It is from a letter to TH Huxley, not Asa Gray, a letter that was written shortly before On the Origins of Species was published. It is typical of Darwin to downplay the importance of his work, and it's certainly true that he initially harbored doubts about the validity of the theory he had invented. But we now have 150 years of research that confirms the basic outline of this theory (varation plus natural selection = common descent), while negating other minor aspects of his theory.One insecure letter written in 1859 does not define the validity of evolution, for crying out loud. Even if Darwin had never existed, we would still today have the same theory that we have now (Alfred Wallace came up with essentially the same theory working separately). If Darwin had not existed, we would today be referring to Wallacian evolution instead of Darwinian evolution. But the modern theory of evolution would be the same and the vast amount of data we have that can only be explained by common descent would also remain.
Washington ignores all of this and simply repeats the same claim that was already debunked. As I used to like to tell high school debate students when I was coaching and judging, repetition does not equal refutation -- especially when one is repeating an argument that has already been refuted.
You have built an entire worldview on quicksand. Lenin referred to true believers like you and your fellow bloggers "useful idiots."
Actually, Lenin didn't say a word about me and my fellow bloggers; he died long before we were born. And in fact, this is mostly an urban myth. No one has ever found this phrase anywhere in Lenin's writings or speeches. It does not appear anywhere until nearly 25 years after his death, and then it's in an article about Italian politics.
And even if it was valid, I would suggest that being a useful idiot is, at the very least, better than being a useless one. If all you have to offer is this kind of substanceless and inflammatory rhetoric, you are, indeed, useless.
Rather than answer your question which you wrote below:Can you provide a coherent, consistent explanation other than common descent for the patterns of appearance of endogenous retroviruses in vertebrate genomes? Francis Collins, the Christian geneticist who headed up the Human Genome Project, lays out much of the data on ERVs in his book The Language of God and argues, quite correctly, that it simply cannot be explained without common descent (which is, of course, the theory of evolution).
I am not scientist, but a philosopher and an intellectual so the way I approach all bodies of knowledge is from reason and veritas (truth). We could argue back and forth on Darwin's theory all day, but let's cut to the chase. How can you rationalize and compare your humanist and atheist ideas in relation to St. Paul's letter to the Church at Rome? Particularly Romans: 1:18-23.
Again, this requires some translation:
"I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to evolution. I know it's not true, but I don't know anything about it, so I'd really rather change the subject and base my arguments solely on an axiom that you do not share, the perfection of the Bible."
Well Ellis, here's my answer. How do I rationalize evolution with Paul's letter to the Romans? I don't. Why should I? Paul didn't know a damn thing about science or evolution. His views on that or any other matter are as irrelevant as any other man who lived that long ago. The Bible says a great many silly things that are contradicted by the evidence and inconsistent with reason (a term you use repeatedly but are clearly incapable of actually engaging in).
And here things take a turn to the truly bizarre:
Your issues about where humanity came from is not so much a problem of your head (brain) but your heart (soul). Until repent and ask Jesus to come into your heart you will always be confused and wrong in your worldview which will disallow you, I and your fellow bloggers the ability to have a rational discussion based on the syllogism that was the foundation of Western civilization:If A = B, then A + B = C
*scratches his head* That formula is the basis of Western civilization? Really? It isn't even a coherent hypothetical. It all depends on whether C actually does equal A + B, which is only true if one defines it to be. But since you have nothing but variables here and C is not a controlled variable, one can easily imagine instances where the formula is clearly false. For example:
Four = four. Four plus Four = Five. Oops, that's not right, is it? Of course it's not. Because C is not a controlled variable. If this is the "foundation of Western civilization" then we are in deep trouble indeed. You say you know a lot about reason, but you seem entirely unfamiliar with the basics of classical logic.
Christianity is based on faith but there is a rational and logical aspects of this philosophy that your atheism and social Darwinist ideas forbid you to ascribe to that simple yet profound idea.
Presumptuous much? When did I say anything at all about being an atheist? Or about social Darwinism, an idea I consider barbaric? Like most zealots, you seem to enjoy arguing with the straw man in your head -- what you presume someone to be -- rather than with their actual positions.
When we all breathe our last breath in this world, I hope that you and your fellow bloggers will be ready for the next world.
Does this kind of thing ever actually convince anyone? "You're going to hell" is not a disproof of any scientific theory. Only a rank idiot would think that it was.
Big Bang explosions, theories of unremarkable naturalists, ERVs and "billions of years" cannot make the complexity of an eye, nor explain the incomprehensible diversity and richness of creation. That suit you are wearing on your blog was well as the teeth in your mouth did not explode into place. I learned in science that explosions destroy things not create things.
I don't think you've ever learned anything about science at all. Your arguments on the subject are, quite literally, at about a 4th grade cognitive level.
P.S.: One word about "common descent"; Does that comply with the Bible in Genesis 1:24: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth The living creature after his kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ear after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Does the Bible's repeated refrain "after his kind" comport with Darwin's "common descent" theory? If not, where did he get that idea from?
Again you invoke the Bible. I simply don't care what the Bible says on this or any other subject. It is no more relevant to the validity of evolution than the Dhammapada, the Bhagavad Gita or the script for West Side Story. Scientific theories are validated by their ability to explain the data and make accurate predictions, not by whether they "comply" with the views of an iron age tribe that didn't know anything at all about the natural world.
The funny thing is that I fully expected Washington's response to be idiotic, but he still managed to do even worse than I imagined he would.
Politics
Comments
I believe you require a </b>, sir.
Posted by: cbeck | March 15, 2010 9:47 AM
The only point I take exception to is your refusal to believe that the script for West Side Story has no relevance to the validity of evolution, when clearly it explains Sharks.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | March 15, 2010 9:48 AM
"If A = B, then A + B = C"?! He had two weeks to learn something about ERVs, and that's the best he could do? FFS.
Posted by: socle | March 15, 2010 9:49 AM
Aside from his being to stupid to correctly state a syllogism, it's really weird that he keeps demanding that you "prove" evolution, or at least make it compatible, with the bible. Is he really that stupid? That's kind of the point.
Posted by: JohnV | March 15, 2010 10:00 AM
BTW, I love how he claims:
"I am not scientist, but a philosopher and an intellectual"
but apparently this "intellectual" lacks the curiosity to research the topic under debate. Is that because it's about science, and civilians are not expected to be competent in that arena? Turns out to be a convenient excuse for creationists, anyway.
Posted by: socle | March 15, 2010 10:02 AM
You deserve a medal of some kind for just reading Ellis' tripe. You just gave us excerpts and my forehead now hurts from all the head slapping.
Ellis is trying to argue theology (or Biblical interpretation), while you're trying to argue science. Like two trains on parallel tracks, moving in opposite directions.
I'm glad I'm on your train. It might lead us somewhere.
Posted by: wheatdogg | March 15, 2010 10:02 AM
Ed, I think your formatting gives more weight to Mr. Washington’s words than is deserved. Is it bad when a one’s words have less impact than their font? If I may be so bold, I think it is.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 15, 2010 10:08 AM
Oh, lord, that's good, especially coming after "I am...an intellectual." No. No, sir. You are not. This cannot be mocked too many times on this thread.
And anyway, if he's so gung-ho on the Bible, why is he boasting about pseudo-syllogisms and Western Civilization? The Hebrews didn't found Western Civilization! Why do so many American Christians consistently confuse Western culture with biblicalism?
Posted by: James Hanley | March 15, 2010 10:09 AM
Looks like this guy is trying to be the next Martin "Kentucky Fried Sophist" Cothran. And as transparently lame as Cothran is, Ellis Washington can't even clear that low bar.
It's both amusing and kinda scary to watch so many religious extremists desperately trying to pretend they're "rational," at a time when so much appalling insanity and evil is being done by, and in the name of, religion.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 15, 2010 10:13 AM
All syllogisms have two premises. Therefore, this is not a syllogism.
What a maroon!
Paul
Posted by: prn | March 15, 2010 10:18 AM
I do not think Mr. Washington has any concept on the actual meaning of the following words:
reason
truth, at least the objective kind
intellectual
theory
science
ERVs
"atheist ideas" - here is falsely equates science theories with atheism, at least when it comes to evolution.
soul
logic
The strength of Mr. Washington's denial coupled to his rank and willful ignorance, defective ability to critically think, and fierce avoidance of objective truth that falsifies his beliefs is truly a sight to behold. The man goes down in flames.
Is this an illustrative example of the Duning-Krueger Effect? It appears so to me.
Lastly, I wonder if Mr. Washington's desire for a verbal debate has changed? I think most smart 10 year old fundie kids could discern who is standing on absolutely nothing and who is holding all the cards.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 15, 2010 10:20 AM
In other words you approach all bodies of knowledge from the perspective that you already know the truth, so fuck it- knowledge can go pound sand... and you fancy yourself a philosopher and an intellectual?
Posted by: DaveL | March 15, 2010 10:34 AM
Who was the WND cohort that defended Mr. Washington and castigated Ed in their last exchange? I think the entertainment value of getting his take on this exchange would be high.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 15, 2010 10:49 AM
prn @10:
You're not being fair, prn. Washington's two premises are:
1. A = B
and,
2. B = A.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 15, 2010 10:52 AM
"I learned in science that explosions destroy things not create things."
Explosions do create loud noises, smoke, fire, heat, entropy, craters, confusion, rapidly expanding gases, a lot of paper work, creative excuses of what happened to the autoclave, a new window where the autoclave used to be, etc. Explosions can be quite creative.
Posted by: holytape | March 15, 2010 10:55 AM
I owe Ed a minor apology. After reading his teaser for this segment last week, I thought Ed was probably overhyping it. Sure, it would probably be dumb, but anyone too stupid to take a decent crack at ERVs would probably just drop the conversation.
I was wrong. This was Awesome. With a side of Awesome Fries.
"I and your fellow bloggers the ability to have a rational discussion based on the syllogism that was the foundation of Western civilization:
If A = B, then A + B = C"
Classic.
Posted by: Shygetz | March 15, 2010 10:58 AM
By the way where is the Mohawk of Super-internet-intelligence know as Vox Day? I know that I am not smart enough to know how Ellis Washington just smoked Ed, and how this rebuttal has left Mr. Brayton shriving in the corner. I need someone with the super-duper-intelligence of Vox Day to explain it to me, hopefully in elvish.
Posted by: Holytape | March 15, 2010 11:13 AM
The real shame of this is that a lot of people actually believe his "facts."
Posted by: CalGuy | March 15, 2010 11:13 AM
holytape, sounds like you must have taken chemistry from the same high school teacher I did.
Posted by: A. Cooper | March 15, 2010 11:23 AM
And we're supposed to take this guy seriously? IF he got a law degree from U of M as his self-authored bio claims, then that University should be ashamed. How can a Law Review editor write such tripe? Does he have no concept of argument? I notice also that he is waiting for 100 pre-publication orders before his latest book goes to press. Not being in the publishing business myself, I have to ask: is this normal? Or is he and his publisher so unsure of his audience that they want to be sure it makes some money before they turn it loose?
I must admit I have been ignorant of Mr. Washington's existence up until now. I'm from Detroit, a city he claims to be greatly concerned about and involved in, and none of my friends back there have heard of him, either. I guess none of us read WND with any frequency -- it seems he confines himself to that (for him) very safe niche. I can see from his reply to your very reasonable request that he doesn't have the equipment to venture outside of it and not get shredded.
He should shut up about things he knows nothing about.
Posted by: Ohioobserver | March 15, 2010 11:27 AM
To be fair, if we take the ASCII representations of A, B, and C (0x41, 0x42, and 0x43, respectively), and take + to be a bitwise OR operator, then A + B does, in fact, equal C.
But then A != B and the whole thing falls apart again.
Posted by: Adrian W. | March 15, 2010 11:31 AM
I want to know how much time Ellis spent on his response. Unless the answer is "5 minutes while drunk" I will be very amused.
This kind of stupid is beyond words.
Posted by: Schmeer | March 15, 2010 11:32 AM
Who the fuck is this guy, besides just another crank with incoherent logic and grammar?
Posted by: Ivan | March 15, 2010 11:32 AM
He really could have saved himself some time by saying simply "I don't know any facts and I don't care about them because my mind is already made up". Or he could have stuck his fingers in his ears and said "lalala I can't hear you", if he wanted to be more persuasive to an audience of children.
Posted by: catgirl | March 15, 2010 11:36 AM
Wow.
I think Ed and Ellis are having two separate conversations. When Ed says, 'here is some compelling evidence for evolution, what do you say about that?', Ellis apparently hears, 'tell me more about your last visit to Fairyland.'
I admire people like Ed Brayton who can stand to bang their heads against the wall of willful ignorance set up by creationists. I don't think I could stand it.
Posted by: KathyO | March 15, 2010 11:37 AM
If A = B, then A + B = C => 42
Posted by: Taz | March 15, 2010 11:45 AM
You're surely a better prognosticator than I, Mr. Brayton. I expected him to consult some wingnut brain trust and compose something incorrect, but using a subtler smokescreen to hide it. He's worse off than if he had simply never responded.
Posted by: mb | March 15, 2010 11:46 AM
Uh oh. Don't look now, Washington, but there's an angry mob outside your window, and it appears to consist of mostly philosophers and intellectuals. You better hope they start on each other, before they start on you.
Either this guy is unclear on what humanism and atheism are, or he's not addressing Ed or anyone else who reads this blog: he's writing this letter for the echo chamber he surrounds himself with, in case any of them may secretly harbor a humanist or atheist idea. "How can WE accept evolution AND keep God's Own Interpretation of the Bible? WE can't. Case closed."
He may not even be arguing with the Ed In His Head. This reads like grandstanding - possibly to the Voices In His Head.
Posted by: Sastra | March 15, 2010 11:50 AM
Wasn't there some old dead white guy writing for the church a long time ago who said something about not talking to heathens about how the Bible says the natural world works because when they pwn you it just makes you look stupid and leads them further away from God? It sounds like Mr. Washington didn't take that advice. Epic fail all around, Mr. Washington.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | March 15, 2010 11:50 AM
@Adrian W
Nice.
But yeah, I'm afraid the only mathematical object where A = B implies A + B = C (for any C (wtf?)) is the trivial ring.
That doesn't make it any less stupid, of course. As Ed already pointed out, C is a free variable, and <hillbilly>that don't make no sense!</hillbilly>
Posted by: Ivan | March 15, 2010 11:51 AM
Holy s**t... having read your posting, and wanting to disbelieve that somebody who claims to be a philosopher and intellectual could write such incoherent crap, I went a-Googling. What I found was beyond belief - this person is certifiable. He's utterly delusional. He's looney, doolally, bonkers.
All of that wouldn't really matter except that there are, apparently, those who believe him. And who get to vote.
Posted by: Ray M | March 15, 2010 11:57 AM
Stupid. Check. Ignorant. Check.
But what I don't get is why he is inconsistent within his own worldview. He has this assumption that all "Darwinists" are atheists and humanists but then asks Ed to assume the truth of the Bible and to reconcile science with it.
Shouldn't he have just skipped to the part about repent or go to hell in that case?
Posted by: John Pieret | March 15, 2010 11:58 AM
If A = B, then A + B = C
All syllogisms have two premises. Therefore, this is not a syllogism.
I think that it's fair to assume that there's an implied second premise.
If A = B,
and if Bible,
then A + B = C
Post Biblia ergo propter Biblia
Posted by: jimmiraybob | March 15, 2010 11:59 AM
@14,
In all fairness, that's probably what Washington was fumbling for before he went down in a blazing inferno of fail.
"If A=B, then B=A"
Or perhaps
"If A=B and B=C, then A=C"
Or even simply
"A=A"
Which I might note are all axioms, not syllogisms.
All the more hilarious is the fact that none of these have anything to do with the validity of Evolution. His little digression into symbolic logic serves no purpose in his response except to make himself look like an idiot in spectacular fashion.
Posted by: DaveL | March 15, 2010 12:04 PM
And I learned in science about something called a supernova, from whence all the complex elements in our universe sprang. Then again, I actually had science teachers who knew what they were talking about. That's another difference between them and Washington.
Well, actually, he is correct. The Big Bang had nothing to do with the creation of the eye, no theory has ever created anything, ERVs are likewise a separate issue from the make up of the eye, and while it did take billions of years for something like the human eye to evolve, the mere passage of time was not sufficient for this to occur.
But again, I am using reason, something that appears a bit foreign to Mssr. Washington.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | March 15, 2010 12:08 PM
Ellis:
He apparently isn't much of a philosopher, either. Blaise Pascal beat him to this little wager by, oh, about 350 years.
Posted by: carlsonjok | March 15, 2010 12:09 PM
now if he had said A = B so A + B = 2A.. that would have actually meant something..
that we can logically group like things into an abstract idea of more than one using an defined symbology.
imagine if you couldn't have (or even think of) say ten apples but each apple needed to be described/named individually? that would suck.
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | March 15, 2010 12:10 PM
Ok, having read that, I just had to go look up what he challenged ed to "rationalize and compare" against.
This is Romans 1:18-23
I'm not even sure what he means by this?
I can see him thinking of the "and their thinking became futile" and the passage about men being without excuse.
But in context, the passage doesn't make sense. Here Paul is purportedly criticizing certain people within the Roman Church who had fallen away. It's tantamount to saying "Oh, you believe in Humanist Ideals? well, how do you respond to Paul saying that you're wrong?" The passage doesn't present any contrary "idea" except that God is self evident and people who don't recognize that will fail.
Posted by: Ben P | March 15, 2010 12:12 PM
I've noticed that ERVs happen to be one of the pieces of evidence for evolution that really pushes the crazy button in Creationists. They have absolutely no apologetics in order to get around it. They can't even go to Answers in Genesis to find some plausible deniablity to soothe their minds. There is no denying that ERVs are solid evidence for common descent. That fact makes something in their brains snap and you get rants like Mr. Washington's.
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | March 15, 2010 12:14 PM
Yes, I know no one is at all interested in the Bible verses Ellis cites, but I'm going to say something about them anyway. The heart of the Romans verses that Ellis refers to says,
The claim made here is that the physical world reveals the nature of the power and character of God. What's interesting to me is that there are a number of people who, unlike Ellis, take that seriously enough to find out something about what the world is actually like. As they discover that the diversity of life results from evolution, that leads them to the question of what evolution reveals about the power and character of God.
Some theists seem to be concluding that it means that human beings are not the point of creation, but simply one of the many, many forms of life that God created by using evolution. This suggests something about diversity being a part of the character of God. It calls the concept of "souls" into question by suggesting that God did not specifically choose humans to be the species made "in God's image," but would have been satisfied with any species that evolved with the ability to reason.
Anyway, my point is while Ellis claims his view of God is right and therefore evolution must be wrong, the very verses Ellis refers to here lead some other theists to the view that as evolution is right, their view of God must be somehow wrong. For those theists, the scientific theory of evolution is having a profound effect on their religious views.
Posted by: JuliaL | March 15, 2010 12:22 PM
Oh, excuse me, I see that Ben P was also interested in the content of the verses Ellis quoted.
Posted by: JuliaL | March 15, 2010 12:27 PM
I think he wanted to say that the foundation of Western civilization is the uncritical acceptance of fallacies. Which is true, if you equate "Western civilization" with "Christianity", as this guy obviously does.
Posted by: Röstigraben | March 15, 2010 12:51 PM
I think you're all misunderestimating him.
I think it's very true to say that some of the worst parts of western civilization were based on the faith of idiots who thought of themselves as intellectuals.
Posted by: pough | March 15, 2010 1:03 PM
Washington seems to believe that becoming a Christian means that you get a free pass to switch off your brain. =( It's a scientific discussion, for crying out loud. Science doesn't care about gut instincts or personal beliefs. It just presents the facts as they are, supported by evidence. Someone needs to hammer that into his thick skull.
Alternatively: Doesn't he realize that even though God may have created everything, He could have done so through a natural process, i.e. evolution? Kind of how God is shown to have created the rainbow, and we know how rainbows are formed from science (light through water, etc.)It really boggles me why he is so adamant against evolution.
Posted by: axilet | March 15, 2010 1:09 PM
So, in order to prove my totally awesome philosopherness and intellectualness, I can expand on that syllogism thus:
If A = B, then A + B = C, therefore (A + B = C) = W + T + F
Am I now the new King of Veritas or what?
Posted by: Budbear | March 15, 2010 1:39 PM
Pffff, of course the Liberal-Muslim axis would try to portray Ellis Washing as crazy.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 15, 2010 1:56 PM
As compared basing your "worldview" on, say, assuming an ancient book of almost entirely unknown provenance to be axiomatic.
That's some weapons grade lack of self-awareness...
Posted by: Brain Hertz | March 15, 2010 2:07 PM
Hey, wait a second, couldn't the Jets part also explain the 747 in a junkyard??!?! We've discovered the missing link!!! And to think it was posing as a musical remake of Romeo and Juliet all this time.
Sad thing is, my joke comment has more logic and understanding of science than Washington's entire response...
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 15, 2010 2:25 PM
Ellis Washington is a fine and upstanding man who upstands for America, which is fine! Just look at this recent quote from him to see just how much he loves America:
ConservaSpeak-to-English Translator:
* avowed = accused
* Muslim = terrorist
* terrorists = Muslims
* Obama's diabolical ends = mild center-right authoritarian goals with a veneer of progressive rhetoric
* purposely destabilize American society = not fighting to take America back to a heavily bowlderized version of the 1950's, the highpoint of America and it's many "negroes" (like Ellis Washington), which was the politically-correct term at the time.
* thus setting the pretext to eventually create a one-party oligarchy = which is bad because it's the wrong Party.
KathyO "I think Ed and Ellis are having two separate conversations."
Yup, that's pretty much the standard "Evo vs Creationist 'dialogue'". It's like hearing two different languages that happen to use the same words.
Sastra "Don't look now, Washington, but there's an angry mob outside your window, and it appears to consist of mostly philosophers and intellectuals."
To be fair, the numbers might be somewhat inflated, as the philosophers are unsure as to whether they are, or are not, there.
Iason Ouabache "They can't even go to Answers in Genesis to find some plausible deniablity to soothe their minds."
Can so! Witness According to AIG's website "While the belief that all ERVs are remnants of germline infection seems logical..." (scroll down to the quoted text).
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 15, 2010 2:42 PM
I think you've figured this out by now, but to lay it out explicitly, what Washington did with that "A+B=C" nonsense is mangle modus ponens. Apparently the "philosopher" forgot something that every college sophomore learns on the first day of his required Intro to Philosophy course. He earns bonus points for getting really mixed up and rendering it as a mathematical proof rather than a philosophical proof.
Posted by: D Johnston | March 15, 2010 2:44 PM
"Believing in a "theory" that the creator (Darwin) of such a theory knew before and after he wrote, "The Origin of Species" was full of holes, unbelievable and unsustainable, for you to follow such a man is like following a cult leader."
Seems to me that Ellis Washington is just openly expressing a belief that many creationists hold implicitly-- evident when they refer to evolutionary theory as "Darwinism" or use arguments like "Darwin recanted on his deathbed", as if Darwin was indeed a cult leader who has the last word on evolutionary theory(the original-- and only-- formulation of which he found inscribed on two stone tablets in the Galapagos).
His "A = B; A + B = C" "argument" reminds me of the "Hundreds of Proofs of God's Existence", many of which involve strings of similarly dubious logic with "Therefore, God exists" tacked on the end(for which, click my name for I no speaka da html).
Posted by: Emily | March 15, 2010 2:45 PM
I think he's wrong about the foundation of Western Civilization.
I recently read a series of five books (gospels, if you will) that conclusively demonstrate that the foundation of Western Civilization is actually Olympus, which is now resident on the 600th floor of the Empire State Building.
Mr Washington had better reconcile himself with the Olympians as represented by the prophet Percy before he leaves this world behind!
Posted by: Craig | March 15, 2010 2:50 PM
Sastra: This reads like grandstanding - possibly to the Voices In His Head.
Today's word is "phatic". Can you say "pha-tic", children?
JuliaL: The claim made here is that the physical world reveals the nature of the power and character of God.
...founded on an Appeal to Authority, where the validity of the authority rests on a prior premise -- probably Biblical Inerrancy.
So, the full answer to "How can you rationalize and compare your humanist and atheist ideas in relation to St. Paul's letter to the Church at Rome?" is in two parts:
1) He can rationalize it, by using alternate premises that do not require assigning to Paul's writings any substantive significance, and not happening to accept premises which do.
2) As he doesn't assign such significance, and professionally works in journalism rather than the academic field of comparative theology/philosophy, he doesn't generally bother comparing them. (That's the long version of Ed's "I don't.")
Posted by: abb3w | March 15, 2010 3:29 PM
I like how he explains what ipso facto means. And gets it wrong. Ipso facto doesn't mean "inherently", it means "by the fact itself" which is somewhat different.
Posted by: Tacroy | March 15, 2010 3:30 PM
@CPT_Doom:
Actually, it's been estimated that you could go from a photosensitive dot to a relatively efficient eye in a mere 350,000 generations, as a relatively pessimistic estimate. If you're breeding one generation a year (which is a reasonable assumption for some small fishy critter), that would be 0 to eyeballs in about 0.3 billion years.
I've also heard 400 generations as an optimistic estimate, but I can't cite that one. Still, eyes take a surprisingly short amount of time to evolve.
Posted by: Tacroy | March 15, 2010 3:44 PM
That would make it ~0.3 million years. Absurdly fast. Thanks for the link. It's fascinating.
Posted by: APK | March 15, 2010 4:20 PM
Blasphemy! West Side Story is a play of the Broadway Musical kind, whereas Romeo and Juliet is of the Shakespearean Tragedy kind. Therefore they were separately, specially created without antecedents and neither of them is related to the other. ;)
Posted by: DaveL | March 15, 2010 4:30 PM
Wait a second. You've got two divergent idiotic illogical arguments going at once in this part of the comment.
First, of course, you have the issue of "atheism" and "social Darwinism." On one hand you have the fact that the two concepts have absolutely no causal relationship with one another. If anything an atheist is less likely to be a social Darwinist. On top of that, the concept of social Darwinism is more cognitively associated with the idea of the "Protestant work ethic" than it is with any system of non-belief. Add to that, the vast majority of today's atheists and those who accept the scientific evidence for evolution find the 19th century concept of "social Darwinism" abhorrent. This implied relationship is even more idiotic than the Evolution caused Hitler and Stalin arguments.
The second point is just as silly. Rational and logical aspects of Christianity? Once you strip away the universals, concepts shared by belief and non-belief, concepts that are both sectarian and secular, there isn't anything rational or logical left.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 15, 2010 4:34 PM
I looked up that lovely biblical verse, as well. The second segment of the quote--verses 21-23--hasn't been commented on, yet.
I find it intriguing that we get another example of Creationists believing that Darwinism = "pagan worship". In my experience, most evolutionists regard pagan woo with at least as much disdain as creationist woo--it's just that pagans are usually more polite about not trying to back-door their teachings into the school system, so don't draw as much ire.
Of course, he left off the next bit (verses 24-27), where because of all that God-denial and pagan worship, we all become homosexual. Seriously--all evolutionists are gay. It's in the Bibble, so you know it's true.
(Wait: A = Evolution, B = Paganism, C = Teh Gay. This would explain his sillyjism....)
Posted by: Freemage | March 15, 2010 4:42 PM
And then with a little radiation you could go from two eyes to three in a few years:
"I have hired an actor to play Charles Darwin. So Mr. Darwin, you are saying that having three eyes is a good thing?
"Wouldn't you want to have three eyes?"
{/C. M. Burns}
Posted by: dNorrisM | March 15, 2010 4:50 PM
You small minded fools. Washington is a philosopher and an intellectual and knows exactly what he is talking about when he says that syllogism is the foundation of Western civilization. To wit:
If A = B , and A + B = C, then it logically follows that 2B = C.
This clearly shows that the state of being (2B, "to be") is equivalent to the state of seeing (C, "see") -- a state that requires conscious perception. In other words, "Cogito ergo sum".
He is merely restating the philosophy of Descartes -- the founder of modern Western philosophy -- in the most refined language of logic yet invented -- Twitter English.
Veritas!
Posted by: jpf | March 15, 2010 4:59 PM
"Social Darwinism" should really be called "Spencerism", since it's based on the philosophy of Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin. Spencer published his ideas in 1857, two years before On The Origin of Species.
Posted by: Daft Greg | March 15, 2010 5:36 PM
APK "That would make it ~0.3 million years. Absurdly fast."
Apparently you aren't aware that the universe is only around 6,000 years old.
Daft Greg "Spencer published his ideas in 1857, two years before On The Origin of Species."
And you're forgetting about Darwin's time machine. Sheesh, doesn't anybody here know the facts?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 15, 2010 6:04 PM
Freemage @ 59 stated:
I don't think pagans don't draw as much ire because they don't proselytize their woo as ardently as Christianists, gosh darn it I just think they're sexier. I kind of get that tingly feeling around pagans that Christianists get for Sarah Palin or the conservative S&M crowd* get for the new blonde in town, Liz Cheney.
*Lately I've been starting to believe that group isn't a subset but is equivalent to nearly the full set.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 15, 2010 6:27 PM
There sure was, Augustine (though he wasn't European):
I like the more concise version by Thomas Burnet:
Posted by: Troy Britain | March 15, 2010 10:56 PM
I'm no master of logic but this makes no sense; it is on the order of Cicero is a man, therefore he is a table.
In order for the above to work the following as be be stated:
A=B, C=2B, therefore A+B=C, ie, A=2, B=2, C=4 therefore 2+2=4 or A+B=C. You have to define C!
Posted by: Pacal | March 15, 2010 11:06 PM
No. 61:
I don't think your serious but Washington actually said:
Sorry it doesn't follow that because A=B that A+B=C.
What your trying to say is that if A=B and A+B=C that C=2B or C=2A.
Posted by: Pacal | March 15, 2010 11:20 PM
But Pascal, can't you see that you're relying on your faith in logic and reason? That makes you the same as a creationist.
P+F=C
Pascal + Faith = Creationist
Posted by: Dr X | March 15, 2010 11:27 PM
In my experience, most evolutionists regard pagan woo with at least as much disdain as creationist woo--it's just that pagans are usually more polite about not trying to back-door their teachings into the school system, so don't draw as much ire.
Actually, we Pagans are not just more polite, we're more honest and more intelligent about such things. We have our creation stories, but we know the difference between cool folklore and actual science and scientific inquiry. Also, many of us either ARE scientists, or know someone who is; and our beliefs place a good bit of importance on understanding the material world on its own terms.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 15, 2010 11:38 PM
No. 68:
Very funny!!
Oh and it's Pacal not Pascal
Posted by: Pacal | March 15, 2010 11:46 PM
All the comments about Darwin and Darwin-quote mining creationists get at brings up what is, to me, an especially important point. Consider, for a moment, two competing cases (for the sake of argument, kindly consider that both of these messages are transmitted to us totally accurately by succeeding generations):
In the first, Jesus, on the cross, screams "You know what? I'm full of shit! My mother wasn't a virgin, God isn't my father, and all that forgiveness stuff is just stupid."
For the other, believe for a moment that Darwin, on his deathbed, declared "I was entirely wrong. Anyone who believes in that 'natural selection' nonsense is an utter boob!"
Which theory can survive its creator disavowing it? That's all you need to know about the debate.
Posted by: Awesome McCool | March 16, 2010 12:30 AM
If I walked into a museum and saw this line painted on canvas and titled "Creationist Stupidity," I'd be in awe.
Posted by: AL | March 16, 2010 1:02 AM
It's even more interesting because despite reality, creationists seem to think that evolution is the kind of theory that would not be able to withstand repudiation by its creator. I was reading some of the archived posts by the guy who does A Blog Around The Clock (curse you abb3w@53!), and he had some really interesting commentary about the sociodynamics of these super-fundamentalist groups, that I think has made me see exactly how they think (though honestly, it almost verges into pomo gibberish for me sometimes; I just don't have the necessary background knowledge).
Basically, they believe that the argument from authority is the only real argument, and authority comes only from a "strict father" parental figure. Therefore, those waffling evolutionists with their "theories" and "hypotheses" are far worse, as a source of information, than someone who says what they want to say with conviction and machismo.
Thus, the reason why that apocryphal and utterly useless (in terms of reasoned debate) story that Darwin repudiated evolution on his deathbed gained traction - it's the sort of argument they would actually accept.
Weirdly enough, this is quite apparent in Ellis' response! For instance, his nonsensical argument that "A = B therefore A + B = C" makes perfect sense when you realize that he is not saying "this is my logical argument"; he is actually saying "I am a manly authority and you should believe what I say because I said it".
He further shows his psychological mishaps when he refers to Lenin; not only is the quote something you should believe solely because Ellis Washington said it, you should agree with him that Mr Brayton is a bad person, because the bad authority figure approved of people like Mr Brayton. A = B, therefore A + B = C.
Hell, it might be hard to find an argument he makes that isn't tinted with this ideology. "I learned in science..." from an authority figure, so you trust what your science teacher said instead of doing your own research; he constantly refers to the Bible, despite the fact that it is not relevant to the topic at hand; this entire thing came about because Ellis thought that if Darwin had second thoughts about his idea, that means it might be bunk.
However, the most telling and perhaps most subtle ideological problem is the one that seems to lie behind his absolute rejection of evolution, and is embodied in this quote:
An intelligent person reading this might think "that's gibberish, he's just stupid". However, I promise you it is perfectly logical in terms of his mental paradigm. It was the way he phrased that paragraph that made me see the light: "Big Bang explosions", "ERVs" and "'billions of years'" - what do all those things have in common in that paragraph? He's treating them as entities, as if they were people, not as if they were natural events and processes. With that in mind, his statement makes perfect sense.
Consider: the Big Bang is an unimaginable, inhuman event. Therefore, it cannot have any effect on reality, because it is not and cannot be an authority figure. The same logic applies to "billions of years" or ERVs - they are unimaginable (to Ellis Washington) concepts, so therefore cannot have any authority over reality. They cannot be authorities, so they cannot matter. God, on the other hand, is a completely manageable and human concept; therefore, He can have authority over reality.
The whole thing made a lot more sense once I realized this.
Posted by: Tacroy | March 16, 2010 1:29 AM
Somewhat OT, but... Is there any debate format in which the contestants are allowed, as in a courtroom, to object to irrelevant or unsupported claims and non-responsive answers? If so, and if enough objections are sustained, can the debate judge then simply declare the violators to have forfeited the debate?
Those are the only rules under which I think it would make sense to debate with creationists, or with fundamentalists in general on any topic.
Posted by: Jeffrey Kramer | March 16, 2010 2:30 AM
Don't know much about ERV
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about science books
Don't know much, 'cause I'm just a kook
I just know Reason and Veritas
But if I stopped talking out of my a**
What a wonderful world this might be!
Posted by: Christophe Thill | March 16, 2010 5:20 AM
Great stuff. I sometimes get the idea that some of these guys write incomplete arguments intending to fill them in later, but forget and hit send. That probably gives hem too much credit, but it is harder to believe that they come from human minds.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | March 16, 2010 7:46 AM
hehehehe.
Posted by: ERV | March 16, 2010 10:15 AM
@65: The best part about that Augustine quote is that he was arguing against a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis -- in a way, he was attacking creationism before it even existed as a distinct concept.
Posted by: Technogeek | March 16, 2010 10:59 AM
Raging Bee: I apologize for a sloppy comparison. The "pagan woo" I was refering to isn't so much the use of creation myths (about which, you're correct, most pagans regard them as moral parables rather than literal truths), but rather is the sort found in New Age sections of second-hand bookstores, frequently involving the use of crystals and pyramids as healing apparatuses (apparati?). I'm well aware that there are many pagans out there who don't go for such nonsense (one such friend, in fact, speaks dismissively of what she calls "fluffy bunny crystal waver" pagans), just as I'm aware of the existence of Christians like Desmond Tutu, who find discrimination in the name of God even more offensive than simple discrimination.
Posted by: Freemage | March 16, 2010 12:33 PM
As an avid wingnutdaily reader, I have to ask if you guys have read Washington's hilarious dialogues? He likes to write feverish inquisitions of various people he dislikes, always starring Socrates (naturally), himself and often God. He also takes the trouble to define 'veritas' eVERI fucking time.
Posted by: Coryat | March 17, 2010 9:28 AM