Jonathan Wells

Don't forget you can add Ray Comfort to the list of people too scared to debate you, even though he went whining to WND about OK.

Too funny!

It's funny how he thinks that "porn watcher" would have been considered the least bit insulting...

BTW, Johnny Moon, we're still waiting for any explanation from you for anything at all. Especially the Cambrian "explosion," and why the organisms involved just happen to be related (and yes, to fit on trees, which don't require fossilized ancestors--note Linnaeus, idiot) in evolutionarily-expected ways.

Yes, you managed to bad mouth people and a theory, while none of you has any theory or explanation at all.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Moonie Wells a Presbyterian now? After all âFatherâ did for him by paying his way for a Ph.D. at Berkeley? If he has changed denominations, perhaps he is unaware of the Presbyterian stand on creationism and the teaching of such pseudoscience in public schools:

http://ncseweb.org/media/voices/united-presbyterian-church-usa-1982

@vhutchison:
Why, exactly, does it matter if Wells is a Moonie or Presbyterian? It adds nothing to this debate. Nothing. Perhaps you can't deal with his scientific arguments, and insist on portraying him as a cult-ish loon so you don't have to. Oh, and your link is a statement from the liberal wing of the Presbyterian church. There are at least two other churches that call themselves "Presbyterian."

Did you folks know that a "1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses." Therefore no evolution. Quote from his Icons page 51.

This is our expert, Jonathan Wells.

Oh Chuck, do you really think it makes no difference if Wells is telling the truth?

To be sure, he lies about far more important things than whether or not he's a Moonie or a Presbyterian.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Wells doesn't have scientific arguments, Chuck, he just lies his ass off. This might be (probably is) another lie and it's a funny one, as he's lying about religion this time. The guy has a biology PhD and doesn't know fuckall about generating phylogenies? No way.

When did Presbyterians stop believing in Science? Perhaps he just has a speech impediment.

I don't know what relevance HIV has to the Cambrian explosion

Here's a hint: It begins with an E.

@Chuck:

Which, exactly, scientific arguments proffered by Wells are we afraid to address? Please be specific.

@waldteufel:
My comment was a direct response to vhutchison, not every person who comments on this blog. Indeed, the few times I've surveyed this blog, I've seen several discussion pertinent to the claims made by the DI. My point was that accusing Wells of being a Moonie, regardless of whether or not he is or used to be one, adds nothing to the discourse. It's a moot point, and I don't understand why one would raise it, unless he or she was determined to discredit the person without discrediting his ideas and arguments.

I dont care what anyone believes in, as long as it doesnt effect me. And by 'anyone', this includes Wells. If he is no longer a Moonie and has reverted to the religion of his youth, meh.

However, if he lied to the Trinity kids, just to take advantage of their trust and faith... I have a big problem with that.

I want an answer.

Chuck evades and ducks the question. Typical creationist behavior. No argument, no evidence, nothing but fluff.

Trying to have a discussion with a creationist is sort of like eating cotton candy. You see this big, colorful thing, looking forward to a big, tasty bite . . .and all you get is empty, sugary air.

So our landing at Norman was a success

I see what you did there Johnny-boy. Very droll. Does the "D" in your "D-Day" stand for the Discotute or, more likely, "Dickhead"?

(also, nice haircut :)

Google does not seem to come up with much on Presbyterian and "jonathan wells" used as search terms. I see an article that mentions that he grew up in that denomination and drifted to atheism but for some reason [wink, wink] does not mention the Unification Church. This article is actually the number 2 hit on Google.

Abbie, are you sure he was not just referring to his youth?

This seems too clumsy of a lie even for creationists especially since no one needs to understand science or tech terms to know that Presbyterians usually attend Presbyterian churches and not the Unification Church. He usually does not go out of his way to mention the affiliation, but I never even remotely heard of him denying it.

To be fair to Wells, you have to admit... it's a pretty hot haircut.

@waldteufel:
I answered your question directly. I explained what I was, and was not, trying to convey in my post. And I wonder why you wrongly assume I'm a "creationist", simply because I reject meaningless accusations. ERV's response did, however, shed light on the issue.

@ERV:
You make a good point, and I agree with you. If Wells was trying to deceive to earn trust and money, he should come clean. My understanding was that the IDEA members thought he was a Moonie, though, when they invited him.

I guess that, due to my lack of a life, I was the first to find Well's claim in that article that:

[T]he similarity of HOX genes in so many animal phyla is actually a problem for neo-Darwinism: If evolutionary changes in body plans are due to changes in genes, and flies have HOX genes similar to those in a horse, why is a fly not a horse?

But I have to say that my favorite part of Wells' swoon was where he thought you were more interested in watching porn than listening to him or Meyer ... as if any rational being would choose differently.

Hey! Hair is important. Or at least we thought so back in the Stoned Age.

Which is a lame intro to another bit of historical dreck from when I was 20-something: "Declare victory and go home." Seems like that bit of advice is still current in some circles.

Michael Shermer / Jonathan Wells debate @ cato institute, part 2 of 7, from October 2006:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlwCwgMYmBw

3 minutes in, "He is apparently a member of the unification church, ..."

FWIW

I should add, that was Shermer, right before he quotes Wells on how "father" blah blah "destroy" darwinism (or whatever).

Wells is so swarmy! "Big government" "liberty" "our children" "free exchange of ideas" - all the nice buzzwords

(I'm in the middle of listening to the whole debate)

Chuck continues to duck and evade.

I asked a very direct question: "Which, exactly, scientific arguments proffered by Wells are we afraid to address?"

Chuck did not answer that question, or even address it, in typical creotard fashion.

Waiting . . . waiting . . .*chirp* . . . chirp . . . .

Waldteufel:
This is getting ridiculous. I don't know how to make it easier for you. I responded to a post by one person whom I have not seen deal with any of the arguments put forth in Well's books, films, lectures, etc. since I began browsing this blog, yet they insisted on bashing his religious beliefs in an attempt to discredit him. I found his religious beliefs irrelevant, as I explained earlier. I never spoke to the legitimacy of illegitimacy of any ID or creationist ideas (though I have my own opinions). It seems that you're trying to pick an unnecessary fight. And, again, why do you assume I'm a "creationist"? And, "Creotard" really? Grow up.

chuck says,

Perhaps you can't deal with his scientific arguments, and insist on portraying him as a cult-ish loon so you don't have to.

and we respond, "What arguments?" Perhaps crudely, but the point is, you accuse people of treating Wells like a cultish loon becuase they can't deal with his scientific arguments. This implies you think he has some scientific arguments. We are just curious, because as far as we can see, he doesn't. All we're left with is treating him like a cultish loon. Which he is.

While I liked the 'do, I also thought the shirt was pretty awesome.

Just to note the bit about "foul-mouthed" -- standard concern trolling about decorum. If you can't attack the message, accuse them of being big meanies.

/notes Abbie down on a list that also includes "Laci Green" and "NixiePixel"

BrianX, as soon as I saw that comment I laughed a little. It really is so typical. There is such a concern with decorum, and being nice rather than actually dealing with the issue.

Of course there is also the strange and rather pathetic "porn-watcher" insult. Apparently he does not have to play nice himself. But it really is not bad to be called a porn-watcher.

People who don't deal in debates with creationists often don't realize that the "You're a moron and a religious nutcase" accusations don't come out of nowhere. They only appear after a lot of frustrating "discussion."

Creationist: (Woefully ignorant objection to evolution.)
Science Supporter: (Helpful explanation as to why it's an invalid objection)
C: (Restate original objection in different words)
SS: (Patiently explains why its still completely invalid)
C: (Restates original objection again)
SS: You're a moron and a religious nutcase
C: What! Why do you feel the need to resort to insults? Are you that insecure in your so called "theory"? How about you respond to my arguments for once?
SS: (facepalm)

Abbie, I noticed you used Photobucket to post your photo. You should know that Photobucket is insecure even with a password. Don't put anything in to your album you don't want all of the internet to see and/or your mom to see at the trial.

Keep on fighting Abbie! The Wells of stupidity are not dried yet, but they sure look bad, and you do your bit very well in this regard!
PS nice new haircute... err haircut

Chuck, the criticism against Wells for being a Moonie is because he *lied* saying he's a Presbyterian. Don't you understand that?

If a very religious person as Wells, one that gets a PhD just for the sake of his beliefs, lies about his religious affiliation, well, how can anybody trust him about anything?

And the fact that Wells lied about that also shows very well that he knows that his beliefs are so weird that he is ashamed to admit them...

"Mental retardation" has such a stigma to it. These days the accepted term is "intellectually disabled". Yes. Seriously. They call it ID these days.

I know it's juvenile, but I am terribly every time I hear my wife and colleague use the term.

Hey CHUCK - does it matter if PZ Myers is an atheist?

Does it matter if Darwin really had been a racist?

No?

Then why do you suppose such things always seem to not just receive passing mention in ID/creationist writings, but often form the core and crux of their "arguments"?

Good for the goose and all that...

Here you go, Chuck - my rebuttal to one of Wells' 'scientificx' claims from his book:
**********************************************

I purchased a copy a month or so ago to see what all the fuss was about. I started reading the section that I have some experience/knowledge in, systematics. I discovered something strange. When I checked one of the quotes Wells had used to 'prove' that molecular systematics is 'in crisis,' I found that it came from a paper dealing not with molecular systematics methodology or something similar, but a paper on the clonal theory of the origin of eukaryotes.
Wells seems to imply that because 'deep' phylogenies of prokaryotes have yielded conflicting results and that there is evidence of lateral gene transfer in them and eukaryotes that therefore the entire field of molecular phylogenetics has been plunged into crisis.(p.51).

On p.49, Wells quotes an article by Lake, Jain and Rivera to bolster his claim, in a section titled The growing problem in molecular phylogeny:

"But the expectation that more data would help matters "began to crumble a decade ago," wrote University of California molecular biologists James Lake, Ravi Jain, and Maria Rivera in 1999, "when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone."

Reading the article (Mix and Match in the Tree of Life, James A. Lake, Ravi Jain, Maria C. Rivera, 1999), we see that Wells' quote is plucked from this paragraph (Wells' quote bracketed by **):

"The clonal theory **began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone.** To explain the differences between the evolutionary trees reconstructed from eukaryotic rRNAs and from proteins, Sogin (2) proposed a chimeric origin for eukaryotic genomes, with rRNA genes coming from one organism and genes encoding proteins coming from another. Analyses of DNA-dependent, RNA polymerases (3) and heat shock protein (hsp70) gene sequences from different organisms (4) supported theories of chimeric evolution (5-10)."

The way Wells uses the quote, in, again, a section titled "The growing problem in molecular phylogeny", it appears that the problem is a field-wide one, as he explicitly writes elsewhere. Yet, is that a proper interpretation of the article in question? The abstract:

"The evolutionary relationship between prokaryotes and eukaryotes has long been viewed from the perspective of a single molecule: ribosomal RNA (rRNA). Analyses of rRNA from many different organisms provided the basis for the clonal theory of the evolution of eukaryotic genomes from prokaryotes. This theory holds that genes have been passed directly from generation to generation, with modifications in the genes resulting in the appearance of new organisms. But like a color-blind friend who admires your ability to observe the nearly invisible little "green" flowers on a rose bush, rRNA genes cannot be used to distinguish genomes that are mosaics (mixtures) of genes from different sources. By relying too heavily on rRNA, scientific attention has been diverted away from considering the impact of gene acquisition from other species (horizontal gene transfer) on the evolution of eukaryotic genomes. Viewed now from the vista of completed genome sequences for a number of bacteria and for the yeast Saccharomyces (a eukaryote), the clonal theory of eukaryotic genome evolution contains evident flaws(1)."

It seems that the authors were/are referring to the "clonal theory," not molecular systematics or evolution as a whole. It is important also to note that in this article - indeed, in this entire 'debate' (re: e.g., lateral gene transfer) - 'eukaryotes' refers to singler-celled eukaryotes, not multicellular organisms.

To paraphrase/borrow the dust jacket endorsement from Behe, if we can't trust Wells to use published material in an honest way, why should we believe anything else he has to say?

Now, granted, that is the only quote that I have checked thus far, but it is an important one. Should I really give Wells the benefit of the doubt and consider that this one quote was the only one that he improperly uses?

We must give Wells some credit though - he is doing his darndest to fulfill his mission to "destroy Darwinism" that he set out on so long ago. Too bad the American public is so gullible and scientifically ignorant to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

This book is a good example of how a scientist should not write a book, unless that scientist is out to dupe the gullible.

*************

Wells' main argument in that section was premised on a lie of his (I consider lopping off part of a sentence, not indicating that this was done, then using the remainder of the sentence to establish a falsehhod to be a lie).

I found many other similar stretches of credibility in his book.

Instead of just deferring to Wells' writings, why not explain something for them that YOU found particularly impressive.

It is most informative to see if people hawking what they've read in some creationist book actually understand the material.

We can also add that Wells' spent time in miltary prison for refusing to attend army reserve meetings (i.e., he was AWOL).

He must hate America.

We can also add that Wells' spent time in miltary prison for refusing to attend army reserve meetings (i.e., he was AWOL).

He must hate America.

....until we were all kicked out of the auditorium.

That sounds like an abrupt exit to me, just not an immediate exit ;-)

"They don't look like Presbyterians to me..."

(SO wish I could find a YouTube clip!)

Why did you tell the Trinity kids that you are a 'Presbyterian', when you are a Moonie?

Irrelevant ad hominem.
I've long noticed that atheists can hardly argue without committing logical fallacies.

I've long noticed that atheists can hardly argue without committing logical fallacies.

Irrelevant ad hominem, fuckwit.

Btw, "fuckwit" is simply a description of you as evinced by your pathetic and unfounded attack upon a group of people.

Beyond that I'd say to Chuck, another fuckwit, that it's Wells and others who answer none of the science that we bring up. Notably, they never explain the patterns that life falls into, the "poor design" that "just happens" to fit evolutionary predictions (transitionals in particular are not especially well-designed), why the patterns of genes in organisms which transfer genes horizontally differ so greatly from the patterns of genes of organisms which almost always transmit genes vertically, or why early life was all simple, as predicted by evolution.

When you tards can explain anything at all, then your "questions" might become cogent. As long as liars like Wells are ignoring all relevant questions about design and BSing about the "weaknesses" of evolution, they deserve all of the insults they get.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

I am not sure how it is an ad hominem, it does not say he is wrong because he is a Moonie, or a Presbyterian at that, it accuses him of lying to the group and saying he is something he is not.

Oh, and porn-watcher Abbie Smith...

*LAAAAAAAAAAAUGH!!!!!*

PS: Recommendations? ^.^

Why, exactly, does it matter if Wells is a Moonie or Presbyterian?

It is extremely important if you know anything about Moon's ideology and that it is Wells' "religion" that drives his opinions. He decided to defeat Darwin for his "messiah" before he studied the subject. He does what he can to make "science" fit into Moon's ideology. It is what drives all Moon followers.

If there is a claim that he is now in another religion, unless he made a clean break and woken up to the right wing political ideology he calls a religion, denounced it, then any claim that he is no longer a follower is hollow. You either no longer see Moon as the messiah or you don't. If you do still think Moon is the messiah and you claim not to be a follower then that makes you look kind of foolish, wouldn't you say? "I think Moon is the living messiah, so I joined another church that doesn't believe that." I don't think so.

Kind of like this person's hollow claim.

One Moon follower who carries Moon's speeches and other UC propaganda on his website says upon request he deletes writings by followers so they will have an easier time of embedding into society.

Make no mistake, Moon followers have only one purpose, to get the world to accept Moon as a world leader and make smooth the path for anyone to accept him fully as the messiah. At this stage, they don't care if you are a full fledged follower, you can call yourself any religion, just as long as you "accept" Moon as a credible player on the world stage and are not critical of him.

Moon teaches that Eve screwed Satan and thus the fall, combined with Jesus Christ's(known as the second Adam in Moon's world), failures, this lead to Moon having to go through the trouble to save God and His creation as the third Adam. Moon has said God sees Himself as a sinner before him(Moon) for making him go through all the trouble. Adam and Eve are crucial to Moon's whole ideology.

Also, as far as articles which do not mention Wells being a follower of Moon's - that might be the product of the new younger leadership of the UC in the USA which has pledged to "clean up the internet" so the "good stuff comes up" when one searches.

Rhology bloviated:

Why did you tell the Trinity kids that you are a 'Presbyterian', when you are a Moonie?

Irrelevant ad hominem.I've long noticed that atheists can hardly argue without committing logical fallacies.

Rhology fail.

Can't you even get the basic concepts correct? I suppose not. I expect too much of you.

What basic concepts? And where is my mistake?

Ad hominem is as follows:

Person A is [blank], therefore A's argument X is wrong.

So, saying "Rho is stupid, therefore his argument is wrong" would be an ad hominem. Saying "Rho's argument is wrong, therefore he is stupid" is not.

Ad hominem != insult

From the OP: So, I hope you feel better now that youve gotten some attention, Wells. Just one Q, though-- Why did you tell the Trinity kids that you are a 'Presbyterian', when you are a Moonie?

The implication is obvious, for anyone who hasn't sold out his brain to support one's fellow Darwinist(s).

Rhology bloviated:

The implication is obvious, for anyone who hasn't sold out his brain to support one's fellow Darwinist(s).

The implication is that he is: (a) disingenuous, or (b) a liar. It has absolutely nothing to do with ad hominem. Your lack of basic understanding is mind-numbing.

Whole boxa rocks, Rho.

Whole boxa.

Abbie says:

Spooge, balls, bloody vaginal belch.

Is this a great blog or what?

Rho, you just failed hard to claim a fallacy. Ad-hominem is sometimes just abuse, often deserved, and not an *argument*. Suck it up like an honest person and correct yourself.

Oh great.

Now we will have a 15 post fish slap fight while Rho forgets that he professes to have formerly been an atheist and asserts that his ad hominem accusation is valid because the belief and the man are inseparable propositions.

Then he will flop around in the Wikipedia list of logical fallacies squealing vindications while he conveniently forgets that fallacies neither prove an argument right nor wrong but merely indicate its strength.

Get it straight. He doesn't care. He is not engaging in Socratic discourse. He is engaging in an evangelistic mission so that when the argument becomes sufficiently contorted with his cherry picking, goalpost moving and non answers he can copy and paste gobbeldegook with the preface "Another argument in which I, the ever humble beloved servant, prevail for Jeezbuz!"

He will then sell this crap to his bible study group and every teenager he can brain diddle as proof of the intellectual power of a washed in the blood of the lamb "God Warrior".

Quit feeding him.

#53. Prometheus. Right on! This has been my suggestion at least twice before on this blog site.

#53,#54 -- Yes, yes!

The same should go for Rho's pal Chuckie.

RE #53,

One of the joys of reading this blog, aside from the obvious (stuff Abby writes) is seeing Prometheus in action. Not that the contribution of others is unappreciated!

It's just that there is something so brilliantly unique and poetic about the manner in which Prometheus makes a suggestion and/or a point.

God, I love this place: Next to Panda's Thumb and maybe Myers' blog, this is probably one of the best spots on the web to see ID get slammed, consistently.

Though after seeing that picture Abbie posted, I am curious: If Abbie and Wells were ever to have kids, what do you think they'd look like?

*ducks*----hears the safety being taken off of MANY guns----*RUNS!!*

@Reynold: You are a SICK puppy! Come sit over here next to me.

That's a very nice hair cut, Abbie.

What's this thing about Jeebus-freaks? Everyone of them claims to have been an atheist and then come to Jeebus after some horrible event or some such thing. V.fake and fraudulent!

#55
The fact that you support a notion to ignore me because I raised a legitimate question and exposed your irrationality for accusing me of believing things I don't, just affirms everything I've said. Assuming I'm friends with Rho only adds to your ignorance. Indeed, you're the one who has ducked and evaded. You make me wish I were an IDiot.

So, chuck, you claim that asserting, without the slightest speck of evidence, that people are too afraid to deal with Wells' "scientific arguments" is a "legitimate question"?

And yet, when asked what those "arguments" WERE, you fled in abject terror.

The bottom line is, Wells is a known fraud, his entire career is based on lies, he cannot be trusted, as evidenced by his constant dishonesty. His "arguments" aren't arguments at all, they're just lies, and they've been torn to bloody shreds time and time again. If you don't like him being called a liar, tell him to stop lying. If you don't like being treated like an apologist for fraud and pseudoscience, quit defending liars and cranks at every opportunity.

Chuck, if the shoe fits...

Wells doesn't have scientific arguments. He has lying. The fact that you're confused about this is a sign of sympathy.

Wells is/was a Moonie. This is relevant to his status as Discotute idiot attack-dog, as his motivation for gaining a PhD and selling his bullshit was religion. Noting that he may have lied to a group of college kids would be yet another mark to his character.

So, you were answered, Chuck, and how did you respond? By whining that you were only responding to vhutchison (who cares?) and then admitting that hey, yes there is a reason to note his religious affiliation and wonder if he lied. Ducking your rather stupid citation of Wells' "scientific" arguments, you pulled a *personal* fight with vhutchison out of your ass, the hypocrisy of which is just pitiful.

If you want respect, Chuck, don't act like an ass and use the same evasion tactics as the trolls of this blog.

Also, is googling hard, Chuck? http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/10/egregiously-stu.html

I'm sure we'll all be very concerned about the lack of redundant scientific refutation the next time Kent Hovind comes around and says something stupid, too.

Too Funny,

Just a couple of things, its for all intent and purpose and what's wrong with porn?

Jonathan Wells of course, is a fat, delusional, lying turd. In addition, he's a hypocrite when he writes:

"So our landing at Norman was a success. Despite all their taxpayer-funded professors and museum exhibits, despite all their threats to dismantle us and expose us as retards, the Darwinists lost."

This, coming from a man who already had a divinity degree when he deliberately got a State-funded PhD in Biology at UC, for the stated purpose of using the sheepskin to fight science. With a little help from his Disco 'Tute buddy, Professor Phillip E. Johnson.

Wells took Californians' STATE TAX MONEY and squeezed his rotund ass into one of the limited number of seats in UC's doctoral program. Thus depriving some poor schmuck who actually was interested in science from getting a degree there.

Abbie, you rhetorically ask Wells, "Are you a pragmatic liar...?" I think the adjective you may have been searching for is not "pragmatic," but "compulsive."

I like 'self aggrandizing opportunistic hypocrite' for Wells.

Or my grandmother's version "a tart who wants an extra two bits because she keeps a bible on the dresser".

P.S. I did not mean to imply in #55 that Tyler and Eric were not fighting the good fight. While it is best not to engage Rho in the first place (for established reasons) , once engaged it is best not to let him claim victory on the basis of his limitless repetitive stamina. Some confused kid might be observing that Rho can later "win for christ" i.e. brain bugger into submission to his bogus death cult and fufill Rho's need for affirmation through consensus.

First, i gotta agree with Optimus Primate re; the new
hair cut..hubba-hubba!!! Second, thanks for all of your posts detailing your utter crushing of people like Wells and Behe, it's some pretty funny shit and if my teachers had taught with a sense of humor like that....

Chuck: "You make me wish I were an IDiot."

Wish granted.

I have always found it funny that no matter how much evidence is thrown at the TARDs, they always fail to comprehend it. Hell, I have no formal education in biology or eviloutionary biology for that matter, and I can still GRASP the subject at hand, especially when the info is being delivered by PZ & Abbie. If I as a knuckle dragging firefighter can grasp the subject, it says a lot about the quality and education of our wooing opposition.

Firemancarl @70:

My son is a firefighter, and he's no knuckle dragger, and I'll bet that you aren't either.

He's an intelligent, compassionate, moral, hard working firefighter who is also a very well adjusted atheist.

Whether you are or are not also an atheist doesn't (and shouldn't) matter to anyone but you. However, for the other readers of this blog, firefighters are a long, long way from being knuckle draggers.

I say: Good on you!!

I was wrong, not about the porn but about the phrase "all intents and purposes" you are indeed correct. Goes to show you how much an engineer knows about the English language.

@wald #71.
Sorry I was being sarcastic in that respect. I am an atheist and proud to be one. Nice to know there are a few of us atheist firefighters.