…and this is a 
Enter the Lost World of Kent Hovind
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 7, 2007 2:08 PM, by PZ Myers
There's not a lot of substance to this short video, but it is a last chance to see shots of Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, Florida. It was shut down at the time it was photographed — the poor man refused to get building permits, so county authorities closed his little 'theme park' — and now that he's in jail, I imagine it will all wither away into shabby, weathered plywood and cockroach-infested abandoned shacks. At least, we hope so.
Comments
Now might be a good time for poor Kent to test the power of prayer. Or defense attorneys.
Posted by: Ranger Jay | March 7, 2007 2:48 PM
The choice of music is wonderful. Tom Waits' painfully-satiric rendering of "Jesus Gonna Be Here" made for the perfect backdrop against which to show the abandonment of futility and unreason.
Posted by: Warren | March 7, 2007 2:48 PM
This almost makes me sad: obviously, a lot of work went into building that stuff and getting it all together. Sort of pathetic in the end.
Posted by: plunge | March 7, 2007 2:50 PM
plunge - Understanding where "Dr" Dino is now, makes your comment about "pathetic in the end" rather poignant. Funny as hell yet poignant.
Posted by: J-Dog | March 7, 2007 2:54 PM
I think dave's movie would have been a lot better if he had smoked a lot less weed before filming & editing. It's a shame really... it could've been really good.
Posted by: sal | March 7, 2007 2:58 PM
Actually, I had the opposite reaction to #3. It already looks like shabby, weathered plywood and cockroach-infested abandoned shacks to me with cheap construction and materials presented in the lamest way.
Posted by: MLE | March 7, 2007 3:01 PM
My (homeschooled) 5-year-old's comment about the whole sorry Dinosaur Adventure Land mess: "You would have to be crazy to believe that stuff. The earth is BILLIONS of years old, and that is WAY more than ten thousand."
Posted by: RedMolly | March 7, 2007 3:08 PM
I like it - production quality aside, those "activities" really show how far off-base Hovind was in saying it really has something to do with science and dinosaurs. An inspirational guide to paper airplane-making has nothing to do with a stegosaurus, even if you slap a picture of one behind it. And the weather rock? Sure, let's make an entire display out of something you can buy in every store in the Ozarks, because that's really sciencey.
And is it really hoe-vine-d? I've been pronouncing him "hah-vend"
Posted by: Carlie | March 7, 2007 3:09 PM
This almost makes me sad: obviously, a lot of work went into building that stuff and getting it all together. Sort of pathetic in the end.
Think of the Vatican and all the churches across the planet designed to perpetuate the biggest fraud in human history.
A lot of physical labor goes into building monuments that prop up the extremely silly god-ideas people can't seem to get out of their heads.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 7, 2007 3:43 PM
Totally off topic....
Check out this sink hole in Guatemala!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathanmoody/408214042/
Posted by: Steve_C | March 7, 2007 3:49 PM
This gave me a flashback to "The Eyes of Tammy Faye", a documentary about former televangelist Tammy Faye Bakker. She and her ex-husband Jim had their own set of problems with the IRS, and there's a scene where she's walking through the ruins of their deserted theme park (Heritage USA).
I don't think there's anything sadder than a theme park in ruins. (I hope somebody at least managed to salvage the stegosaurus fossil at 4:16 in the video.) The IRS should have made arrangements for the parks to be taken over by secular organizations. They could be funded by forcing Bakker's and Hovind's former supporters to visit them a couple times a year.
Posted by: chaos_engineer | March 7, 2007 3:57 PM
In the old South after the advent of the car but before the introduction of the Interstate Highway System, one could find many, many roadside attractions, usually run by the commercial ancestors of the Bakkers and Hovind. They are all con men (few were women then) out to skim a few bucks from each passing tourist, and, if proclaiming Jesus got folks in the door, then that's what they did. Hovind is just one of the last of those roadside con men and he's wound up with his room and board paid for courtesy of you and me. Why anyone ever paid him much attention, I'll never figure out. He merited none of it, other than the potential he held for being a star attraction in an old circus side show.
Posted by: Keanus | March 7, 2007 4:17 PM
There is a petition to try to get Kent Hovind pardonned. I do not think they should ask the president when Kent said Bush worships Lucifer.
I have found out that Dr. Ron Brooks is to be "debating" Eric Hovind at University of Guelph on March 19.
I informed him that Eric will have supporters there, so he should invite people from the universities, colleges, the media and those in the field to attend.
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | March 7, 2007 4:28 PM
I thought it was pretty good. I liked the soundtrack except when the guy with a goatee was talking.
Only problem is it wouldn't play on my Mac! (How dare you PZ).
-DU-
Posted by: David Utidjian | March 7, 2007 4:52 PM
I have found out that Dr. Ron Brooks is to be "debating" Eric Hovind at University of Guelph on March 19.
The important thing is: does he understand he's going to be dealing, not with a reasoned debate, but with a torrent of sound-bite bullshit, and far too much to rebut all of it in a reasoned manner. I note from his page that he works with Ruse teaching Phil of Bio. On the whole this is likely a Good Thing, as Ruse has some familiarity with the whole evo/cre debate (and the creationists need correcting on their philosophical BS as much as on their scientific).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 7, 2007 4:59 PM
Weird. Worked on mine.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 7, 2007 4:59 PM
I don't understand why they just didn't get the permits. Ya know if people are going to understand from what perspective others are coming from there needs to be a dialog.
I know with almost complete certainty that the world is probably around 5 billion years old, and I believe that the first source was an Intelligent designer.
While I do not buy into the Macro evolution myself, I can see that point of view. In the third week of June this year I will be making a presentation to a collection of geologist's from all over the United States and its territories.
They will be visiting us for two weeks and I have a 1 hour spot. We are also going to take them on a field trip. I suggested to our two Geologists that we all go to the Creation museum in Glennrose. They balked saying that none us, even you believe the the earth to be 10,000 years old so why should we go there.
I said if we are unable to listen to why people believe what they do, how are we to ever convince them otherwise. We hashed it over and my Idea was eventually rejected. So now we are going to go look at something we all have seen before and know about.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 7, 2007 5:19 PM
Ouch. Don't buy into macro evolution?
How can archeologists and zoologist listen to your presentation?
You're essentially a creationist... you just have a really long time line for it.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 7, 2007 5:36 PM
Kent Hovind's crappy adventure park deserves to succumb to termites. Kent Hovind deserves ridicule, criticism, and maybe a pic in the face.
But he does not deserve to rot in jail simply for failing to pay taxes.
His service to the community is better realized through allowing him to roam free, spouting his YEC insanity at anyone who will listen, than it is with our tax dollars feeding him and clothing him in a concrete cell.
Posted by: Aaron Kinney | March 7, 2007 6:31 PM
Steve, You missoverestimate me. I am not giving a presentation on the origins of life, but on concrete fundamentals. God or not they are what they are.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 7, 2007 6:33 PM
In Floridians' defense, all of our structures are shabby, weathered plywood, cockroach-infested shacks. It's the way we roll down here. Too bad they'll be abandoned, though. It looks nicer than my house.
MikeG
Posted by: MikeG | March 7, 2007 6:37 PM
I forgot to add the obligatory "if the termites decide to stop holding hands, this place is doomed!"
MikeG
Posted by: MikeG | March 7, 2007 6:39 PM
ThePhysicist,
What's your background? This whole "I don't buy into it" would sound much more serious with a background justifying it. I mean, I don't go around saying that "I don't buy into General Relativity." I know I'm a putter at that size/space/speed scale in physics, and I have to go by the prediction matches (and a bit of acceptable authority). Newton I can test; GR and SR are a bit outside my bailiwick.
Posted by: frog | March 7, 2007 6:39 PM
I never heard about that place while I was stationed in Pensacola, which is really too bad, I would've loved to check it out. However, I would probably have lost a few braincells from beating my head against the nearest wall.
Posted by: Mick | March 7, 2007 6:41 PM
And they are geologists, not zookeepers. But, if you can't see the unintended humor for a field trip of geologist's to a creation museum the atheist's have no sense of humor.
Quick note: I have been there, and you get to take a tour and ask good questions. My favorite line was trying to get them to explain stream meander and all them craters on the moon that happened in 10,000 years.
YOU CANNOT EDUCATE PEOPLE BY SHUTTING THEM DOWN!
Posted by: The Physicist | March 7, 2007 6:41 PM
What would be fun is if someone took control of Dino Park, and actually made it a respectable museum that had good paleontology instead of his brand of creationism. You can never have too many high quality dino parks, and it'd be great to see the look on Kent's face when his theme park is completely changed to support evolutionary theory. Of course, the danger would be him hiring someone to torch the place in the name of God.
Doug
Posted by: Doug Schwer | March 7, 2007 6:42 PM
ThePhysicist,
What's your background? This whole "I don't buy into it" would sound much more serious with a background justifying it. I mean, I don't go around saying that "I don't buy into General Relativity." I know I'm a putter at that size/space/speed scale in physics, and I have to go by the prediction matches (and a bit of acceptable authority). Newton I can test; GR and SR are a bit outside my bailiwick.
I have already given my credentials on this website. I have never seen any convincing or conclusive scientific data for maco evolution
Posted by: The Physicist | March 7, 2007 6:49 PM
ThePhysicist,
Could you give me a pointer? I'm new 'round these parts.
Posted by: frog | March 7, 2007 7:00 PM
ThePhysicist,
Could you give me a pointer? I'm new 'round these parts.
Posted by: frog | March 7,
Be true to yourself and others.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 7, 2007 7:05 PM
Physicist: Okay, that's just smarmy, neither clever nor original. Tip from me: don't eat the yellow snow.
Posted by: frog | March 7, 2007 7:33 PM
Tip from me: don't eat the yellow snow.
I didn't ask you for a tip, you asked me, and by my tip you have proved what I thought of you in the first place was correct.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 7, 2007 7:38 PM
Posted by: llewelly | March 7, 2007 7:38 PM
"Physicist"
I guess we can agree then. Our preconceptions have been confirmed.
Posted by: frog | March 7, 2007 7:43 PM
Global warming, pollution, intensive agriculture, heavy industry, and many other modern activities are placing enormous selective pressures on life-forms all over the Earth. Much evolution of new species follows every previous mass extinction, and this one will be no different. Moreover, science and technology have equipped field biologists as never before. Those of us alive today are likely to witness the evolution of more new species than could have been witnessed in any previous human lifetime.
Posted by: llewelly | March 7, 2007 7:54 PM
"Physicist"
I guess we can agree then. Our preconceptions have been confirmed.
Posted by: frog | March
Unfortunately you are right, but only half so. But as long as you think well of yourself, I will leave you to enjoy it.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 7, 2007 8:12 PM
I know with almost complete certainty that the world is probably around 5 billion years old, and I believe that the first source was an Intelligent designer.
While I do not buy into the Macro evolution myself, I can see that point of view. In the third week of June this year I will be making a presentation to a collection of geologist's from all over the United States and its territories.
are we sure this isn't just another one of JAD's split personalities?
the similarities are striking.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 7, 2007 8:13 PM
You live in fortuitous times.
Global warming, pollution, intensive agriculture, heavy industry, and many other modern activities are placing enormous selective pressures on life-forms all over the Earth. Much evolution of new species follows every previous mass extinction, and this one will be no different. Moreover, science and technology have equipped field biologists as never before. Those of us alive today are likely to witness the evolution of more new species than could have been witnessed in any previous human lifetime.
Posted by: llewelly | March 7, 2007 07:54 PM
You speak truth, that I do indeed live the times you describe. I wish however I shared your optimism, I don't. I know what is going on in science today. I call it cooperate fascism.
http://catholicprophesy.blogspot.com/2007/03/nwo.html
Posted by: The Physicist | March 7, 2007 8:20 PM
My guess is that Kent is, at this moment, being anally probed by a primitive dinosaur called Bubba.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | March 7, 2007 8:33 PM
I call it cooperate fascism.
Assuming you meant corporate fascism. That's redundant and misleading: fascism is by definition corporate. There is no such thing as non-corporate fascism.
Posted by: frog | March 7, 2007 8:33 PM
The fact that other people here know who Tom Waits is makes me so happy.
Posted by: Chris Bell | March 7, 2007 9:39 PM
I'm guessing he thinks the anti-christ is Bill Gates.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 7, 2007 9:49 PM
With regard to:
"I imagine it will all wither away into shabby, weathered plywood and cockroach-infested abandoned shacks. At least, we hope so."
No, no, no. This place should be preserved, at least in part, by the Smithsonian Institution. It is a genuine (though bizarre, startling, pitiable, and nauseating) part of American culture and history. The fact that such a thing could have existed and been successful here, at this point in history, is certainly significant.
Posted by: beccarii | March 7, 2007 10:52 PM
"Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands. And right now, Caesar demands a building permit."
Comedy gold, man, comedy gold.
Posted by: hans | March 8, 2007 12:33 AM
It pisses me off that there aren't any good, non-evil dinosaur theme parks (aside from museums, if you count their interactive exhibits) but these bozos can erect one as a treat to lure the young into their clutches.
It'd be like if the only people on earth who provided candy were pedophiles in vans...
Posted by: Karley | March 8, 2007 12:34 AM
It pisses me off that there aren't any good, non-evil dinosaur theme parks...
Well, the Calgary Zoo has a dinosaur section in the park. I haven't been there since I was 13 (almost 20 years ago), but it was definitely my favorite section of the zoo. And there shouldn't be any dinosaurs wearing saddles, either!
Posted by: sinned34 | March 8, 2007 1:19 AM
Physicist, I honestly don't intend this to be snarky, but why do you believe in an old Earth? Do you believe that the Bible is consistant with an old Earth, and are taking your cues from it, or do you believe in an old Earth based on evidence, and have not seen the same degree of evidence for "macro" evoloution.
Again, I am trying to understand your position, and am not making a frivolous comment at your expense. I am relatively new to this site's comment boards, and simply wish to know a little more about your position.
autumn
Posted by: autumn | March 8, 2007 1:25 AM
MLE wrote, "It already looks like shabby, weathered plywood and cockroach-infested abandoned shacks to me with cheap construction and materials presented in the lamest way."
Heh, that sounds like my impressions of Las Vegas.
Maybe I spent too much time in theater set design and construction, but last time I visited Las Vegas I walked down the strip with all the new casinos and was amazed at how cheap the theme ornamentation appeared. Foam covered plywood with a painted canvas covering seemed to be the usual method of decoration.
Of course, I saw it during the daytime and while sober so I probably didn't view it as the designers intended.
Posted by: Flex | March 8, 2007 8:21 AM
Physicist, I honestly don't intend this to be snarky, but why do you believe in an old Earth? Do you believe that the Bible is consistant with an old Earth, and are taking your cues from it, or do you believe in an old Earth based on evidence, and have not seen the same degree of evidence for "macro" evoloution.
Again, I am trying to understand your position, and am not making a frivolous comment at your expense. I am relatively new to this site's comment boards, and simply wish to know a little more about your position.
autumn
I believe in the old earth because of carbon dating, stream meander deep into solid rock (testable by erodibility index), craters on the moon, motion of the unviverse, the speed of light and a host of bleeding obvious reasons. I do not adhere to Macro evolution because I don't see the same evidence.
But, If it were found to be convincining it would not effect my faith, because it has nothing to do with the reasons I belive in an intelligent designer. And I am either fortunate or unfortunate to have seen evidence with my own eyes of the the supernatural, most don't, evidently, and I don't know why me, so don't ask me why.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 8:23 AM
I have a word for you autumn, it won't make any sense until you see it. "Cars, by Easter"
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 8:27 AM
Physicists, there are resources available. Many of them linked from here, there are also resources available from talkorigins.org if you don't see the same evidence.
Our Glorious Host (may he live in peace) has made the point that there is a disconnect in some scientists because they approach their own fields with scientific rigor, yet when it comes to fields such as religion and ID they are unwilling to examine their beliefs with any sort of depth.
So, the conclusion is that you don't see the evidence for MacroEvolution because you just don't wanna look.
And, as a side note, I would have voted for a scurry through Glen Rose and a robust round of brews to follow.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | March 8, 2007 8:49 AM
That's a little bit like saying that there's no evidence for sustainable fusion while ignoring the sun's constant light.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 8, 2007 8:55 AM
The Physicist bleated:
Not much chance that I'll ask why, if you don't understand the simple idea that "supernatural" and "evidence" are mutually exclusive.
Posted by: Jim Wynne | March 8, 2007 8:58 AM
Show me the evidence, I'll be glad to take a look, specific real data and science, not theory.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 9:38 AM
For example if someone aske me to show them that the earth is more than 10,000 years old, I could. Simply by showing some of the deep hard rock meandering streams. We could test the erodibility index and the slope of said stream and I could calculate for them how many million years the it took for the stream to erode that deep.
And if they come back at me saying maybe one big long flood did it real fast, I can explain to them how large floods do not cause meander.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 9:45 AM
You know, only someone who knew next to nothing about science would so cavalierly dismiss "theory".
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 8, 2007 9:51 AM
I'm dying to know what The_P's evidence of the supernatural was.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 8, 2007 10:15 AM
You know, only someone who knew next to nothing about science would so cavalierly dismiss "theory".
Posted by: PZ Myers
Thanks for responding, but you just proved my point, it is just theory, and it is not testable, thefore it is not fact.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 10:19 AM
Even money says it has something to do with steroids.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 8, 2007 10:20 AM
I'm dying to know what The_P's evidence of the supernatural was.
Posted by: Steve_C
Oh, the irony.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 10:21 AM
Wow. You don't even know what a theory is.
Theories by definition are testable. Ever watch Mythbusters?
Conjecture is maybe what you're suggesting. Macro evolution is not conjecture.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 8, 2007 10:29 AM
Theories aren't testable? Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance so clearly.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 8, 2007 10:30 AM
Theories aren't testable? Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance so clearly.
Posted by: PZ Myers |
Thanks for responding, but you just proved my point, it is just theory, and it is not testable, thefore it is not fact.
Well then let me respond in kind. In the above sentence, show me where it says theories are not testable. You are demonstating your poor reading compehension. Notice the word "and" and not the word "therefore". Nice try in twisting my words though.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 10:36 AM
It is "just a theory" is a standard creationist trope, built out of abysmal ignorance of the meaning of the word "theory" in science. You have repeated it. No one with any sense uses the word "just" to modify "scientific theory".
Your undergraduate education in a science failed you...or more likely, you are failing to do it proud.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 8, 2007 10:40 AM
Wow. You don't even know what a theory is.
Theories by definition are testable. Ever watch Mythbusters?
Conjecture is maybe what you're suggesting. Macro evolution is not conjecture.
Posted by: Steve_C |
Yes, but I missed the one where they took a collection of apes and turned them into a man.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 10:46 AM
We have the fossils.
We win.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 8, 2007 10:48 AM
Well then TZ, if I'm so stupid, then I challenge you to show me where Macro-evolution is testable?
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 10:49 AM
TZ=PZ
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 10:52 AM
We have the fossils.
We win.
Posted by: Steve_C
Wow, I guess now I'm convinced, brilliant response.
I'll be back later, got a meeting.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 10:55 AM
To paraphrase Lewontin:
Empirical: All animals have parents.
Empirical: Once there were no mammals.
QED.
Posted by: CCP | March 8, 2007 10:56 AM
Ok, so you had an NDE, or saw a ghost, or had contact with a dead relative or something. Yes? Phys, why not just tell us? Your chronic vagueness leads us nowhere, and has an irritatingly smug tone to it. Either join the party, or get off the front stoop. I mean, throw something into the pot, or get away from the stove. Add a square to the quilt, or go back to the nursery. Serve the damn ball, or get off the court.
I have had no experiences of that nature, or should I say supernature. However, a few people I know and respect claim to have had them. I while I remain skeptical, I am open to the possibility of phenomena that have remained undetected (or undetectable) by currently available scientific means.
So what's the story? Care to share? If not, that's fine, but please just say so instead of dancing around it. Thanks.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 8, 2007 10:56 AM
Theory: If organisms evolved over long periods of time we would find transitional forms and common traits in the fossil record.
That's testable. And the evidence backs up the theory.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 8, 2007 10:57 AM
Macroevolution is testable, and has been tested, in fact. The Physicist would realize this if he actually took the time out of his busy lifestyle of harassing people to do this.
Among other things, scientists have documented subtle changes in lineages of trilobites, noting the changes in number of segments, number of eyes, and or differences in ornamentation in one generation compared to another. In one case, in the Midwestern US, a series of rock lenses show how a population of Phacops rana with 18 pairs of eyes is eventually supplanted by a mutant form with 17 pairs of eyes, which is, in turn, replaced by another mutant form with 19 pairs of eyes, whereupon we then see how the 19-pair form go extinct, and then re-replaced by the 17-pair form when that particular stretch of ocean dried up and got reflooded. On the other hand, given as how we know from personal experience that the average creationist regards the very idea of learning about fossil organisms to be as wholesome as gargling with cow feces, trilobites might not be a good example to use for The Physicist.
Another observed example of macroevolution in action is the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. The apple maggot is an agricultural pest which feeds on a variety of fruit. The original host plant was the hawthorne, a small tree native to forests in the Eastern US. When Europeans began planting fruit orchards during the 18th Century, mutant forms of the apple maggot fly began attacking these new potential host plants, and have become genetically isolated from the original hawthorne populations since then.
Posted by: Stanton | March 8, 2007 11:15 AM
Another example is the appearance of the Honeysuckle maggot fly, found only in the Eastern US, which is a pest of imported honeysuckle vines, which are native to Europe. Scientists have determined that it arose 250 years ago from hybrids between the Snowberry Maggot flies and Blueberry Maggot flies.
Posted by: Stanton | March 8, 2007 11:24 AM
You know what he's going to say though don't you...
Those flies didn't become monkies though!
Posted by: Steve_C | March 8, 2007 11:29 AM
Thanks, Stanton. More information for my files. :-)
And what about Hedylypta?
If I'm not mistaken, the Tiktaalik roseae find was predicted, wasn't it? Theory predicted that a creature exhibiting the transitional features it exhibits should be found in a certain geological time-place, and sure enough, there it was? And there are other examples... all of them ignored or denied by those who reject macro-evolution.
I know a biologist who rejects macro-evo. He's also a very devout Southern Baptist. (Surprise!) No example of speciation is good enough for him. I'm not a biologist (surprise again!) and the best I can usually do is to throw talk.origins at him while he throws terms at me I don't even understand. My own lack of science education makes debate fruitless. It's frustrating. (Yes, I accept macro-evo "on authority" - smirk.)
Methinks that the root of this problem is not that these folks are YEC's or Bible literalists, it's that they are simply offended by the idea that our ancestors were hairy, knuckle-dragging simians, or "monkeys" in popular creationist parlance. It's not... dignified. But being created in the image of God is. So we see the amazing lengths of self-deception to which these people will go to avoid being offended. (I get it, but... I just don't GET it.)
Posted by: Kseniya | March 8, 2007 11:31 AM
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/speci.htm
Some more examples of observed speciation.
...
Anyone want to bet that The Physicist is going to handwave this all away and continue to claim that no one has shown him any evidence of macroevolution?
Posted by: Stanton | March 8, 2007 11:33 AM
Yes, Tiktaalik was predicted, in that, they suspected that there was a form in the Late Devonian between Panderichthys, and Ichthyostega/Acanthostega, and that the Late Devonian rocks in British Columbia were within the exact timeframe for the transitional form to have exist.
Posted by: Stanton | March 8, 2007 11:37 AM
Then he isn't a very good one. You should direct him here to espouse his point of view.
He has got to be one the most compartmentalized people out there.
Posted by: Uber | March 8, 2007 11:55 AM
All,
I'd get The Physicist to define what he means by macroevolution first. It's one of those terms like "natural" or "religion" that people load with a wealth of assumptions and unspoken bollocks.
If he means macroevolution in the sense that a biologist proper would use it, then it's possible he's ignorant of the evidence (no crime at all) and someone could point him at it (T.O. 29 evidences for macroevolution is a good beginner's start). Then he might go "Oh wow! There IS evidence". A happy conclusion all round.
If, however, he means "baboons to Barbie" creationist strawman macroevolution or other vastly saltationist gibberish then, to be as generous as I can be, there are a lot of assumptions and unspoken bollocks loaded into his use of the term "macroevolution". These will need to be unpicked before the happy scenario above can occur.
Sadly, I am pessimistic today and I have little hope that this will be the case. The "has anyone put apes in a jar and turned them into men" type comment is a dead giveaway. Eh, it's possible I'm wrong, but I doubt it on this occasion.
What he have so far is standard crap:
1) Someone with some (read minimal by the looks of it, again: happy to be wrong) science education claims some aspect of evolutionary biology is unfalsifiable and hence, a la Popper, not science.
2) Does the "theory/fact shuffle" or the "Just a theory cock up".
3) Does the "But I can SEE X or Y" nonsense (where X or Y in this case are things like erosion etc as mentioned above).
4) Does the usual "I've seen dead people" (or whatever, it's the old "appeal to mystery/internal/personal experience that cannot be validated in any empirical sense and is indistinguishable from hallucination" gambit) evidence for supernatural routine.
5) Is at least skirting around the "But it's still a bacterium!!!111one11!!!" ejaculation.
6) Demonstrates woeful levels of clearly undeserved arrogance.
Basically we have 6 key indicators of Pointless Antiscience Loon. Why bother with him?
If this guy was interested in actually learning about the subject he'd nip off after a few suggestions of possible sources and find out for himself. (In fact a good science education DEMANDS this sort of behaviour, we in the biz call it "basic research". As my boss once said to me: "an hour in the library can save a month in the lab") All we, and I include relative lurkers like myself in that we, have had thus far is standard misconceptions coupled to arrogance and huge snark.
How about it the Physicist? Nip off to the library and look up those things mentioned on T.O. "29 evidences for macroevolution" (as good a starting point as any). Better still how about you nip off and read some very long biology textbooks and the references quoted therein. Maybe, and I know this will come as a shock so brace yourself, just maybe the people actually DOING the relevant science know what they are talking about more than you do. Perhaps, and this is merely the vaguest whisper of a humble suggestion: you are wrong.
SHOCK HORROR! Coo stap me vitals etc.
I await the standard wanky snark I've been reading from you for a while. Colour me pre-unimpressed.
*Yawn*
{re-lurk}
Louis
Posted by: Louis | March 8, 2007 12:06 PM
Nicely typed, Louis.
Though, if The Physicist is the typical antiscience creationist loon, then he'd probably find the idea of going to the library to do research in order to better himself about as pleasant as willfully dousing himself with hydrochloric acid.
Posted by: Stanton | March 8, 2007 12:13 PM
What concentration hydrochloric acid?
(I'll take comments never to make in front of a chemist for $400 please Alex ;-) )
But seriously. I hope. I hope The Physicist will forgive me my snark and pessimism, I hope The Physicist will go to the library. I hope The Physicist will get the same enjoyment out of learning exciting new things about the universe that I do.
Sadly hope, though wonderful, can be misplaced or simply wrong. I hope I am wrong about The Physicist, sincerely I do. Speaking purely as someone who daily deals with science, research, evidence and a number of people with advanced scientific qualifications who don't have the first clue about research, discovery or even actual science (yes folks it is possible to get a PhD and be as ignorant as pigshit, I've met 'em), I doubt I am wrong. But I can live in hope.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | March 8, 2007 12:23 PM
I wish you people would quit treating with such contempt.
I'm going to lunch, but I think it best we start here which I will address when I get Back.
I'd get The Physicist to define what he means by macroevolution first. It's one of those terms like "natural" or "religion" that people load with a wealth of assumptions and unspoken bollocks.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 12:31 PM
I'm bored already. Go read up on macro evolution and come back in a week.
Still haven't heard what his supernatural experience was...
Posted by: Steve_C | March 8, 2007 12:35 PM
Contempt? No.
Disappointment? Yes.
Hope to be wrong about disappointment? Yes.
Likelihood of being wrong about disappointment? Not good.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | March 8, 2007 12:45 PM
I don't understand why they just didn't get the permits. Ya know if people are going to understand from what perspective others are coming from there needs to be a dialog.
He's justifying it with a sort of "magical thinking". He seems to believe that words have power in-and-of-themselves and that he can get anything he wants just by saying the right words.
So if he takes his belief that the world is 6000 years old, and dresses it up in science-y sounding language, he thinks that he's come up with a real scientific theory that's just as good as anyone else's (if not better). But of course that doesn't work; it's not the words that matter, it's how well those words describe reality.
And if he takes his beliefs that he doesn't have to get building permits or pay taxes, and he dresses them up in legal-y sounding language, he thinks that he's come up with an argument that's as good as anyone else's (if not better). That means that he thinks it's impossible for the prosecution to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". And that doesn't work either...it's not the words that matter; it's how well the argument fits with established precedent.
(I don't know all the arguments he's using. But one of them was that he'd never been properly served because the legal papers had KENT HOVIND written on them, and he doesn't spell his name with all capital letters. The established precedent is that that's a stupid argument and people shouldn't waste the court's time with it. I assume that none of his other arguments were any better.)
Posted by: ChaosEngineer | March 8, 2007 12:47 PM
Macroevolution, One species changing into another species, is what I am talking about. Direct evidence by labratory or fossil record. Show me those and I will believe.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 1:55 PM
And not bugs getting more eyes and such mutations, species change.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 1:56 PM
Still haven't heard what his supernatural experience was...
Posted by: Steve_C |
Because I can't prove it, and what purpose would it serve but to give you fodder. And more than that it is none of your buisness.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 8, 2007 1:58 PM
The Physicist: And not bugs getting more eyes and such mutations, species change.
Oh, look, a baraminologist. Never seen one of those 'round here before.
Posted by: Trip the Space Parasite | March 8, 2007 2:11 PM
Look at birds. They were dinosaurs.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 8, 2007 2:22 PM
Look at birds. They were dinosaurs.
Posted by: Steve_C |
PZ must keep you around for your wit and in depth explanations. Or just court Jester.
Posted by: The Physicist |