…and this is a 
"Intellectual Conservative" seems to be an oxymoron
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 1, 2007 11:45 AM, by PZ Myers
Many will argue with the conclusion of my title, but there are so many examples of outright intellectual vacuity from people who anoint themselves with the title "conservative" that it is fast becoming a synonym for "ignoramus". We've lately been laughing ourselves silly at the absurdity called Conservapædia, but here's another flabby, nutritionally empty scrap of junk food to chew over: a site called The Intellectual Conservative. In particular, I call your attention to yet another right wing rejection of a valid, well-established science by someone completely oblivious to either the principles or the evidence, in an article asking whether biology has a "Rational Evolutionary Hypothesis?" The author doesn't seem to know anything at all about biology, but he has heard two names — Darwin and Dawkins — and no, sir, he doesn't like 'em. He dislikes 'em so much that he's willing to lie about them.
In Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis, and in the many variants since 1859, the fundamental thrust, indeed the starting point for Darwin himself, was to disprove what he called the "damnable doctrine" of God as the Creator of the cosmos and of life on earth. All events, for the evolutionists, are attributable to material causes, without the intervention of a Creator existing before and outside the universe.
Wow. That paragraph is so wrong it's hard to know where to start. However, let's be clear on one thing: no evolutionary research has as its fundamental thrust, or even as a subsidiary incentive, the idea of disproving any gods. That whole concept is irrelevant to science. That goes for Darwin's initial work, for the work involved in the neo-Darwinian synthesis, or for work in modern molecular biology, genetics, ecology, development, etc. The author, Thomas Brewton, is just making stuff up.
For a concrete example, let's take a look at Darwin, one of only two evolutionary biologists this fellow has ever heard of. He quotes Darwin as calling the notion of a creator god a "damnable doctrine"—but did he really? The quote came from Darwin's autobiography, which is available online, so it's very easy to check. What was the "damnable doctrine"?
But I was very unwilling to give up my belief [in Christianity];—I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine.
Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.
So…quite contrary to Brewton, Darwin did not set out to disprove Christianity; he had doubts, but he was day-dreaming of the discovery of evidence confirming the New Testament. The damnable doctrine was not the idea of a creator god at all, but the notion of hell and damnation for people he loved.
His studies did lead to increasing doubt about a designer, and he's clearly backing away from any idea of a deity that intervenes in the course of life's history. Does he reject the idea of "God as the Creator of the cosmos and of life on earth" as a starting point in his work? No. Does he come to that conclusion even at the end of his life? No.
Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.
This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt--can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.
Alas, even a mind as great as Darwin's is susceptible to the argument from incredulity, but at least he was sensible enough to recognized that the argument was flawed and weak.
The key point here, though, is that Brewton was wrong, and completely misrepresented Darwin's views while maliciously quoting him out of context and applying his words to a completely different idea. Or perhaps more likely, he never even read the source he was claiming to be quoting. Intellectual conservative? More like intellectual fraud.
The rest of Brewton's article is similarly bereft of any kind of scholarly foundation. He has read only Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and its summary of theories of abiogenesis, and from that alone concludes that there is no evidence for a natural origin of life.
For evolution to stand on its own two feet, Darwinians must be able to explain how life was created by purely material factors. This they singularly fail to do. And without a materialistic beginning of life, there can be no purely materialistic, Darwinian evolution of life forms.
Darwinians therefore gloss over the origin of life and focus instead on the hypothetical mechanism of natural selection, through billions of tiny, random modifications over eons, which might plausibly have differentiated a single, original elemental life form into all known life forms of today. To date there have been only unsuccessful attempts in chemistry labs to create life from inorganic chemicals. Every theory attempting to explain the origin of life has collided with contradictory facts in chemistry and geology.
Complete nonsense. No, no one has created a life form in the lab (but we will, and when we do, you just know these cretins are going to say, "See? It required an intelligent designer!"), but none of the scientific explanations are fact-free speculations. The only source of "contradictory facts" is religion, which postulates all kinds of bizarre guesses about how life originated that typically do not accommodate themselves at all well to the actual data.
One essential observation that has been reiterated and reinforced and is currently unassailable is a simple one: life is chemistry. Dig into the cell, and there's nothing mystical there at all—it's all material processes, natural mechanisms, and quantifiable chemistry. There are no Jebons, no vitalistic essences, no individual component that can't be recreated in a test tube. To suggest that life cannot arise from mere chemistry is nonsensical, because life isn't anything but chemistry and physics.
For another, Dawkins book is not a detailed summary of the scientific evidence for abiogenesis, which, contrary to Brewton's assertions, is not nonexistent. For a popular treatment of the subject, I recommend Robert Hazen's Gen•e•sis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins (amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), which I previously reviewed. There is quite a bit of observational evidence of chemical traces in ancient rocks, and there is also ongoing experimental work on the steps in the pathways, all of which Brewton misses. There isn't yet a definitive answer, but progress is being made; by hinging his argument for a godly intervention on the creation of life, Brewton is placing his god in a shrinking chink in our knowledge, another lovely example of the self-defeating nature of the god-of-the-gaps argument.
Brewton is also clearly spitting mad about Dawkins characterization of his peers, as he repeats this infamous quote at the beginning.
Richard Dawkins is one of today’s most widely known defenders of Darwinian evolution. Professor Dawkins goes beyond defending evolution, using extravagant language to attack the personal qualifications of anyone who questions Darwinian evolution. Of such people, he opined, "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."
When creationists repeat that quote and then go on to babble incompetently about scientific matters, I really wonder if they are ever concerned that what they seem to be doing is confirming the validity of his claim. Thomas Brewton is probably not insane, he may not be stupid (although the possibility is still viable), but he is definitely ignorant. Like Dawkins, I'd rather not consider him wicked, but if he actually read Darwin's autobiography and then mangled it so thoroughly, wickedness or stupidity really are the only two choices.
Comments
A conservative blog proclaiming itself "intellectual" is about as convincing as a policeman saying "nothing to see here, folks."
Posted by: notthedroids | March 1, 2007 11:50 AM
From the introduction to their global warming article:
Wait, though - I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be liberally-biased?
That's followed immediately by a sentence that made me laugh out loud from sheer incredulity:
Awesome. The rest of the article belies the usual idiocy and willful ignorance that is pretty much standard in any global warming denial article. Intellectual conservatives, huh?
Posted by: The Disgruntled Chemist | March 1, 2007 12:10 PM
Gah. These people will do or say anything to promote their agenda, without the intellectual honesty one finds in a five-year-old who has his hands in the cookie jar.
I blogged about the new CreationWiki over on UTI this morning. Will the insanity never stop?
Posted by: Jim Downey | March 1, 2007 12:13 PM
PZ, I admire your ability to keep at these things when they must become so overwhelmingly tedious. After reading Brewton's essay and the comments up so far, I felt simply dispirited. It's a straw and camel thing, I guess.
Posted by: Comstock | March 1, 2007 12:14 PM
It seems poetically appropriate that so many people don't know what "ignorant" means.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | March 1, 2007 12:17 PM
They are intellectually conservative because they conserve their intellects for later use.
Posted by: King Aardvark | March 1, 2007 12:23 PM
I saw this yesterday, but figured it was too stupid to ask you to blog about. Brewton is just another nut who realized that he can make a living by going way off the deep end. He along with the "New Media Alliance" (supposedly 'non-profit', even though I'd like to see their tax statement) is just more competition for WND etc, grasping for bucks of the other right-wing nuts.
Posted by: daenku32 | March 1, 2007 12:26 PM
Is that "oxymoron" or just plain old "moron"? (I vote for "wicked stupid", and I'm not even from Boston!)
Posted by: Fred Levitan | March 1, 2007 12:35 PM
Indeed, because until we knew about the Big Bang, it was impossible to know how the organization of matter changed over time--about forces and inertia and gravity and relativity and all of that.
Posted by: Melanie S. | March 1, 2007 12:44 PM
The trouble with creating a life form in the lab, is that first you must define what chemical processes constitute life, and which do not--in other words, where does life begin? That definition must necessarily be arbitrary.
PZ,
Thank you for posting Darwin's words and for reposting the Jebons link (I was looking for that a while back when the sciblings search engine was down).
Posted by: The Science Pundit | March 1, 2007 12:52 PM
For evolution to stand on its own two feet, Darwinians must be able to explain how life was created by purely material factors.
Wow. I teach the following point even in my basic "Introduction to Dinosaurs" class (a basic geology/evolution/zoology class for non-majors): Biological evolution did not begin until life was in existence; the origination of life from non-life is called abiogenesis and is a completely separate process from evolution. Once life appeared, then evolution could work via selective processes. I'm rather sick and tired of hearing people ask about how life evolved from non-life. Simple: it didn't. Life abiogenetically formed from non-life (and how that happened we don't yet know), but biological evolution didn't kick in 'til after that. I'm a tad surprised that PZ didn't pick up on this particular tidbit of egregious wrongness (amongst all the others) in the Dimtellectual Conservative's post.
Posted by: Jerry D. Harris | March 1, 2007 12:54 PM
I didn't pick up on it intentionally -- I disagree with it. I think the boundary we draw between biological and chemical evolution is arbitrary and false, and that what we're learning is that there is no clear division between life and chemistry.
Selection can work on chemistry, too, you know.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 1, 2007 12:58 PM
I would have been incredibly impressed had Schlafly actually named it Conservapædia (or even Conservapaedia), but in fact it's just the usual American spelling, of the sort that ends with me having to watch episodes of CSI in which one of the suspects is a "peddophile."
Posted by: derek | March 1, 2007 1:06 PM
It is a very old note that evolution theory doesn't, no more than GR must explain the existence of mass-energy. Perhaps Brewton are ready to argue the later too.
Brewton fumbles the message. It depends on how we define "life". Viruses, certainly live enough when replicating from evolvable hereditary material in hijacking a cell machinery, have been synthesized from components since 1955. ( http://virus.chem.ucla.edu/article.php/invitro )
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 1, 2007 1:11 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 1, 2007 1:12 PM
A fast thread; my two cents were already on the table.
This layman thinks PZ is right - how can we draw a line, or worse erect an imaginary barrier, between non-life and life or micro- and macroevolution?
It is not doable already for the simpler systems of physics. Between the quantitatively different worlds of everyday microscopic quantum and macroscopic classical objects live mesoscopic systems that share characteristics of both. It is hard to point at such systems and say if they are more micro or macro.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 1, 2007 1:27 PM
PZ, Steve LaBonne and Torbjörn Larsson have laid my thoughts out pretty well. Natural selection acts on multicellular life and upon archaebacteria. It acted in the RNA world, and it must have acted on whatever self-catalyzing polymer reactions which led up to the RNA world. If I were forced to draw a line between life and non-life, to put a big black mark at "the instant when life began," I'd probably put it at the time when natural selection started working really well.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 1, 2007 1:34 PM
I'm not too scientifically literate, but wouldn't it be impossible to create carbon-based life forms out of inorganic chemicals? Or has the definition of inorganic changed in the million or so years since I went to high school?
Posted by: Cameron | March 1, 2007 1:46 PM
P.Z., I don't think I've ever seen you discuss the work of Sidney Fox. Didn't his discovery of what he called proto-cells force some rethinking of just what life is?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | March 1, 2007 1:52 PM
Cameron: if by inorganic chemicals you mean chemicals without carbon, then sure its impossible, given what we know of chemistry/physics. There are compounds that contain carbon but are not considered organic (namely CO, CO2, and metallic carbonyls. I don't know enough about abiogenesis to know what compounds are necessary and plausible)
Posted by: Raguel | March 1, 2007 1:58 PM
All around us, an "inorganic" carbon compound (CO2) is being converted by photosynthsis (which can be set up in a cell-free, "nonliving" test-tube system)into "organic" compounds. That word "organic" is yet another fossilized vestige of vitalism.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 1, 2007 2:06 PM
Cairns-Smith: clay crystal replicator hypothesis
http://originoflife.net/crystals/index.html
Eigen and Schuster: RNA hypercycles
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HYPERC.html
Posted by: Colugo | March 1, 2007 2:08 PM
Raguel:
You are correct in saying that certain, very simple carbon compounds are not considered "organic". However, one should really go a step farther and point out that carbon itself is made from non-carbon, by the fusion of helium nuclei in the stars. This nuclear chemistry falls outside the domain of what we typically do in high-school laboratories.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 1, 2007 2:09 PM
What a ridiculous article. One could just as easily say:
[i]For theism to stand on its own two feet, theists must be able to explain how life was created by purely immaterial factors. This they singularly fail to do, [since saying a magical sky-fairy did it explains nothing].[/i]
Yet somehow they don't notice this.
Posted by: Ric | March 1, 2007 2:13 PM
What?! What what! No Jebons?! LIES!! Why, looking at the coverof this week's New Scientist, it clearly says "Have we caught a first glimpse of the God Particle?" An all-pervading particle that grants other particles mass - THE HAND OF GOD IN LIFE TODAY!!!!!!!
...Now, perhaps a hint of the Higgs boson at 160 GeV may not seem so important to you, but THAT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE AN UNGODLY DARWINIST! Unable, no doubt through mental deficiency, or unwilling due to perverse stubborness to see PHYSICS HAS PROVEN GOD (particles) AS 80% LIKELY TO EXIST!!!
Posted by: Adam Cuerden | March 1, 2007 2:13 PM
Let's just be clear that there are smart, thoughtful conservatives; some of them are even biologists, like E.O. Wilson. This site is just wingnuttery without the entertaining parts. As a general rule anyone who self-bills as an intellectual is an poseur.
Posted by: atomic dog | March 1, 2007 2:15 PM
Just to note that anything that needs to call itself 'The Intellectual X' probably isn't. There's no difficulty finding a thousand religious right loons on the net, just as I could find a thousand scientifically illiterate left wingers. So we can each demolish straw men rather than engage in a debate.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | March 1, 2007 2:23 PM
Ive always called myself an Intellectual Conservative. Now that these IDiots have stolen my title, I'll have to search for another.
As a conservative, I'm against big Government, and entitlement programs. I don't want the government making laws reguarding the personal lives of its citizenry. I make this decision based on my interpretation of fiscal policy and economics. Not by some interpretation of sky papa.
Im for private ownership of arms. Not because I need to be armed for the comming armageddon, or some sense of security defending my home, but because I feel we need the ability to revolt to keep our government honest (especialy with the current trend for our leaders to be led by the nose by their churches)
Posted by: Bart | March 1, 2007 2:47 PM
As I've said before, Bart, if political terminology in this country weren't so screwed up, someone like you would properly be called a Liberal, and a "liberal" like me would be called a Social Democrat. That would leave the word "conservative" for the backward authoritarians, which historically is also a correct uage.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 1, 2007 3:03 PM
I think there are two particular things about that statement by Dawkins which really piss Creationists off:
1.)The word "ignorant" fails to make a distinction between the mild form meaning "unaware" and the more insulting form which makes it just another way of saying "stupid." So they always read it the second way, to get the most huff out of it.
2.) I have just now noticed a different part of the quote, the Professor's rather sly use of the phrase "meet(ing) someone who claims not to believe in evolution." Not, you will note, someone who doesn't believe in evolution, but someone who only *claims* he doesn't believe in evolution. Believing evolution is apparently the natural default. You have to work at denial. You have to pretend it.
Now -- where oh where have I heard that sort of arrogant, smug, snarky style of assumption expressed before? I know you better than you know yourself. You're putting on a show, but I see through you. Hmmm. Gee, it sounds a bit like "self-styled atheist." Or "someone who claims not to believe in God." How often do we see that sort of phrase, implying that everybody knows God, of course. There are no REAL atheists. Just perverse people in denial.
What a clever little monkey is Richard Dawkins. Heh.
Posted by: Sastra | March 1, 2007 3:24 PM
If it has the word "science" in it (ie: "Computer Science", "Christian Science"), it likely is not science. Similarly, if it has the word "intellectual" in it, it likely is not intellectual.
Posted by: sinned34 | March 1, 2007 3:26 PM
Blake:
I didn't mean to imply fusion was a fiction, only that I wouldn't consider it a plausible step in a chemical pathway to form life (eg some helium-chained compound becomes a carbon-chained compound, and then reacts with something else). It makes more sense that carbon, in some form, was already present during the time abiogenesis theoretically transpired.
Posted by: Raguel | March 1, 2007 4:18 PM
Heh. You said 'anoint'.
Which, of course, brings to mind:
"Oh Pointy bird,
oh pointy pointy,
anoint my head,
anointy nointy."
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | March 1, 2007 4:18 PM
This Conservapedia cracks me up.
It has 5 commandments to adhere to when posting.
The first commandment is
1)Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
Then if you do a search for the word 'religion' on the site the entry says.....
Types of Religion
There is only one type of religion, Christianity. The others are frauds.
Go figure huh.
They say the Wikipedia is Anti-American. Who said the Wikipedia was supposed to be American to begin with?
Posted by: Michael Napoleon | March 1, 2007 4:33 PM
I hate it when these people don't enable comments or make you go through some sign up process.
I want to snark so bad that it hurts.
Posted by: Chris Bell | March 1, 2007 4:37 PM
PS. The conservapedia article for ACLU claims that Judge Jones wrote his Dover opinion in a way that "prevented any appeal of his opinion in the case."
As a lawyer, I'd like to learn that trick.
Posted by: Chris Bell | March 1, 2007 4:50 PM
Michael Napoleon, I'm pretty sure that's actually the result of our recent... revamping... of the site, especially as the entry seems to be dated Feb. 22. Note below the entry, in the segment on Sources of Religion: "Christians used to look to the Bible for God's word, but now they have the Blog of the Gods, which relays His word directly in modern language people can understand. It is also less silly than the Bible."
Posted by: kmarissa | March 1, 2007 5:01 PM
This is so liberal that the term "big government" doesn't even exist outside the USA. (Maybe it has spread to other English-speaking countries, but still.)
Not to any degree? Then that's unquestionably liberal.
Sounds liberal again.
Now, come on. You can't buy a tank anyway. In the USA only the military has the ability to revolt.
To keep your government honest, simply make sure it can't steal elections, so that when you kick its ass, the laws of ballistics actually apply. That's easy. Take a peek abroad to see how that's done.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 1, 2007 5:05 PM
When Frederich Kohler synthesized urea from inorganic carbon compounds back in 1828, he wrote Berzelius to brag that he had made urea without using his kidneys. The mystique of organic chemistry has been dead for 180 years.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | March 1, 2007 6:00 PM
I really suspect that Conservapedia is a hoax site. It has to be, right?
... Right?
Posted by: Dennis | March 1, 2007 6:01 PM
No, it isn't a hoax site, sadly.
Posted by: Stanton | March 1, 2007 6:06 PM
Those quotes from darwin do show in stark detail that which the Creationists are concerned about. The problem is not that a man cannot beleive in both science and religion, it is that the former often leads to a gradual decline of the later.
Ironic considering that many of the great scientists of the past drew great motivation from their desire to learn something of god's mind by studying nature.
Posted by: bigTom | March 1, 2007 6:33 PM
Still, there is DarwinCentral.com, a conservative pro-evolution blog.
I just had a look over recent entries, and I can't say I agree with evey one of their stances, but there is something in the idea that science is not only a value of the Left.
Posted by: Abie | March 1, 2007 7:06 PM
What a clever little monkey is Richard Dawkins. Heh.
Posted by: Sastra
Yes, he was parodying a rather well known phrase from Christian apologist C S Lewis, about Jesus, that we atheists hear quite frequently.
Posted by: Graculus | March 1, 2007 7:09 PM
Well, if the opinion was 100% correct ...
Posted by: JimV | March 1, 2007 7:43 PM
Hmm. If production of molecules starts out environmental and haphazard, selection would immediately by contingent on the environment. It would be things like leakage from the neighborhood of the production source and reactiveness for remaining compounds.
So what I would perhaps consider at gunpoint as a tentative demarcation line could be when reacting compounds, for example by hypercycles, started to replicate "well enough". Then we have 'metabolism' (incoming new products, outgoing losses), replication, and selection. (I will assume that robustness would be enhanced by membranes in any form, if they aren't already included, to get away from the a stationary and distributed system.)
But then again, why should hereditary or selection be the defining characteristica? Growing crystals inherit the crystal structure of the parent surfaces, and the material is selected to fit the bonds.
I guess I'm not really satisfied with any single 'demarcation criteria', as usual. :-)
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 1, 2007 7:47 PM
On the boundary between chemistry and life...
It has always amused the hell out of me that I can synthesize an adenovirus genome, grow it up in E. coli, purify it, transfect the naked DNA into mammalian cells and watch it come to life.
"Life" is just an emergent property of chemistry, baby...
Word to 'yo momma!
Posted by: Don Price | March 1, 2007 8:14 PM
didn't we go over the ridiculous "Woo" websites on the putative "left" when discussing the various inanities of Deepak head-in-anus Chopra?
to be sure, I agree with the argument that most of those claiming "conservative" status are really fooling themselves, and abusing the name "conservative" much like they abuse "darwinism", but there are plenty of like minded idiocies coming from folks who identify with the tag "liberal" as well (not NEARLY as many, but still).
rather, I think it's the idiots that have co-opted the term "conservative" just to try to apply a label that distracts from being called what they are: idiots.
much like they have co-opted the republican party itself, which has lead over the last 30 years to the observation that many putative "republicans" are idiots.
bottom line, an idiot smells the same, regardless of whether they wear red or blue ties.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 1, 2007 8:16 PM
Once I thought that was too vague, but today it seems like the best general description. Why not remove the concept of demarcation criteria, if they are so hard to pin down?
That would make science just an emergent property of observations. Falsifiability and other characteristics are just analogous to phenotypes.
Which probably makes philosophy and mathematics parasitic viruses that lives when they get into the host body but not on their own. :-)
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 1, 2007 8:58 PM
Dude. How do you create a Conservapedia account? I just dared to go there for the first time and would like to fix the grammar on a few articles (maybe some, you know, total bull, too, but the grammar bugs me most right now), but you have to log in, and there's no way to create an account. You can only log in. Do I have to prove my Republicanism before I can get one? Or are they totally exclusive now?
Posted by: Chinchillazilla | March 1, 2007 9:07 PM
David Marjanović, are you saying that you need heavy hardware to defeat the US military? That a determined enemy with small arms and improvised explosives would just crumble before the combined might of our US Army?
You should get a job with the Pentagon, since they are having quite a bit of trouble with that exact same situation in two seperate theaters.
Posted by: Bart | March 2, 2007 12:31 AM
I once had a roommate who was quite definitively a conservative intellectual. In that regard he was a bundle of contradictions -- well read on the one hand, but oblivious to the difference between an American and Irish accent (Bono's pronunciation of "without you" as "withoutchou" on "With or Without You" by U2 was a particular sticking point). It is indeed very curious how one can be widely read and well educated and still stuck within one's own paradigm.
Posted by: Brian X | March 2, 2007 2:49 AM
It is indeed very curious how one can be widely read and well educated and still stuck within one's own paradigm.
yeah, you should tell that to Michael Egnor, Francis Collins, and the dozens of others who seem to be suffering from severe cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 2, 2007 2:52 AM
PZ, you misunderstand. Conservatives believe that someone is "intellectual" if he (and it's almost always a he) can string together a sentence using words some of which have more than two syllables and many of which nobody has ever heard. William F. Buckley was a master at that. And they considered him to be an intellectual merely because of that.
Posted by: raj | March 2, 2007 8:43 AM
Nope. I'm just saying this tactic would lead to a horrendous body count and to unimaginable collateral damage. If you're willing to take that for the sake of principle, I must say I'm afraid of you.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 2, 2007 2:18 PM
I should have mentioned that under Saddam everyone had the right to bear arms, and most men did.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 2, 2007 2:19 PM
I should have mentioned that under Saddam everyone had the right to bear arms, and most men did have a Kalashnikov or something.
(I hope this doesn't become a double comment... I clicked the Cancel button...)
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 2, 2007 2:21 PM
"David Marjanović, are you saying that you need heavy hardware to defeat the US military? That a determined enemy with small arms and improvised explosives would just crumble before the combined might of our US Army?
You should get a job with the Pentagon, since they are having quite a bit of trouble with that exact same situation in two seperate theaters."
I suspect it'd probably be hard to mount an actual revolt in the United States without some tanks and planes and stuff. We may not be able to impose order abroad, but I think the military would be to defend against internal revolt.
I'm probably only commenting on this because I don't feel qualified to wade into the abiogenesis argument.
Posted by: Rob Coover | March 2, 2007 3:07 PM
Abie, it is DarwinCentral.org not *.com.
It consists of about 25% Conservative scientists (mostly Libertarians) and 75% scientifically literate laypeople who range from Libertarian to a bit left of centre (me).
Posted by: b_sharp | March 2, 2007 3:14 PM
I had a classmate that was studying Marine Biology on a Classical Music scholarship. Smart guy, I long ago lost track of him. While he was big into chaos theory (this was 1974) he also argued, passionately that 'Life is just water trying to defy gravity' I always liked that. An intersection between Gravity and Evolution.
Posted by: Kenneth Mareld | March 2, 2007 3:17 PM
There was a time--I swear it's true--when many if not most most conservatives were tough-minded realists who could look straight at the harsh realities of the world without blinking. But those days are long gone, and "Conservative Realist" has become, if not an oxymoron, then at least an endangered species.
Posted by: JohnK | March 2, 2007 3:45 PM
They are intellectually conservative because they conserve their intellects for later use...
...see also 'economical with the truth'.
Posted by: AJ Milne | March 3, 2007 1:34 AM
People like this call themselves "conservative" because it used to be a respectable political philosophy. It used to mean limited government, personal liberty, and sound fiscal policy. Just kidding. It never really was that. It was always big business and the captains of industry trying to impose their will on the masses. One of the best ways to do that was to keep them ignorant and in fear. That way they would cling to authority for protection.
Posted by: Jake | March 3, 2007 11:23 AM
Conservatives or libertarians?
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 3, 2007 2:03 PM
Are you sure that site isn't satire? The Google Ads sidebar gave me an ad for The God Who Wasn't There.
Posted by: arensb | March 19, 2007 10:45 PM
You call the website Conservapedia "an absurdity". I have a challenge for you. Please find one factual error in Conservapedia's theory of evolution article which is located here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution
I am betting you cannot find a single factual error in Conservapedia's theory of evolution article.
Posted by: Peter Moore | November 3, 2007 4:59 PM
The challenge in the previous post is for P.Z. Meyers.
Posted by: Peter Moore | November 3, 2007 5:01 PM
My apologies for misspelling of the name in the previous post. The challenge is for P.Z. Myers.
Posted by: Peter Moore | November 3, 2007 5:03 PM
Peter.
The conservapedia page on evolution is absurd. It actually says scientists that lived before the theory was formed never accepted the theory.
Gee they never accepted the theory of relativity or the existence of DNA either. They must also be unfounded theories too...
Pete, Don't be an idiot.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 3, 2007 5:27 PM
Steve C,
Does the Conservapedia article assert what you claim it asserts? I notice you did not provide a direct quote in terms of your assertion. Please remember the burden of proof is upon the claimant.
Posted by: Peter Moore | November 3, 2007 5:33 PM
Wow.
What a pile of garbage that entry is.
Let's put it this way...
Conservapedia is full of LIARS and FRAUDS and know nothing young earth creationists who have no idea what science requires.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 3, 2007 5:34 PM
Fine.
"None of the greatest intellectuals and scientists in history, from Archimedes to Aristotle to St. Augustine to Francis Bacon to Isaac Newton to Lord Kelvin ever proposed or accepted an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists rejected it."
Peter. Don't be an idiot like your friends at conservapedia.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 3, 2007 5:37 PM
Steve C,
Although I do not believe your comment can withstand scrutiny in terms of its accuracy, I do believe the sentence in question could provide more clarity and so the unnecessary "or" stucture of the sentence was removed and the sentence was made more direct.
Posted by: Peter Moore | November 3, 2007 5:52 PM
Steve C,
I see you did not provide any evidence that Conservapedia is full of frauds and liars. Your penchant for proof by mere assertion is duly noted.
Posted by: Peter moore | November 3, 2007 5:55 PM
The entry itself is proof enough.
Would you like to discuss young earth creationism Peter?
Posted by: Steve_C | November 3, 2007 6:00 PM
Clarity's not the issue. The issue is that it's a pointless, tautological statement. Before theory X was proposed, no great scientist proposed theory X. So what?
Posted by: MartinM | November 3, 2007 6:01 PM
Steve C,
By the way, is the reason you rely on providing "proof" by mere assertion in regards to your claim that Conservapedia is full of liars and frauds is because you cannot find a single factual error in Conservapedia's theory of evolution article which is located here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution
In short, is the Conservapedia is full of liars and frauds allegation a diversionary tactic used to cover up the matter that you are unable to find a single factual error in Conservapedia's theory of evolution article? Please lets not stray from the central issue I raised here through diversionary allegations which you do not support.
Lastly, I do wish to make it clear that Peter Moore is a pen name I wish to use at this website.
Posted by: peter moore | November 3, 2007 6:09 PM
"None of the greatest intellectuals and scientists in history, from Archimedes to Aristotle to St. Augustine to Francis Bacon ever proposed a theory of universal gravitation."
I wonder, is there an article on Intelligent Forcing in Conservapaedia?
PS: I see quote mining. Why do creationists rely on quotes instead of research? Oh, wait, because they don't do any research, except for looking for quotes which can be mined.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 3, 2007 6:12 PM
Infact the entry tries to portray our current understanding of evolution as not evolution at all but some diluted theory that isn't applicable.
Of course hitler and yec are also thrown into the post for good measure. Which have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
The list of reference links is hysterical, most are from AiG and the ICR... how funny is that!
Ok Petey.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 3, 2007 6:17 PM
"None of the greatest intellectuals and scientists in history, from Archimedes to Aristotle to St. Augustine to Francis Bacon to Isaac Newton to Lord Kelvin ever proposed or accepted Plate Tectonics.
Hey, this is fun!
Posted by: RamblinDude | November 3, 2007 6:40 PM
Dear Owl Mirror,
Did you see quote mining? Did you support your contention or are you merely relying on mere assertion?
By the way, I do not recall ever seeing a scholar use the term "quote mining". If you could attempt to be more scholarly in subsequent posts it would certainly be appreciated.
Posted by: peter moore | Nove