…and this is a 
Can your respect for Geoffrey Simmons plummet a little lower?
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 7, 2008 3:15 PM, by PZ Myers
Fresh from his recent reappearance on KKMS, where he debated me with a new strategy which gave him a slight chance of winning (i.e., one in which I was not present), Geoffrey Simmons is now crowing victory. It's very strange. Why would anyone with any sense think that demanding a 'debate' in which one is unopposed and has a sympathetic moderator and which suppresses audience input is in any way anything but an act of cowardice and intellectual bankruptcy?
This is posted on Evolution News and Views, the Discovery Institute's version of Pravda, but since they don't bother to link to any of my articles to which they specifically refer, and since they don't take comments themselves, I see no point in linking to them. Here is the complete text of Simmons' vainglorious howl of triumph.
Against Stupidity, God Himself Is Helpless - Old Jewish Proverb
Before the recent KKMS (MN radio) debate, Dr. P.Z. Myers blogged on Pharyngula that he would decimate me. Within minutes of the show's conclusion, he blogged that he accomplished his goal, never conceding a single point from an hour long show. It is worth one's while to read his blogs and those that follow as they readily speak to the character of these folks, much moreso than I could ever do. Richard Dawkins was also quick to compliment the professor and add to the feeding frenzy. Again, no concessions. They had their hearing aids turned off before the show even started.
Other than winning points for outright rudeness and making up fiction, what part of the debate did this tax-paid professor win? Could it be the five or so fossil pieces from dog-size animals that represent intermediate species between land animals and the quadrillion-cell whale with unexplained tons of blubber, communication skills that span thousands of miles, a windpipe separate from the esophagus (unheard of in land animals), segmental decompression, a heart the size of a Volkswagon, ability to dive thousands of meters deep or eat a krill diet? Or, was it the fact that a sperm and egg cell can unite to form a 10-75 trillion cell human being without going through 10-75 trillion trial and errors? Perhaps it was my misunderstanding of their ways of critiquing the theory of evolution? To me, it's like having your brother correct your homework. Lastly, where is the rule that says one has to have an alternative and provable explanation for the origin of life before one can criticise Darwinian thought? Cannot a child point to the leaks in a dam and warn people of an impending flood without any knowledge about dam construction? Their rule, this requirement, doesn't exist.
- Geoffrey Simmons, M.D.
Author of What Darwin Didn't Know and Billions of Missing Links
So much, so wrong.
We all had our hearing aids turned up, I assure you. How else could we laugh at Dr Simmons' remarks?
For a perfect example, look at his claims here: he claims the whale fossil series consists of "five or so fossil pieces from dog-size animals". Go ahead, look at any summary of the fossil evidence for whales; there are far more than 5 pieces, and the size of the animals ranged from a 100 pound deer-like beast to, well, whale-sized. You can also find nice diagrams of nasal drift — remember, Simmons claimed there was no evidence of blowholes in the fossils. There were no concessions to Simmons because Simmons was wrong on every point.
I've read his books, and as usual, he resorts to the litany of complexity to make his case. He doesn't stop to consider how all that complexity arose, just its existence is all he uses to claim justification for his claim of Intelligent Design creationism. That doesn't fly, Dr Simmons. We have mechanisms that generate such complexity and refine noise into functionality that do not require intelligent intervention. Sure, single-celled zygotes develop into organisms with many trillions of cells. We can study that and find lovely developmental mechanisms behind it; we can watch mitoses occur; we can find the molecular interactions that lead to differentiation. Telling me that there are lots of cells there does not support your apparent contention that they all poofed into existence with the assistance of a meddling cosmic superbeing, either phylogenetically or ontogenetically.
Oh, and little children who call up the National Guard and demand that we evacuate the town because the dam is leaking when they've never seen the dam, know nothing about how the dam is constructed, and have no evidence that it is leaking other than that the crotch of their pants are suddenly wet, are not brave heroes. They're petty liars seeking attention.
Comments
Hollow man, speaking hollow words about a sterile idea.
You can criticize Darwinian ideas as much as you like, but if you have nothing that leads to thought, research, and explanation, what is the point?
We criticize evolution in order to come up with something better. You criticize evolution because you hate it's very success at providing explanation and furthering science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 7, 2008 3:27 PM
how many trial and errors *does* it take to get to the tootsie-roll center of a tootsie-pop?
Posted by: Abbie | February 7, 2008 3:30 PM
Or, was it the fact that a sperm and egg cell can unite to form a 10-75 trillion cell human being without going through 10-75 trillion trial and errors?
So Dr Simmons says God makes people from sperm; evolution can make true because how can sperm turn into babies without God sending His angels to mold the sperm like clay in the mother's womb. That's so wonderfully medieval in its' thinking.
Lastly, where is the rule that says one has to have an alternative and provable explanation for the origin of life before one can criticise Darwinian thought?
So Simmons is saying ID is not an alternative explanation to evolution?
Posted by: Bob L | February 7, 2008 3:30 PM
owww, tat studip hurts badly. owww.
Posted by: danley | February 7, 2008 3:35 PM
Simmons is just pathetic. Notice how all his whale complexity points either involve soft tissue which doesn't fossilize (blubber, esophagus, heart) or they're behavioral (diving ability, communication). I guess he hopes this will make his points unassailable by those pesky fossils that he knows nothing about.
Posted by: Norm | February 7, 2008 3:36 PM
even the title of his screed is incorrect. I believe he meant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_Themselves
Posted by: SteveM | February 7, 2008 3:38 PM
"Again, no concessions."
And if PZ had made a single concession, even on the least significant of points, Doctor* Simmons would have crowed, "Even the dogmatic Darwinist Myers conceeded that...".
*I use the title "doctor" here with reservations, much as when referring to Drs. Dre, Zeus, John, or J.
Posted by: Tosser | February 7, 2008 3:39 PM
Simmons needs those little children to correct *his* homework. Then they can stick their finger in his complex specified blowhole.
Posted by: danley | February 7, 2008 3:44 PM
Note how he goes from the 4 or 5 examples of "Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodcetus, Basilosaurus, etc" that you offered, to saying that 4 or 5 fossils are all that there are (in the audio), to saying "five or so pieces".
Just for the hell of it, I Googled whale phylogeny:
http://www.archaeocete.org/Archaeocete%20Taxonomy.html
http://www.archaeocete.org/Barnes%20PhylogenySuborder3.jpg
Four or five, huh?
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 7, 2008 3:44 PM
@#6 --well what about that? "...God himself is helpless?" How can it be that the powers of an omnipotent deity could be so thoroughly thwarted by this all too common human flaw? Oh yeah, I forgot: 'free will'.
There are indeed some willfully stupid people in this scenario, but Simmons obviously doesn't realize he's one of them.
Posted by: DanioPhD | February 7, 2008 3:44 PM
Good grief! The DI can't even quote and attribute correctly.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen die Götter selbst vergebens"
- Friedrich Schiller's play "Jungfrau von Orleans" in 1801.
English Translation:
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
(English translation available from Project Gutenberg.)
-Richard
Posted by: Richard | February 7, 2008 3:45 PM
He actually sort-of concedes that. He's not saying that ID is an explanation. He's just contra-Darwin.
Ya-huh.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 7, 2008 3:47 PM
It is truly perplexing to the thinking mind how someone can be so inane. Sadly, I've know too many physicians like Simmons. Remember the "new" trend is evidenced based medicine (or fairly new). Apparently he disdains that as well. I apologize for the language 'cause it is so ingrained in common usage that even I can't seem to get away from it. God help his patients.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | February 7, 2008 3:48 PM
What on Earth was the " tax-paid Professor" comment relevant to? The insuation being, I presume, that because your salary is government funded that you should shut up and toe a more discreet line? Shutting government employees up is a strategy thats worked well throughout history in many countries like, um, Uganda, North Korea.
So sad to have wasted a perfectly good medical degree on such a twat.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | February 7, 2008 3:48 PM
Hearing aid = hearing aid designer.
Posted by: danley | February 7, 2008 3:48 PM
Thing is, he knows he lost. It's kind of sad, in a way. Kind of. He has a front to keep up, I suppose, so that even if he is slaughtered in a debate it is better to pretend victory rather than slouch about round-shouldered like.
Not only does he know he lost, but so does everyone who heard the debate. His is a lonely place. But he's gotta sell his books, eh?
Debate him again... please... this time don't let him leave until he's surrendered...
Posted by: Jit | February 7, 2008 3:48 PM
Good grief! The DI can't even quote and attribute correctly.
Well, of course not. If they were good researchers, they'd be evolutionists.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 7, 2008 3:51 PM
Credit where credit is due: the phrase "five or so fossil pieces from dog-size animals" is pretty damn funny all by itself.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 7, 2008 3:54 PM
I hope in the future Mr. Simmons finds a complete lack of respect from any parties forced to speak with him. Anyone so trapped should promptly call him out on his interpretation of the debate and make him answer his ridiculous claims of "five or so fossil pieces from dog-size animals", etc.
Posted by: Schmeer | February 7, 2008 3:56 PM
Does this idiot really believe god directs the development of each fetus in the womb? There is a whole field that figured this out, developmental biology.
It god is needed for humans, he is needed for all metazoans, cockroaches, flies, nematodes, sponges, trees and so on. I don't know how many living entities are on earth at any given time, must be trillions or quadrillions at least.
You'd think god would get bored of supervising the egg morphogenesis and metamorphosis of billions of ants and cockroaches, not to mention the other 80 million of so species.
Maybe Simmons is just nuts.
I'm finding it hard to believe he is really an MD. How old is he? Must have gotten his MD in the stone age or from a bible college or something.
Posted by: raven | February 7, 2008 3:57 PM
One wonders if Simmons is similary incredulous of, e.g., the size of the sun.
"100 times bigger than earth?!? Let's be serious. Anyone can see it's no bigger than the moon."
Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 7, 2008 3:58 PM
Shutting government employees up is a strategy thats worked well throughout history in many countries like, um, Uganda, North Korea.
It's not unknown in the US as well. Remember the exhibit on the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian that caused so much controversy? The curator was fired and all projects he was involved with terminated. And Bush made a couple of not-so-veiled threats against scientists who dared support his opponents. But this sort of thing is generally considered to be a problem, rather than a solution, in the US.
Posted by: Dianne | February 7, 2008 3:59 PM
You'd think god would get bored of supervising the egg morphogenesis and metamorphosis of billions of ants and cockroaches
He does. That's when he supervises a cheetah tearing out the beating heart of an antelope.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 7, 2008 3:59 PM
"Cannot a child point to the leaks in a dam and warn people of an impending flood without any knowledge about dam construction?"
Well, yes, they can. But there is nothing constructive in a child pointing to the outflow torrent of a hydroelectric dam and jumping up and down, screaming "I TOLD YOU! I TOLD YOU IT'S BROKEN!"
Then when adults try to calm the child, tell him he doesn't understand, he crams his fingers in his ears and bites and kicks at the adults.
Hmmmm... perhaps there's more to his analogy than we thought.
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | February 7, 2008 4:00 PM
"Cannot a child point to the leaks in a dam and warn people of an impending flood without any knowledge about dam construction?"
Love the 19th century syntax.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 7, 2008 4:01 PM
PZ, I recommend taking your hour of uninterrupted time on KKMS and reciting the names and details of whale fossils for fifty minutes, in effect hanging Simmons with his own rope. For your closing argument, say something to the effect of, "And that's just one way in which Geoffrey is wrong. Tune in tomorrow when I spend an hour describing the similarities between the chimpanzee brain and the human brain. Next week I'll be covering...."
We need to take one of these shitheads and make an example of them. Beat them so severely and tenaciously with their own arguments until they are a shivering, quivering wreck of a human being so thoroughly shattered that they'll run screaming in fear the next time they're approached for the time of day at a bus stop, let alone another debate with a scientist.
And then we get mean.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 7, 2008 4:04 PM
Lastly, where is the rule that says one has to have an alternative and provable explanation for the origin of life before one can criticise Darwinian thought
Lastly, where is the rule that says one has to have an alternative and provable explanation for the origin of raisins before one can criticize the theory of dessication?
Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 7, 2008 4:04 PM
Yeah, did you realize, Simmons, that tax-paid forensics labs actually infer common ancestry from DNA comparisons for court cases? And that tax-paid judges agree to use that sort of evidence in court cases?
I guess the tax paid people ought to be inferring magic from similarities, according to you, Simmons. That way we can go back to burning witches, since they're the cause of similarities between black cats and humans, and all of those LOLcats pictures.
You'd be willing to be burnt as a witch to advance ID, wouldn't you Simmons?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 7, 2008 4:08 PM
I'm finding it hard to believe he is really an MD.
Unfortunately, I'm not so incredulous. Many MDs have no concept of how science works.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 7, 2008 4:09 PM
Poor Simmons. That hole in his head must not be properly sealed with mucus.
His level of willful ignorance must require constant, daily effort. The kind of effort that a normal person would only exert during, say, extreme constipation. We all deal with that pretty often, though. On account of all that mucus.
Posted by: October Mermaid | February 7, 2008 4:09 PM
Are you sure? I thought he spent his coffee breaks supervising drug resistant malaria, TB, and HIV, and inventing new species of tapeworms.
Posted by: raven | February 7, 2008 4:12 PM
And you're left wondering if you wasted your time there, as he's going to go off and tell everyone how right he was in any case. Perhaps you should debate in a clown suit next time, to avoid imparting any sheen of legitimacy.
Posted by: grendelkhan | February 7, 2008 4:13 PM
To be fair to Dr. Simmons, for whom I have spared few kind words thus far, I've seen "Against stupidity; God Himself is helpless" in several compilations of Jewish proverbs. I imagine this proverb prefigures Shiller's usage by quite a few centuries. (I imagine it, but I can't prove it at the moment.)
BTW, you nay-sayers! Whales are dog-sized, for a given definition of "dog".
Posted by: Kseniya | February 7, 2008 4:13 PM
I thought he spent his coffee breaks supervising drug resistant malaria, TB, and HIV, and inventing new species of tapeworms.
God watches YouPorn videos on his coffee breaks.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 7, 2008 4:14 PM
"lastly, where is the rule that says one has to have an alternative and provable explanation for the origin of life before one can criticise Darwinian thought"
It's called the scientific method. The rules are there. What Simmons does is not science. No,a family practice or ob-gyn clinic is not practicing science. It's squeezing insurance companies. I would bet the majority of his patients are Medicare/Medicaid, how would that make him any different from those of us who earn our livings teaching in higher ed? He doesn't even need to do good medicine. He can take 5 minutes per patient, ten if their 8-9 months along, then pawn them off on his nurse practicioner or PA. In fact he doesn't even need to see them at all if he has those.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | February 7, 2008 4:15 PM
Whales are dog-sized, for a given definition of "dog".
Kseniya is, as always, correct. Here is the source for her assertion.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 7, 2008 4:17 PM
"Buh...buh...but he was so MEAN! And whales are like, really BIG! I read about 'em in Scientific American! *insert those mewling noises that Joel Hodgson did for Arch Hall Jr.'s voice in Eegah!*"
But remember, we must always argue politely and substantially with these buttholes, from the wisest professor on down to the lowliest blog commenter.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 7, 2008 4:19 PM
I've come to the conclusion, by the way, that Dr. Simmons' brain is sealed with mucous.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 7, 2008 4:22 PM
Posted by: Wicked Lad | February 7, 2008 4:25 PM
I still find it funny how the topic got changed because he, a doctor, required it. PZ is simply a tax-paid professor, his opinions don't count as much as those of a doctor. Given how one of them seems to have rejected modern medicine I'm surprised that they are in such awe of that title.
Posted by: Mena | February 7, 2008 4:26 PM
"Against Stupidity, God Himself Is Helpless."
Stupidity, thy name is Simmons.
Posted by: Joe Mc Faul | February 7, 2008 4:26 PM
And that tells you what you need to know. To him, it doesn't matter that you criticized his arguments on the grounds that the factswholly and completely contradicted him, but rather that he thought you, and apparently Richard Dawkins, are just not very nice people. What he still fails to grasp is that even if you were a giant prick in the debate, it doesn't change for one second the truthfulness of anything you said concerining his ignorance of the fossil record and, more importantly, the conclusions he's drawing from his inaccurate conception of the fossil record.
I honestly don't understand how these people's minds work. Someone shows you that you're wrong and you close your eyes and ears and say, "well, that wasn't very nice of you. So you're wrong."
Posted by: Scooty Puff, Jr. | February 7, 2008 4:30 PM
Great catch, Wicked Lad, I just skimmed by that stuff figuring that it at least at a second grade level of science knowledge. If this guy's field was either gastroenterology or pulmonology I can understand why this guy is probably no longer practicing medicine!
Posted by: Mena | February 7, 2008 4:32 PM
I don't think this guy really even believes what he says. He can't possibly be THAT stupid, can he? He's probably just stubborn and doesn't want to look bad to the other IDiots.
Posted by: sacredchao | February 7, 2008 4:32 PM
Oooh... he really got your there, PZ. Working for a school that receives government funding makes you extra eeeeeevil.
Posted by: Chuck C | February 7, 2008 4:32 PM
Or, was it the fact that a sperm and egg cell can unite to form a 10-75 trillion cell human being without going through 10-75 trillion trial and errors?
Does he think humans evolve from single celled organisms in the womb???!? Over and over again?? WTF
Posted by: Drekab | February 7, 2008 4:34 PM
Posted by: H. Humbert | February 7, 2008 4:34 PM
I would have laughed too if "crotch" weren't singular and "are" plural. It's a curse, I tell you.
Posted by: noncarborundum | February 7, 2008 4:38 PM
Gotta marvel the gall. You! Evil professors who try to figure out how things work from the simplest unit to the most complex system! You lie to us with your experiements, your results and your inquisition!
Any conscious, thinking person can see that these complexities are best explained by unseen, unknown, unknowable, non-involved entities without finitie form possessing infinite power!
Not sure he noticed his argument was dumber than he could have possibly imagined. It's not likely he did because he continues to profer it with abandon.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 7, 2008 4:40 PM
Re: trachea vs. esophagus. Again, to be fair, I think it's pretty clear that he means "completely separate" - you know, like how our PERFECTLY DESIGNED trachea and esophagus SHOULD be. **snarkle**
We have perfect binocular vision, mouths below our noses, no eyes in our feet, reproductive systems that usually work, and we can choke to death on a grape.
How divine!
Posted by: Kseniya | February 7, 2008 4:44 PM
Brownian (#26), I like your style. IDCers are always going on about how mean we are. What they don't seem to realise is that we've actually been pulling our punches. Time for the gloves to come off.
Posted by: MH | February 7, 2008 4:46 PM
Re: Tax-paid.
Another revealing choice. As I wrote on the "amused" thread, what place does the politics of resentment have in this debate?
Brownian: You know me too well. ;-)
Posted by: Kseniya | February 7, 2008 4:48 PM
Such bold faced lies are what I've come to expect from the IDiots.
His arguments are so insane, it makes one wonder if Dr. Simmons is on drugs. Not a far fetched possibility considering an MD's access to meds. If he were, at least he would have that as an excuse.
I cannot imagine the embarassment I would feel if i presented arguements like Dr. Simmons to even my close friends.
Dr. Simmons should just go home, check kids for ear wax, and forget he though he knew anything about god, creations, morality, or even a tiny aspect of evoltuion.
Posted by: Andy James | February 7, 2008 4:51 PM
Can someone who knows anatomy better than I do tell me if my windpipe is separate from my esophagus? And am I a land animal?
I read that too, and thought, what a profoundly stupid assertion to make.
Stupid rarely knows when to shut up in the presence of wisdom.
This guy's an MD? Truly a frightening prospect. I think he's mistaking a windpipe for that hole in his ass he uses for "debating."
Posted by: brandonr | February 7, 2008 4:54 PM
@#50:...and we can choke to death on a grape.How divine!
Yes! Unlike most other mammels and even human babies where the crossover occurs where it would be virtually impossible to get food "down the wrong pipe". Seems like a perfectly designed way to enable speech to me!
Not.
There is really nothing about human anatomy that seems very well designed, it is all one huge mind bottling kluge. (yes I said "bottling")
Posted by: SteveM | February 7, 2008 5:03 PM
@Brownian #26:
Couldn't agree more! No quarter for this foolishness!
PZ, you can't let this guy even pretend to retain any credibility. Make him an example to other "poor students".
I think you should keep on him until he either overtly admits that he's an idiot or, at least, slinks away in tacit admission.
Don't let up!
Chris
Posted by: Xopher | February 7, 2008 5:10 PM
And speaking of dog-size cetaceans...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaquita
Posted by: Kseniya | February 7, 2008 5:11 PM
Yes, but can't you see that we are perfectly designed for the Heimlich maneuver, and, therefore, we have the Heimlich maneuver?
Or...something like that...Praise Jesus!!
Posted by: RamblinDude | February 7, 2008 5:15 PM
#54 Be fair to the good doctor, he didn't get the bit about whale throats wrong. Irrelevant perhaps, but cetacean trachea and esophagus are completely separated. So no chance of choking, but no opportunity to pant.
Posted by: thaumas | February 7, 2008 5:23 PM
To those like Geoffrey Simmons who find problems with TOE and fail to offer any viable, realisitic answers of their own,I would suggest this.
If you do not like the theory of evolution,earn a PhD in Biology, gather evidence for the alternative theory of your choice and convince other scientists of your ideas. When your theory gains acceptance among the scientific community, then and only then, will we be convinced.
Until then keep your mindless rantings to your self or show us some real evidence.
Posted by: jonboy | February 7, 2008 5:25 PM
"Cannot a child point to the leaks in a dam and warn people of an impending flood without any knowledge about dam construction?"
It's funny Simmons should say that, because he inadvertently stumbled onto a wonderful analogy. When people go on tours of the Hoover Dam, they often express concern over water in the tunnels. It is pointed out (by dam experts) that those "leaks" are normal seepage, and nothing to be worried about. Geoffrey Simmons is the child who screams that those leaks warn of impending flood, because he didn't pay attention to the dam tour guide. Perhaps if he knew something about dams, he wouldn't cause a panic.
Posted by: Eisnel | February 7, 2008 5:26 PM
"Lastly, where is the rule that says one has to have an alternative and provable explanation for the origin of life before one can criticise Darwinian thought?"
I'll echo what some others have said. Usually the scientific attitude toward unsolved problems is that we look for solutions, not throw up our hands and say "God did it!". The latter would be much like computer scientists proving P != NP by saying "just because."
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | February 7, 2008 5:31 PM
It's pretty easy to heap scorn on the mealy-mouthed ID snake-oil salesman, Geoffry Simmons, but not enough has been said about the KKMS radio folks (Jeff Sell, Lee Michaels, and the producers of KKMS programming) whose action is despicable. To recall Simmons on their show for a phantom one-sided "debate" is less than disingenuous. Is this the Christian standard? I.e. - if we don't get the results we want, we'll just keep pushing our side until the other side is forgotten.
I wonder if they will invite PZ back on air to review the scientific findings about whale evolution and the other issues?
Posted by: David Denning | February 7, 2008 5:36 PM
Is this the Christian standard?
When it comes to the theocratic media industry, yes. But, if it's done in Jesus' name (his name is all that matters, really) it's all ok.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 7, 2008 5:41 PM
This is interesting. It'll be lost on the fundies since they know they're not interested in actual science as much as fighting their favourite demon of the last century, but any sensible observer aware of this would start questioning the DishonestIdiots' motives. Firstly, are they promoting ID as a real alternative to the ToE, or are they just angry with evolution and will latch onto any supposed refutation? If it's the former, then why do they have an individual who claims not to have "an alternative and provable explanation" as one of their senior fellows? Wouldn't they want a cdesign proponistsist? This seems to me to be tantamount to a local chapter of the Shriners appointing an individual to head up the organisation not because he's a Shriner but because he's an anti-Rotarian.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 7, 2008 5:42 PM
David Denning: Yes, that does appear to be the standard. Honestly. For those of us who leave Christianity, it is just plain shocking to discover the depth and consistency of the lies.
I am just fascinated that Simmons thinks his examples (or whatever one would call them) could possibly point to intelligent design. How does the fact that animals have eyes above their noses bespeak design on the one hand, but that whales have a "windpipe separate from the esophagus" be evidence on the other hand? Are things being similar the evidence? Different? I honestly can't see what point he's trying to make. Where is the argument for INTELLIGENCE? Is complexity, however jury-rigged and haphazard de facto evidence for intelligence? Is following a single template evidence, or is startling originality in various species? He seems to want to have it all ways, but at every point I see modification with descent to be a far more satisfying answer. I literally can't figure out what his case is supposed to be.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | February 7, 2008 5:46 PM
It's been a reasonably effective strategy for the last millenium and a half, at least in the Western world.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 7, 2008 5:47 PM
Just found this on "The Panda's Thumb" in response to another ID assertion... (I think it's interesting)
Posted by: RamblinDude | February 7, 2008 5:49 PM
I have a question of semantics, and it's as appropriate here as anywhere else, since it's an issue about how Creationists/ID folks frame the debate.
Is it even logical to call folks who understand and accept the ToE Darwinists? Are there any physicists here who call themselves Newtonists? Likewise, I don't know of anyone who refers to herself as a gravitationist.
Just wondering.
Posted by: ZenMonkey | February 7, 2008 5:50 PM
No, and it's a good observation. It seems the fundies can't comprehend that science is built on the work of thousands of individuals contributing their small pieces of the overall puzzle through the years. Instead, they imagine it's some sort of cult in which the adherents must idolise someone and treat everything they say as divine revelation (I wonder where that concept comes from)?
You can be reasonably sure that anyone who knows anything at all about evolution and endorses the theory does not refer to themselves as a 'Darwinist' any more than those in the comparative examples you cited.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 7, 2008 6:00 PM
Right! Which is why our bellies aren't protected by ribs, leaving us more vulnerable to serious internal injuries! It's a small price to pay for a maneuver that compensates for the stoopid design of the esophagus and trachea!
I'd like to point out that the ability to perform the Heimlich maneuver is unheard of in cetaceans. I can't speak for the cephalopods.
Posted by: Kseniya | February 7, 2008 6:02 PM
I thought the proponentsists were no fans of Haeckel, so why does Simmons think that ontogeny should recapitulate phylogeny?
He got the "land animals" part wrong, though. Insect trachea are pretty separate from the esophagus...
Posted by: windy | February 7, 2008 6:03 PM
Back at ya #29: "Many MDs have no concept of how science works."
I TA a lot of pre-meds. There was a lovely moment the other day where I explained to him -exactly- why he needed to learn and understand statistics.
"You mean they use statistics to figure out which drugs -work-?"
...sigh...
Posted by: katie | February 7, 2008 6:06 PM
Hey-
Has anyone listened to "Dr." Simmons' latest appearance on KKMS? I searched for it in the archives- it was there yesterday (the listing without audio), but I can't find it today. I've got the flu and my brain's a bit rattled as a result, but it looks like the radio station pulled his last appearance from their archive. Can someone direct me to where I can hear it? If they did pull it, that action speaks volumes.
Posted by: FredG | February 7, 2008 6:09 PM
"You mean they use statistics to figure out which drugs -work-?"
*jaw drops*
OK, so I was stunned into silence by someone saying, "You mean there hasn't always been AIDS," but that's just amazing.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 7, 2008 6:10 PM
Oh, but Windy - insects aren't "animals" to a Noahist.
Posted by: Kseniya | February 7, 2008 6:11 PM
Simmons is another blithering pseudointellectual trying to hold out against the tide of knowledge, reason, and modernity.
Posted by: James | February 7, 2008 6:12 PM
Regarding my last post- never mind! I found it.
Posted by: FredG | February 7, 2008 6:12 PM
I literally can't figure out what his case is supposed to be.
I can tell you that: he doesn't have to make a case. He wants to swamp the scientifically illiterate masses with obfuscating rhetoric that sounds like official and valid protestations, knowing that his audience won't be able to tell whether there is any content to his message at all. And he will garner support from them, because they will look no further than to observe that the people he sides with praise jesus, and we don't.
(Yeah, I know you knew this already, but it bears repeating)
Posted by: RamblinDude | February 7, 2008 6:15 PM
So... Two good ol' boys are sitting at a table in a saloon, having a sandwich and a beer. Suddenly there's a commotion over at another table: a young lady is on her feet, in distress, apparently choking on a bit of food. One of the fellahs gets up out of his chair, strides over the gal, lifts the back hem of her skirt and lays a long, wet lick on her butt! She's so shocked, she coughs up the offending chunk of chow, and is saved! As our boy saunters back to his table he drawls, "Well, Ah'll be damned if that Hahnd Lick maneuver don't work ever' tahm!"
Posted by: Lone Star Kseniya | February 7, 2008 6:15 PM
Bears? Bares?
Posted by: RamblinDude | February 7, 2008 6:16 PM
I'd like to point out that the ability to perform the Heimlich maneuver is unheard of in cetaceans. I can't speak for the cephalopods.
More evidence of bad design. With only two arms, humans perform the Heimlich manoeuvre poorly, resulting in injury and occasional death. On the other tentacle, cephalopods with their many arms perform the Heimlich using a smooth peristaltic motion. The evidence is clear: the existence of the Heimlich manoeuvre among humans indicates we are a transitional species on our way to cephalopodism.
You mean they use statistics to figure out which drugs -work-?
So sad. Med school friends of mine expressed shock at how many of their classmates were evolution-denying fundies.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 7, 2008 6:17 PM
@69
It seems to me that scientists and those who support the theory of biological evolution are all dubbed 'Darwinists' in order for creationists and CDesign Proponentsists to be able create strawman and ad homonym attacks.
It is so they can attack the credibility of all scientists simply by attacking Darwin.
This fixation on Darwin also serves to identify their lack of any science what-so-ever by ignoring the 140+ years of research since Darwin's Origins.... They can't compete with insurmountable evidence creating a unified theory of life science, so they attack the man, which leads them to speak pejoratively of Darwinists.
Posted by: Brodie | February 7, 2008 6:20 PM
Pet peeve. It's a post on a blog, not multiple blogs. See how teh stupid seeps into every pore of this fool's being?
Posted by: garth | February 7, 2008 6:20 PM
Really Brodie? "Ad homonym attacks"?
Scientist: "You see, the evolution of the whale fluke can be demonstrated via..."
Cdesign Proponentsist: "There you Darwinists go again, citing random luck...."
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 7, 2008 6:24 PM