Pharyngula

I don’t hate Jonathan Wells

I despise him.

He’s an ignorant buffoon and a professional liar. I hate what he does in his attempts to corrupt public education, but as a human being, I find him simply contemptible.

I just had to set the record straight. He seems to be taking pride in who hates him, but there really is nothing there that elevates him to the level of hate-worthy; he’s just a sloppy ideologue who faked his way through a degree program.

Comments

  1. #1 Glen Davidson
    March 5, 2008

    Yes, it seems rather difficult to hate a weasel, a windbag, or the chaff shorting out electrical currents and meaningful signals. One could hate, say, Reverend Moon, because he’s a powerful jackass sending out weasels and chaff to harm others and enhance his own power, but the weasel, the chaff? Please, they’re just doing what any force of nature does.

    Despicable, contemptible cockroaches they may be, but one only wants to step on them, one does not hate them. There isn’t enough substance to J. Wells to hate, he’s just a vacuous conduit for the lies of the powerful, a stooge for people who have enough power and knowledge to be evil. He has neither the power nor the knowledge (he has many facts, like Ben Stein, but neither has knowledge of which they speak) to be a force of evil, he simply has the ability to be a tool for his evil god.

    There does seem to be a great deal of mistaking, or possibly just hoping, on the forums that our contempt for ignorant liars makes them into some sort of powerful individuals. That’s a major driver for those who push ID, I think. We do feed their egos by engaging them, however we’d feed their egos even more if we allowed them to get away with their lies, or worse, treated them with respect.

    J. Wells simply will have to cling to his illusions that he’s a substantial person, even as we shred the shit-covered cloak covering his dishonesty, vacuity, and near-total lack of understanding of the facts that he did manage to collect even while he denied their implications.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  2. #2 themadlolscientist
    March 5, 2008

    From the Sandwalk: “Wells posted an article about the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and claimed that the authors (Maurice et al. 2008) did not make use of evolution in their study.”

    So…… The Omnipotent, Beneficent Intelligent Designer (who will here remain anonymous so we can continue to pretend we’re not basing our “theory” on some particularly bad religious notions) said, “I think I’ll make some antibiotic-resistant bacteria today, just to keep things interesting……. BAM!!!!!”?

    Yeah. Right.

  3. #3 ld
    March 5, 2008

    He should know that pride is a sin in the christian lexicon. If he’s going to go to all of the trouble of advocating a complicated code, he should at least pretend to follow it.

  4. #4 CalGeorge
    March 5, 2008

    Count me in:

    Jonathan Wells, I despise you! I’m not a scientist but I despise the way you spread ignorance and prey on people’s gullibility and misinform them about the world of science.

    People detest you for good reason, you clueless bastard.

    It’s too bad none of this will get through to you. Enjoy your phoney martyrdom, asshole.

  5. #5 Holbach
    March 5, 2008

    Like you PZ, I cannot stomach this cretin after trying to
    listen to his insane rantings on various debates with
    rational speakers, the last one with Michael Shermer last
    year. Several people in the audience put him in his place,
    but this did not faze the moron, as he kept ranting on
    incoherently with his assinine beliefs. It is probably
    better to keep one’s composure and just avoid listening
    and looking at this idiot on all venues.

  6. #6 Rey Fox
    March 5, 2008

    What a douchebag. And a Moonie. We ought to mention that every time we mention him. “Intelligent design proponent and Moonie Jonathan Wells said on Tuesday that…”

    I suppose that would be an ad hominem attack though. Ah, so what? He follows a deranged cult leader.

  7. #7 wÒÓ†
    March 5, 2008
  8. #8 Brownian, OM
    March 5, 2008

    So, the creationist community has proved to be devoid of morality, ethics, scientific integrity, etc.

    So what the fuck use are they? Are they even good for fertiliser? ‘Cause I’ve got a ficus that’s looking a little sickly.

  9. #9 Aquaria
    March 5, 2008

    From the Sandwalk: “Wells posted an article about the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and claimed that the authors (Maurice et al. 2008) did not make use of evolution in their study.”
    So…… The Omnipotent, Beneficent Intelligent Designer (who will here remain anonymous so we can continue to pretend we’re not basing our “theory” on some particularly bad religious notions) said, “I think I’ll make some antibiotic-resistant bacteria today, just to keep things interesting……. BAM!!!!!”?
    Yeah. Right.

    Oh, it can get better than that.

    I had the chance to look at some of the Christian home school science “textbooks.” They can make even crazier claims.

    My favorite: George Washington Carver didn’t come up with using peanuts for crop rotation from any scientific principle or observation or deduction. Nope, God gave him the idea. Whispered the idea in his ear, so to speak. I kid you not, that’s what one of the creationist “science textbooks” actually said (Abeka, I think). And that was one of the saner texts available at our local fundie home school coalition bookstore!

  10. #10 Chris
    March 5, 2008

    So, PZ, tell us how you really feel.

  11. #11 June
    March 5, 2008

    Attacking the person is easily dismissed as ad hominem.

    What is a good response to JW’s claim that the French study used artificial selection?

  12. #12 Stanton
    March 5, 2008

    I personally regard Mr Wells with a high degree of revulsion mixed with pity. Mostly revulsion.

    And I stand by my statement that he has yet to earn the title “Laughingstock of Biologists,” until he has actually attempted to do and or learn Biology to begin with. Once he has attempted to do actual Biology, he can then try to wrest that title from Trofim Lysenko.

    So, the creationist community has proved to be devoid of morality, ethics, scientific integrity, etc.

    So what the fuck use are they? Are they even good for fertiliser? ‘Cause I’ve got a ficus that’s looking a little sickly.

    Not unless you want your ficus to die an agonizing death that would be commemorated in song for a thousand years.

  13. #13 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 5, 2008

    What is a good response to JW’s claim that the French study used artificial selection?

    Where’s the difference?

    So what the fuck use are they?

    Nobody is useless — they can always serve as a bad example.

  14. #14 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 5, 2008

    What is a good response to JW’s claim that the French study used artificial selection?

    Where’s the difference?

    So what the fuck use are they?

    Nobody is useless — they can always serve as a bad example.

  15. #15 Christophe Thill
    March 5, 2008

    “What is a good response to JW’s claim that the French study used artificial selection?”

    The best short answer would be a strong epithet.

    If we really must wait some more time and efforts about this, I’d say that the question is pointless because there is no pertinent difference between artificial and natural selection. I think a guy called Darwin explained this in detail, long ago. If “artificial” selection consists in creating selective conditions and looking at who thrives and who dies out, well, where’s the diffrence with natural conditions?

    (If I’m not mistaken, of course)

  16. #16 Dan
    March 5, 2008

    So what the fuck use are they? Are they even good for fertiliser? ‘Cause I’ve got a ficus that’s looking a little sickly.

    Posted by: Brownian, OM

    If you’d like to have a bit of fun, I suggest you see if you can get some of the creotards to organize a prayer-circle for your sickly ficus. Just make sure you refer to the dying plant as a member of your household.

  17. #17 thickslab
    March 5, 2008

    What a douchebag. And a Moonie. We ought to mention that every time we mention him. “Intelligent design proponent and Moonie Jonathan Wells said on Tuesday that…”

    I suppose that would be an ad hominem attack though. Ah, so what? He follows a deranged cult leader.

    No, that’s not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem argument would be one that claims that Wells is wrong because he is a Moonie. Simply stating that he’s a Moonie is not ad hominem.

    So, PZ, tell us how you really feel.

    Was that joke ever funny?

  18. #18 BC
    March 5, 2008

    Well, he’s earned the contempt of the scientific community and worked hard to get it. You would think that self-respect, if nothing else, would be a reason for him to stay within the parameters of the science he was taught. Just a waste of education, all in the name of pulling the wool over the eyes of people who do respect him.

  19. #19 defectiverobot
    March 5, 2008

    themadlolscientist,

    Well, he (OBID) did put the stars in the sky to make us “wonder.”

    No, I’m not kidding.

    That was the response of an ardent Christian to my query as to why there are stars.

    This is what we’re dealing with, folks.

  20. #20 Don
    March 5, 2008

    Glen D,

    What have you got against weasels? They are clean, intelligent and good parents. I have no information on Well’s personal hygiene or parenting skills, but on intelligence alone the comparison fails. And I’ll bet he can’t do a cool war-dance.

    Also, the collective term is ‘boogle’, which has to be a plus for any critter.

    What is the collective term for creationists?

  21. #21 khan
    March 5, 2008

    Also, the collective term is ‘boogle’, which has to be a plus for any critter.

    What is the collective term for creationists?

    Steaming pile?

  22. #22 Stanton
    March 5, 2008

    What is the collective term for creationists?

    Flock of creationists.

  23. #23 J-Dog
    March 5, 2008

    Referring to him as John The Moonie Wells is not an ad hominum attack.

    He IS a Moonie, and his name IS Wells. It only accurately labels him, it does not libel him.

  24. #24 Atomic Chimp
    March 5, 2008

    The principle researcher for the French study did not say Artificial Selection, he said they used, “selective pressure to obtain mutants of the enzyme…” Selective Pressure is more indirect process and not like selective breeding as Wells mentioned. It uses outside conditions to push and poke something to mutate in a particular direction through its natural response to these conditions. In my opinion Selective Pressure is very much like RM & NS. Wells is just trying to change the wording in an attempt to make it look less like Darwinian evolution. By using this term it implies that an intelligent agent, like a breeder or scientist, is needed to directly guide the mutation instead of being guided through a response to conditions.

  25. #25 Laura
    March 5, 2008

    from Sandwalk: “So the researchers used artificial selection to good advantage. But artificial selection is not Darwinism. People were using artificial selection for centuries before Darwin came along, and they didn’t need Darwin to explain it to them.”

    Artificial Selection has nothing to do with Darwin? This is news…

  26. #26 Stanton
    March 5, 2008

    Just to get technical, Atomic Chimp, “Darwinian Evolution” also covers Artificial Selection, too, as Darwin did observe how animal breeders created new breeds of pigs, dogs and pigeons, as well as modify existing breeds.

  27. #27 minimalist
    March 5, 2008

    Gravity worked just fine for centuries. We didn’t need Newton to explain it to us!

    And as for collective terms: how about “a scum of creationists”?

  28. #28 GodlessHeathen
    March 5, 2008

    I think the collective for creationists should be “claptrap”. “A claptrap of creationists.”

  29. #29 jeh
    March 5, 2008

    Being contradicted is considered to be persecution by many of the religious right. Actually it’s worse than that, the idea that someone somewhere might hold ideas contrary to one’s beliefs is evidence of persecution. Tell some ev-fundy that they are wrong to discriminate against people because their sexual orientation (or whatever), and they are apt to complain that they are being persecuted for their Christian beliefs.

    “Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I’m being repressed.”

    Well, we feel for you. We’re playing the world’s saddest song on the world’s smallest violin.

  30. #30 Atomic Chimp
    March 5, 2008

    Thanks Stanton! I was aware that Darwin observed animal breeding. I was purposing a possible reason why Wells might misrepresented what was said. I suspect that by putting the scientist in the process of selecting, instead of in the setting up of the condition to promote the mutation though a response, Wells might have felt it would seem less like random RM & NS. All too often I see Pro-ID cdesign proponentsists use this method to misrepresent the facts to better fit their points.

  31. #31 Glen Davidson
    March 5, 2008

    What is the collective term for creationists?

    A muddle of creationists?

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  32. #32 jeh
    March 5, 2008

    It’s a little off topic but check out the new web site of the recently “persecuted” @
    http://IntellectualHonesty.info/

    Note that “persecution” does get you an agent and $1000/lecture, or $1500/weekend, or better still, five grand for four talks! Cool!

  33. #33 Janine
    March 5, 2008

    Is the Atomic Chimp as funky as the Atomic Dog?

  34. #34 Janine
    March 5, 2008

    Atomic Chimp, I hope you understand, I am not making fun of you.

  35. #35 Carlie
    March 5, 2008

    I like flock of creationists, both because it describes their behavior so well and because it plays on the Flock of Dodos movie.

  36. #36 Atomic Chimp
    March 5, 2008

    Funkadelic!

  37. #37 Rey Fox
    March 5, 2008

    Yeah, but most of them are all too proud of being members of a “flock”.

    “Simply stating that he’s a Moonie is not ad hominem.”

    Yeah, but I would only mention it to cast doubt on his mental competency.

  38. #38 asw
    March 5, 2008

    As yes, the artificial selection argument.

    If I may be so bold as to make a prediction, the next attempt at subverting science on ideologic grounds, after ID has been so thoroughly relegated to the dustbin of history that even its proponents recognize the futility of it, will be. . . .

    Intelligent Selector Theory.

    I will not attempt to predict whether this transition in strategy will occur over a historic, geologic, or cosmological time scale. All I can say is everything I know about the people in question suggests that it will be arbitarily very long.

  39. #39 Stanton
    March 5, 2008

    I was aware that Darwin observed animal breeding. I was purposing a possible reason why Wells might misrepresented what was said. I suspect that by putting the scientist in the process of selecting, instead of in the setting up of the condition to promote the mutation though a response, Wells might have felt it would seem less like random RM & NS. All too often I see Pro-ID cdesign proponentsists use this method to misrepresent the facts to better fit their points.

    Generally speaking, given the track record of all Discovery Institute members, it’s safe to assume that a person can tell if an Intelligent Design proponent is lying when the ID proponent is moving his/her/its lips and or fingers while attempting to communicate with all people other than their colleagues, and or Christian Dominionist money arteries in private.

  40. #40 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2008

    I was purposing a possible reason why Wells might misrepresented what was said.

    c’mon, haven’t you figured it out yet?

    Wells is a proponent of the Darwin->Hitler meme.

    Since the argument against Eugenics being associated with Darwin often takes the form of associating Eugenics with artificial selection, and Darwin with natural, breaking down this “barrier” allows Wells room to keep his argument alive.

    Don’t fall for such a simple trap.

  41. #41 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2008

    Yeah, but I would only mention it to cast doubt on his mental competency.

    even that would not be an ad-hominem unless you proceed to claim that because he is mentally incompetent, all of his arguments are wrong.

    frankly, I’m sick of the creobots claiming every insult to them as “ad-hominem”, as if speaking a word with more than two syllables somehow made them seem intelligent, even if they use it incorrectly.

    I see no reason to continue fueling it.

    If I call Wells a demented fuckwit, that is NOT an ad-hominem.

    It’s simply an insult, and my opinion.

  42. #42 grasshopper
    March 5, 2008

    Was that joke ever funny?

    So, thickslab, tell us how you really feel.

  43. #43 Stanton
    March 5, 2008

    If I call Wells a demented fuckwit, that is NOT an ad-hominem.

    It’s simply an insult, and my opinion.

    Um, Ichthyic, I hate to tell you this, but an accurate description of a person, however negatively or unpleasantly worded, is neither an insult nor an ad hominem.

  44. #44 T. Bruce McNeely
    March 5, 2008

    Referring to Wells as a Moonie is not an ad hominem. After all, didn’t Rev. Moon assign Wells the task of getting a PhD in order to “overthrow Darwinism”?

  45. #45 Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    March 5, 2008

    What is the collective term for creationists?

    – A design of creationists?

  46. #46 Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    March 5, 2008

    What is the collective term for creationists?

    – A design of creationists?

  47. #47 Sastra
    March 5, 2008

    I like a Big Bang of Creationists.

  48. #48 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2008


    Um, Ichthyic, I hate to tell you this, but an accurate description of a person, however negatively or unpleasantly worded, is neither an insult nor an ad hominem.

    well, the trouble is, you could say that about almost any insult applied to the man.

    frankly, my imagination isn’t up to the challenge of figuring out an insult that couldn’t be said to actually apply in one sense or another.

    can you?

  49. #49 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2008

    I like a Big Bang of Creationists.

    sounds like an orgy of creationists.

  50. #50 Hap
    March 5, 2008

    #31 : She deserves credit for her domain name – “intellectual” and “honesty” are probably the last two words on the planet one would use to describe her activities. Maybe it’s just an extravagant wish of hers.

  51. #51 October Mermaid
    March 5, 2008

    I’ve noticed that people who realize they don’t have a leg to stand on always turn to the “it’s good that you hate me, that means I’m doing something right” defense.

    The Phelps family of the Westboro Baptist Church have used this, as well. They love when people are against them, because they believe this vindicates them. After all, people hated Jesus, right?

    It’s the secret cop-out of last resort. When you absolutely, positively have nothing better or remotely rational to offer, turn to this. Never for a minute consider the possibility that people dislike you because, hey, you’re kind of a dick and a liar.

    That is completely unrelated.

  52. #52 Rey Fox
    March 5, 2008

    A “durrrr” of creationists.

  53. #53 jeh
    March 5, 2008

    A baramin of creationists ; )

  54. #54 Benjamin Franklin
    March 5, 2008

    as we say in French-

    Merde!

  55. #55 shane
    March 5, 2008

    A douche of creationists.

  56. #56 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2008

    I prefer:

    A murder of creationists.

    (yes, murder is an actual grouping term)

  57. #57 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2008

    here, this might help with those still reaching for good grouping terms:

    http://www.rinkworks.com/words/collective.shtml

  58. #58 Kseniya
    March 5, 2008

    A carbuncle of creationists.

  59. #59 MAJeff, OM
    March 5, 2008

    A delusion of creationists.

    That one’s just too easy.

  60. #60 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2008

    more fun collective nouns:

    piteousness
    smack
    exaltation
    deceit

    just too many that work.

  61. #61 MAJeff, OM
    March 5, 2008

    Really, I think deep down, we all know what it should be:

    A fuckwit of creationists.

  62. #62 Brownian, OM
    March 5, 2008

    What is the collective term for creationists?

    Kindling?

    [Well, their heads are obviously made of wood.]

    Didn’t like that, huh? Well, how about a short bus of creationists?

  63. #63 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2008

    A fuckwit of creationists.

    too redundant.

    a fuckwit of fuckwits?

  64. #64 grasshopper
    March 5, 2008

    A chancre of creationists.

  65. #65 Dan
    March 5, 2008

    A plague of creationists?

  66. #66 MAJeff, OM
    March 5, 2008

    A chancre of creationists.

    *giggle/snort*

  67. #67 Sven DiMIlo
    March 5, 2008

    Haven’t we played this one before?
    A buttpropellor of creationists
    An irreducibility of ‘em
    A whole freakin Paley of em

  68. #68 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2008

    Haven’t we played this one before?

    yes, but why not have a gaggle of such threads?

  69. #69 Stanton
    March 5, 2008

    A chancre of creationists.

    A gumma of creationists?

  70. #70 Sven DiMIlo
    March 5, 2008

    yes, a tangle of such threads! A skein!
    (continue extending metaphor until sick of it. Repeat.)

  71. #71 Kseniya
    March 5, 2008

    A fuckwit of creationists.

    *lightbulb*

    I’ve got it!

    A fuckweight of creationists!

  72. #72 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2008

    (continue extending metaphor until sick of it. Repeat.)

    well, since we are talking about creationists, endless repetition until the point of nausea does seem to fit the theme.

  73. #73 Kseniya
    March 5, 2008

    *falls back to earth*

    No, no… never mind… that’s a unit of measure, not a group designation.

  74. #74 Fernando Magyar
    March 5, 2008

    just too many that work.

    You ain’t kiddin.

    http://www.rinkworks.com/words/collective.shtml

    culture of bacteria
    smack of jellyfish
    bed of clams
    deceit of lapwings
    mob of emus
    ostentation of peacocks
    plague of rats
    congress of baboons

  75. #75 Sven DiMIlo
    March 5, 2008

    Aw jeez jeh (#31), that Crocker site made my stomach hurt. I’m tempted use the term Orwellian, which I try to avoid cause I like Orwell and it doesn’t seem fair.
    Note too the list of “peer-reviewed publications” including one dated 2008 “in progress.” I guess that means her progress is being peer-reviewed?
    Also in progress, a book on her persecution because she dared to “teach Darwinian evolution in an intellectually honest manner.”
    *gag*
    *gek*

  76. #76 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2008

    I’m tempted use the term Orwellian, which I try to avoid cause I like Orwell and it doesn’t seem fair.

    the problem is that too many have chosen to utilize Orwell’s writings as instruction manual instead of warning.

    case in point, our current administration.

    such people view “orwellian” as a compliment.

  77. #77 CalGeorge
    March 5, 2008

    A shitsworth of creationists.

    Piles (as in hemorrhoids) of creationists.

  78. #78 Doug Rozell
    March 5, 2008

    #54 A murder of creationists.

    (yes, murder is an actual grouping term)

    Yes it is a collective noun. But please,don’t insult the crows.

    I vote for a “delusion of creationists” #57

  79. #79 Keith Eaton
    March 5, 2008

    PZ and fellow evo turdheads,

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/being_hated_by_the_right_peopl.html#more

    I just love it when Wells and other intellects shove your vomit down your throat and stick your screeds of BS evo blather so far up your butts your eyes bug out.

    His points were 100% correct and right on the money.

    I trust after Expell the public will send packs of wild dogs after you turdheads.

    If we can cut off your grant funds for useless evocrap science maybe you’ll have to get a real job instead of living off the public teats all your life.

    See you at the movies P. Z. Butthead.

  80. #80 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2008

    See you at the movies P. Z. Butthead.

    ROFLMAO

    WATERLOOOOO!

  81. #81 jeh
    March 5, 2008

    Oh Keith, we just love it when you talk dirty.

    Get a life old man.

  82. #82 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2008

    btw, can we quotemine Wells as having said:

    Why the Right People Hate[s] IDiots

  83. #83 Dan
    March 5, 2008

    PZ and fellow evo turdheads,

    I just love it when Wells. . .

    Posted by: Keith Eaton

    Wait… Did you just call yourself an “evo turdhead?”

  84. #84 Lowell
    March 5, 2008

    An Ark of creationists?

  85. #85 Marc Buhler
    March 5, 2008

    Nice suggestions so far, but why not consider:

    “A prayer of creationists”.

    (It works for me.)

  86. #86 JJ
    March 5, 2008

    A gaseous emission of creationists ?

  87. #87 Janine
    March 5, 2008

    What is it about crowing creationists who think that the release of Expelled will bring the end of the theory of evolution? If this bomb is so potent, why did they not release it last month when it was originally scheduled? And why this belief that a documentary will change the way science is done?

    When, at the end of April, when this piece of fiction is no longer in the theater and they are marketing the DVD to evangelical churches, are the crowing creationists going to come back and say they were mistaken. Experience says no.

    So, Keith Eaton(I trust after Expell{sp?} the public will send packs of wild dogs after you turdheads.), you really want to do violence to people you disagree with. You are the sick shithead. And guess what, I desire no violence against you. You already possess what is rightfully your, powerlessness.

  88. #88 Unsympathetic reader
    March 5, 2008

    Regarding natural vs. artificial selection: Here’s how it works in the IDist mind:

    IDer – Show me an experiment that demonstrates Darwinian evolution can produce a new function in the lab.

    Researcher – Well, here’s an example of a system that we observed arising in our labs.

    IDer – But they grew the bug in an artificial setting. Artificial selection is “intelligent design”, because humans had to create the set-up!

    Basically, they’ll *never* accept experimental results because experiments are designed by humans.

  89. #89 J
    March 5, 2008

    Dammit! I gotta publish this paper before the dogs get me shortly after April 18!

  90. #90 raven
    March 5, 2008

    Keith Eaton:

    I just love it when Wells and other intellects shove your vomit down your throat and stick your screeds of BS evo blather so far up your butts your eyes bug out.

    LOL, it’s back. Nice Xian vocabulary and personality you have there Keith.

    1. Keith Eaton is a paranoid schizophrenic. Delusions, incoherent, enormous endogenous hostility, paranoia.

    2. Keith isn’t taking his medications these days.

    This is not a good sign. The ones the docs watch the closest are the paranoics because they are the most likely to go homicidal.

    We just had one nearby. Guy was waving a rifle around and shouting “They are out to get me and I’m not going to take it anymore.” Then he fired on a little girl (and missed), presumably because little kids are dangerous. The cops showed up and shot him.

  91. #91 Kseniya
    March 6, 2008

    Basically, they’ll *never* accept experimental results because experiments are designed by humans.

    Sure, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that humans are interfering with the processes under observation. (I know that, and you know that, but…)

    Interestingly, Behe has said “You can’t prove intelligent design by experiment.” Truer words were never spoken, I suppose.

  92. #92 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 6, 2008

    Keith: 0.4 Tc at a minimum.

  93. #93 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 6, 2008

    Keith: 0.4 Tc at a minimum.

  94. #94 Lilly de Lure
    March 6, 2008

    An Outbreak of Creationists?

    An Insipidity of Intelligent Design proponents?

  95. #95 CortxVortx
    March 6, 2008

    A chamberpot of creationists.

  96. #96 June
    March 6, 2008

    A Poisoned Well Of Creationists?

  97. #97 Lilly de Lure
    March 6, 2008

    Actually, come to think of it:

    An Hypocrisy of ID Proponents.

  98. #98 bPer
    March 6, 2008

    How about:

    An asylum of creationists?

    The only thing wrong (that I can see) with asylum is that some denizens of the asylum are there involuntarily, and that is obviously not true for creationists. Nevertheless, I think it is a broadly accurate representation.

    A congregation of ID proponents?

    Hits ‘em where it hurts – their blatant dishonesty – though perhaps a bit milquetoast.

    ?Per

  99. #99 Michael Buratovich
    March 6, 2008

    PZ,

    As a fellow developmental biologist, I too find the rantings of Jonathan Wells very hard to stomach. I found his book, Icons of Evolution to be a pastiche of demonstrably wrong pronouncements. I have even used sections of this book in a evolutionary biology class to show how spurious creatoinist accusations can be. Once the students investigated the peppered moth literature for themselves or dug into what biology textbooks actually say about the relationships between early embryos and evolutionary theory, they ask how Wells is allowed to blatantly lie to his audience. In some ways Wells’ book is the gift that keeps on giving.

    Having said that, to respond with indiscriminate animus is probably not the best response. I have met Wells in person and I can say that he is neither the most winsome chap I have ever met, nor the most pleasant. To say that I like him would be a huge stretch, but I cannot say that I hate him. It seems to me that piling on the disgust just plays to the other side.

    It’s alright to find people difficult, full of malarkey or just plain hard to appreciate. However using such pointed language is probably not the best way to make our point.

  100. #100 Michelle
    March 6, 2008

    Ohoh! Well look at that little bitch Keaton, thinking he’s big and smart.

    Too bad he’s dead wrong and lacks logic. Go back to play with your little jesus toys along with your other hypocrite friends. Funny boy.

    As for wells… BLEH! Hypocrite.

  101. #101 hje
    March 6, 2008

    It’s alright to find people difficult, full of malarkey or just plain hard to appreciate. However using such pointed language is probably not the best way to make our point.

    While I generally agree with Michael’s sentiments, we should not be so naïve to think that Wells et al will be taking the moral high ground any time soon. Will adherence to a sort of “Marquess of Queensberry rules” for argument be effective when the other side is prepared for a no-holds barred street fight?

    The IDists know they are an insurgency and they are employing the intellectual equivalent of suicide truck bombs: hard to defend against, and appallingly indiscriminate in the damage they cause. It will not matter whether Expelled the movie is a box office success, it will cause trouble for years to come. This movie is not meant to convince, it is meant to incite the True Believers to action.

    One does not have to look any further than abortion/choice controversy in the US to see how effective the religious right can be in the longer term. The fact that this controversy has not yet graduated to actual physical violence is something to be thankful for. But all you have to do is read the kind of outburst from K. Eaton above to realize the depth of hatred the True Believers have for “us.” We’ve already seen implicit threats of violence, sooner or later some unbalanced individual is going to be motivated to act on this hatred.

  102. #102 Glen Davidson
    March 6, 2008

    Ohoh! Well look at that little bitch Keaton, thinking he’s big and smart.

    Too bad he’s dead wrong and lacks logic. Go back to play with your little jesus toys along with your other hypocrite friends. Funny boy.

    As for wells… BLEH! Hypocrite.

    Sure, but Wells is good enough for Keith, since Wells exhibits the hatred and dishonesty toward scientists and science that he feels toward anything more decent than he (slugs, spiders, etc.).

    Keith is what an evolutionist sock-puppet would be, if anyone on this side could bear to think as stupidly and hatefully as Keith does. He’s a demonstration of what living dishonestly and hatefully does to a person. It deprives them of decency and the ability to think clearly and competently. He’s an example of the paroxysms of blind hatred Expelled is deliberately tapping into.

    Expelled‘s depictions of honest science as Naziism isn’t simply there because they can’t make an actual case for persecution. They are meant to tap into the stupid hatefulness of people like Keith, people who might be capable of any manner of atrocities against anyone who dares to contradict their “truths”. Expelled only exists to whip up mob mentality, for it cannot make a case that ID is science, nor that ID has had anything but favorable treatment, compared to the other pseudosciences.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  103. #103 Kseniya
    March 6, 2008

    sooner or later some unbalanced individual is going to be motivated to act on this hatred.

    Right – and then persist in claiming that “Darwinism” leads to amorality.

  104. #104 phantomreader42
    March 6, 2008

    hje @ #98
    One does not have to look any further than abortion/choice controversy in the US to see how effective the religious right can be in the longer term. The fact that this controversy has not yet graduated to actual physical violence is something to be thankful for.

    Actually, there have been instances where it HAS graduated to actual physical violence. Christianist terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph was only recently sentenced for his bombings. And he’s far from the only person who has committed murder in the name of “life”.

  105. #105 Keith Eaton
    March 6, 2008

    Now the rest of you little insignificant wannabee pseudoscientists lick your wounds, wait for the movie and wish P.Z. Myers stuck out there in some hole in the wall minischool on a frozen tundra in Minnesota ice fishing with a gallon snops and 15 students per year listening to his blather, good luck.

    Wells has degrees from real universities, real publications, as do 700 signers and many more just waiting until they have tenure to speak out.

    I hope P.Z. uses some of the money the Expelled people PAID him get a razor and go on a diet.

    I wonder if he resents the interview sufficiently to donate the check say to the DI or another worthy non-profit?

    What a tribe of emotional babies, sychophants, and wirehead lab rats…I hold you in derision.

  106. #106 hje
    March 6, 2008

    Hey KE, is that all you have, pathetic personal insults? Oh, are feelings are SO hurt. Just make sure you don’t cross over the line to making threats of violence. If you do, may find yourself in a world of trouble.

  107. #107 spurge
    March 6, 2008

    “What a tribe of emotional babies, sychophants, and wirehead lab rats…I hold you in derision.”

    Classic projection.

  108. #108 Kseniya
    March 6, 2008

    Now the rest of you little insignificant wannabee pseudoscientists lick your wounds,

    Uh… what wounds? You mean this stitch in my side?

  109. #109 Glen Davidson
    March 6, 2008

    I guess Keith’s too stupid to know that name-calling only hurt when it’s believable. That’s the only reason the more intelligent cretins don’t call names, because it’s obviously not believable to call our side stupid.

    By the way, Keith, I call you a demented fuckwit because it’s believable.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  110. #110 Hap
    March 6, 2008

    I know ID people haven’t quite go the knack for logic yet, but we’ll try anyway: Just because other people despise you, and other people have been despised for their correct beliefs, doesn’t make your beliefs correct. Particularly when there is the more parsimonious explanation that you are dishonest and willfully stupid and that you wish to destroy the very institutions that allow you to continue to be dishonest and willfully stupid rather than being torn apart by larger and more effective predators or dying of disease.

    Reality doesn’t go away just because you steadfastly ignore it – it will get you, in the end. Our only hope is to minimize the number of misguided people you manage to sucker, so that when reality bites you, it won’t exact too much of a toll in collateral damage.

  111. #111 CalGeorge
    March 6, 2008

    “Particularly when there is the more parsimonious explanation that you are dishonest and willfully stupid and that you wish to destroy the very institutions that allow you to continue to be dishonest and willfully stupid rather than being torn apart by larger and more effective predators or dying of disease.”

    You lost me there. No idea what that means.

  112. #112 Stevie_C
    March 6, 2008

    Not sure who Hap was talking to… or quite about.

  113. #113 Hap
    March 6, 2008

    ID wishes to destroy scientific knowledge (or the means to acquire it) because the scientific knowledge conflicts with what they wish to believe. Without that method, and the products of it, ID adherents such as Wells would have to rely on their own wits to survive, against disease and animals and other such natural phenomena, and I don’t believe that their wits are sufficient to allow them to do so.

    It is simpler to conclude that people hate Wells (or other ID advocates) because he’s dishonest and willfully stupid rather than because he’s right. Sorry for the confusion.

  114. #114 Stevie_C
    March 6, 2008

    oh. ok. that makes sense. sometimes rants can be hard to decipher… I get the same way.

  115. #115 Rey Fox
    March 6, 2008

    “as do 700 signers”

    How many of them are named Steve?

  116. #116 Janine
    March 6, 2008

    Once more I ask Keith Eaton, crowing creationist, are you going to come back here once Expelled drops to being a DVD being marketed to fundamentalist churches. Because there is no major revelations to be made, it is the same old refuted charges. Mainstreams people will yawn and ignore it. People of a more scientific bent will either ignore or condemn it. The only ones who really care already think the theory of evolution is evil.

    But please do come back in May when nothing has changed. You are free to make fun of people. We understand you have nothing else going for you.

  117. #117 Keith Eaton
    March 6, 2008

    I’m upgrading my estimate of the worldwide revenue from the movie from 500 million to 750 million after the latest screening rave reviews.

    It sure is neat to see you people squirm, squeal, sweat, and wallow in self pity.

    People don’t like taxfunding arrogant wireheads with whom they have no ethical, moral, religious, or philosophical commonality.

    How are you people at flipping burgers, I might offer you a job at one of my Sonics.

  118. #118 keiths
    March 6, 2008

    Does anyone know how Wells supports himself financially?

    Neither his Discovery Institute bio nor the book jacket of The Design of Life mentions anything other than writing and lecturing as a source of income, apart from whatever the DI gives him.

    I wonder if Rev. Moon kicks in a little. After all, it was his idea that Wells should go and overthrow Darwinism.

  119. #119 Kseniya
    March 6, 2008

    Ah. #114 makes it all clear, now.

    Yes, Keith, I absolutely agree! WorldNetDaily is a horrendously slanted liberal rag!

    [*backs away slowly*]

  120. #120 Janine
    March 6, 2008

    Keith, you are really very funny of you are deluded. Either way, I do hope you come back after Expelled brief run in the theaters.

    Some ranters are just so amusing.

  121. #121 jeh
    March 6, 2008

    People don’t like taxfunding arrogant wireheads with whom they have no ethical, moral, religious, or philosophical commonality.

    You mean like the sanctimonious members of Congress that resigned this past year because of scandals?

    So you think Expelled is going to lead to the slashing of NSF and NIF budgets? That’s a laugh. Most taxpayers like the benefits provided by reality-based science.

    And don’t worry too much about us–most of us work for a living and our wages are not paid by the taxpayers. If I were you, I’d worry a lot more about getting my Social Security benefits when the economy takes a nose dive, and when the markets tank and your retirement investments are worthless.

    Just make sure you pay your Sonic burger workers the minimum wage required by law so they can try to feed their families when gas goes to $4/gallon. I know that must chafe your butt.

  122. #122 noncarborundum
    March 7, 2008

    What is the collective term for creationists?

    A Sudden Appearance of Creationists?

    A Flood of Creationists?

    An Incredulity of Creationists?

    I dunno.

  123. #123 Kseniya
    March 7, 2008

    A Stigma of Creationists

  124. #124 mothra
    March 7, 2008

    Collective term for creationists:

    A hoot of creationists.(large group)
    A Dover of creationists. (small group)

    Also, we need ‘units’ to describe varying degrees of inbecility of creationists. I suggest:

    The Fallwell- # of bigotted ideas expressed per unit TV air time. (abbrev. FU)
    The Robertson- # of delusional ideas per public appearance.
    (RIP)
    The Barnum- # misconceptions about science per sentence.
    (abbrev. BS) This one is divisible by 10, the smaller unit is the Behe (BH). The measurement scale for the Barnum and the Behe would be referred to as the Scalia antonin.

  125. #125 phantomreader42
    March 7, 2008

    How about a Morass of creationists?

  126. #126 Keith Eaton
    March 7, 2008

    I don’t want the budgets cut necessarily, just perused to make sure we arn’t tossing money down the rat-role of bone brushing, abiogenesis research, alien seeding, alien messages, and censorship of new ideas.

    Expelled is just the first wave of the revolt, but its an excellent start.

    It will help us emerge from the second dark age, intellectual demise, and scientific malaise, otherwise known as evolution and darwinism.

  127. #127 MAJeff, OM
    March 7, 2008

    It will help us emerge from the second dark age, intellectual demise, and scientific malaise, otherwise known as evolution and darwinism.

    *stares, jaw agape*

    Don’t let this man near antibiotics or antiretrovirals, chemotherapy or antipsychotics.

  128. #128 phantomreader42
    March 7, 2008

    RE: MAJeff @ #124:

    On the contrary, I’d say Keith Eaton is in desperate need of some antipsychotics. And I’m sure I’m not alone in this opinion.

    This is the same nutcase who objects to his hallucination of scientists “censoring new ideas” in the very sentence where he’s presuming to dictate what research is worth pursuing. The whole thing is a masterpiece of projection.

  129. #129 jeh
    March 7, 2008

    Expelled is just the first wave of the revolt, but its an excellent start.

    You are right about this. The anti-intellectualism that the film expresses would seem to be a permanent part of the human condition. Centuries from now someone somewhere will still be hawking the same tired old arguments, and arguing that the so-called intellectual “elite” have to be put in their place, because just who do they think they are! As the Good Book says, “there is nothing new under the sun.”

    Any other types of research you would like to ban? The study of supermassive black holes, the superfluid properties of helium-4, Bose-Einstein condensates, exploration of the solar system, … you know, all those kinds of research that have no immediate practical application.

    Oh, and a great way to return to the Dark Ages–bring a kind of Christian Taliban to power in America. The irony is that if the religious right every did gain secular power in the US, Dembski, Behe, etc. would soon find themselves charged with heresy for not having pure enough beliefs for the numerically superior young earth creationists.

  130. #130 MAJeff, OM
    March 7, 2008

    On the contrary, I’d say Keith Eaton is in desperate need of some antipsychotics. And I’m sure I’m not alone in this opinion.

    He’s in need, just not allowed.

    Fuck all this dark ages biological knowledge shit; We just needs prayer man.

  131. #131 mgarelick
    March 7, 2008

    Egnor posted at EN&V on this today, and I think I figured out where he’s wrong, so I’m excited and I wanted to run it by people here who actually know some science.

    Egnor quotes Dr. Dardel on using Darwinian evolution in his research (with silly “sics” that make you want to slap him), and says:

    Dr. Dardel is both candid and mistaken. His comment that the use of Darwin’s theory is “unusual in structural biology” is obviously true, and refreshingly candid. He is, however, mistaken about the application of Darwin’s theory to his recent work. His assertion that “…we selected bacteria…by plating…” is artificial selection, not natural selection. Artificial selection is breeding, in this case microbial breeding. The principles of breeding date back thousands of years, and owe nothing to Darwin. In fact, Darwin claimed that non-teleological processes in nature could produce changes in populations just as teleological processes like breeding could. Even Darwin didn’t claim that his theory explained the outcome of intentional breeding. It’s astonishing that a modern professional scientist like Dr. Dardel doesn’t recognize the difference between artificial selection and natural selection

    As I see it, “breeding” is intentional (“teleological,” if you will) selection in order to amplify or suppress existing genetic traits, but that’s not what Dr. Dardel did. Dardel acted on the environment, and the bacteria evolved on their own. If the “enzyme with increased stability” resulted from a mutation (and that’s what I understand Dardel to be saying) rather than just dominance of bacteria with the existing stable enzyme, then this is a clear example of what Darwinian evolution means.

    OK, so the selection pressure was artificial and “teleological.” Is this how Egnor et al. think the Intelligent Designer did his work — by tweaking the environment so that random mutations would produce individuals with varying adaptability to the new environment?

  132. #132 themadlolscientist
    May 1, 2008

    A crock of creationists.

    A credulity of creationists.

    A cluelessness of creationists.

    A crank of creationists.

    And so on……….

  133. #133 m?rc m?rc m?rc m?rc m?rc
    December 31, 2008

    thank’s

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.