Pharyngula

Posted by: Jon Anderson | September 5, 2008 2:10 PM

Don't forget the after-comic!
http://www.yityat.com/smbc/20080905after.gif

Posted by: SweetKevin | September 5, 2008 2:12 PM

I like the little side comic below that goes with the main one:

"Penicillin?! What're you, an atheist?!

Posted by: Tim G | September 5, 2008 2:20 PM

Also see The Onion - Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain

Posted by: Michelle | September 5, 2008 2:25 PM

tee-hee!!! Funny and true! Very true!

...Fuck, now I'm sad and scared.

Posted by: The Clown | September 5, 2008 2:27 PM

I'm not sure that this is an honest representation of the situation. There is a professor on my campus who is pro-ID as well as a senior immunologist. So representing ID people as this comic does is not being entirely honest. I've been reading these posts over the past week and observe that there is a huge amount of bigotry, hatred, misrepresentation, and dishonesty here.

Posted by: Chris P | September 5, 2008 2:30 PM

Does anybody know what textbooks would be used for ID or creationism in a middle school. The new local charter school is having an open house so I wanted to check to see if they were using anything "odd".

Thanks

Posted by: Prof MTH | September 5, 2008 2:31 PM

I like this Doonesbury cartoon.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 5, 2008 2:34 PM

I'm not sure that this is an honest representation of the situation. There is a professor on my campus who is pro-ID as well as a senior immunologist. So representing ID people as this comic does is not being entirely honest. I've been reading these posts over the past week and observe that there is a huge amount of bigotry, hatred, misrepresentation, and dishonesty here.

I guess we have to spell out everything to idiots.

Here it is: It's a joke.

Besides that, of course much science of medicine can be done without evolution. However, from selection of lab animals and interpretation of their results, to the understanding of the evolution of resistance, it is evolution that guides and explains those aspects of research (even Behe agrees with respect to chloroquine resistance in malaria--though one has no idea how he presumes to say what evolved and what was "designed").

No, science would not totally stop if ID replaced evolution, and its anti-science philosophy were inexplicably not extended to the rest of science. It most certainly would not help science in the least, however, and clearly would be harmful in important respects.

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

Posted by: Didac | September 5, 2008 2:37 PM

I think the idea of the comic is good. Th. Dobzhansky commented that, without evolution, nothing makes sense in biology. However, we must not forget that Jenner (smallpox vaccine) or Pasteur (rabies vaccine) are both pre-Darwinian from a theoretical point of view. Linné, for example, as a fixist-creationist. So, classic creationism did not preclude scientific advances. The problem is that modern creationisme and intelligent design are malicious in their intentions. They do not seek to convince people, but they seek to seed a post-modern, cynical, atitude towards science. It is not only evolution but vaccines, global warming, peak oil, etc. It is not a question of truth but of culture wars. There are a lot of people both in US and in Europe that makes a living from all this kind of divisive culture wars. Culture wars, surely, are profitable at short time... but ultimately they will conduct us to insanity.

Charles K. Johnson used to say that science and technology were very different things. We need to connect basic biological science with both biotechnology and biomedicine. But, we must also be aware that Johnson was partially right. You can apply science without bothering very much for the abstract side of it. In fact, Copernicus tried to avoid Church harassment telling that the "heliocentric model" was just a tool, not reality. So, it is not hard to understand that some scientists both in US and in Europe try to appease religious right the same way.

Posted by: pough | September 5, 2008 2:42 PM

I'm not sure that this is an honest representation of the situation.

I know! You know what else? There are some details in Superman comics that leave me wondering. Like, if there is an enormous city called Metropolis, how come it's not on any maps I've ever seen?

Posted by: Pleco | September 5, 2008 2:44 PM

Concern troll is concerned.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 5, 2008 2:53 PM

Clown, if you have any evidence to show that ID and/or creationism is scientific, you need to show the evidence before you put on your attitude. If you can't show any scientific evidence, which the scientists who post here will have the final say if it is scientific or not, then you need to go away and take your attitude with you.

Posted by: The Petey | September 5, 2008 2:56 PM

What we need are the parents in the school systems that teach ID to sue the school boards for teaching religion to their kids.

Posted by: Darth Wader | September 5, 2008 3:01 PM

Does anyone else find the two categories for this post a little redundant?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 5, 2008 3:05 PM

When antibiotics were first developed biologists knew that resistance would become a problem at some stage. Actually even before that they knew resistance was problem as bacteria also developed resistance to the sulphur drugs(*)

(*)Paradoxically we are now turning back yo the sulphur drugs as some of the more dangerous bacteria that are now resistant to most antibiotics having lost resistance to the sulphur drugs. Using a combination of the last resort antibiotics and the sulphur drugs seems to be reasonably effective.

Posted by: raven | September 5, 2008 3:09 PM

I'm not sure that this is an honest representation of the situation.

I don't either. In 20 years Allah Jehovah willing, on our current trajectory, we will be a third rate banana republic with piles of dead bodies in senseless wars around the planet, some American. The death rate will be up while life expectancy is down.

There will still be many very good American scientists, mostly working abroad for our competitors.

Posted by: waldteufel | September 5, 2008 3:11 PM

Could this be Casey Luskin's idea of a wet dream?

Posted by: Prof MTH | September 5, 2008 3:14 PM

What we need are more secular private schools.

We do; they are misnamed "public schools".

Since most public schools are funded by tax dollars (usually property taxes) collected at a city or smaller--district--level, then all schools are private schools. If you want your child to go to a better "public" school then you must either apply for a waiver or move. Moving requires being able to purchase a home and the ability to pay taxes on that home in the other school district. For the poor, this is not an option. While the schools may be funded by public tax dollars how those taxes are collected a distributed makes the "public" schools private.

This is one reason why we should nationalize education. That and so that curriculum is standardized for every child in every school. Individual schools cannot "teach the controversy".

Posted by: Aramael Musitello | September 5, 2008 3:15 PM

Why is there still a controversy? Really. One of my earliest memories is from when I was, like, five or something, running into some dipshit who believed in Adam and Eve. I forgive him, because he was a child, but how can adults have these beliefs? I really don't understand it.

I really don't.

I mean, I really, really, really don't. How can this crap survive?

You believers, you think I'm arrogant and insensitive right now, but I don't really care, because (a) I don't think your pathetic beliefs shape reality, and (b) you're wrong, and that's all there is to it.

(Aramael fans herself and attempts to calm down, but the stupid! it burns!)

Posted by: anthropicOne | September 5, 2008 3:16 PM

Clown @35,

WTF? What are you smoking? Learn some science first before posting such blather.

Posted by: Prof MTH | September 5, 2008 3:22 PM

Now with Venter Institute's incorporation of 'watermarks' in its artificial genome, ID detection is now an issue in biology, if it wasn't already. Unless you have a scientific method to detect ID, you're not even in the game when it comes to forensics, SETI, archeology and biology.

Everything you claimed there was refuted by David Hume almost 250 years ago. That is one old, dead, rotting, rank horse you keep trying to ride.

Posted by: anthropicOne | September 5, 2008 3:22 PM

Zach @37,

I called you on a "public" statement you made, essentially clarifying your comic. If you don't wish to respond to my comment publicly, then live with it. I couldn't care less.

Posted by: Patricia | September 5, 2008 3:29 PM

*sigh* I miss MAJeff. Concern Clown needs some blah therapy.

Posted by: Richard Harris | September 5, 2008 3:31 PM

Clown, Unless you have a scientific method to detect ID, you're not even in the game when it comes to forensics, SETI, archeology and biology.

Yes, but the only evidence for ID that we have is mostly for human intelligence as the designer, and for other terrestrial animals in a few limited cases. Otherwise, there's no evidence for ID, according to all the tools, philosophical, scientific, archeological, etc. that we have at our disposal. Calling for a scientific ID detector in terms of detecting ID in the genome is, well, clownish.

Would you call for atheists to develop a scientific god detector before we claim that the putative existence of any gods has a negligible probability?

Posted by: The Clown | September 5, 2008 3:47 PM

ProfMTH@42: Would you repeat that old Hume chestnut to SETI scientists, or forensic scientists, or archeologists? If you think Hume proved that nothing requires ID (including software, essays, intelligent signals from deep space), then you are badly mistaken.

MartinM: I don't know what your definition of ID is, but the one I've seen that makes sense to me is 'an effect that requires a mind to produce'. So a paper out of a journal is an example of ID. Most of the time we don't get into a lather when someone shows us something made by humans and says it required intelligence, or a mind, to design. We would get excited if SETI found an ID-positive signal from another planetary system. There is no a priori reason why ID is verboten when it comes to the origin of life. Life may or may not have required ID ... we just don't know until we've applied some scientific test to see if ID is required, exactly as we would have to do with an alien radio signal from deep space. I don't see anyone doing the science on the problem of distinguishing ID effects from effects that require no mind. This isn't a problem just specific to biology; a general method to detect ID should be applicable to forensics, SETI, archeology and Venter Institute's 'watermarks'.

Posted by: Chayanov | September 5, 2008 4:00 PM

As an archaeologist I can say that the clown is talking nonsense. I also note that while he's really hung up on signals from deep space, he hasn't offered any examples of archaeological ID detection. For one thing, archaeologists are pretty upfront about the identity of the designers of artifacts -- people -- and IDists are not. Knowing whether a piece of stone was worked intentionally or broken through natural causes requires knowing how lithics are worked by humans. As humans, we can do experimental archaeology to test our hypotheses about flintknapping. Where oh where are the ID hypotheses and experiments?

Posted by: Darth Wader | September 5, 2008 4:02 PM

Clown

a general method to detect ID

You could try a dowsing rod. Its just a scientific as what it would be detecting!

Posted by: The Clown | September 5, 2008 4:06 PM

Nerd of Redhead, when I use the term 'ID' I am referring to Intelligent Design, which I define as follows:

Intelligent Design: an effect which requires a mind to produce.

The term can also be used in the sense of a method or process as in, 'she used intelligent design to build a novel protein', meaning that she used her intelligent mind and knowledge of protein folding to design and build a novel protein (the effect). In that case, the novel protein would be an example of ID (Intelligent Design), as opposed to invoking mindless natural processes to explain the protein, or laptop computer, etc.

So, regarding the question as to whether the origin of life required ID, it simply means, did the origin of life an effect that required a mind to produce. That seems to be what all the controversy is about. Trouble is, the people who are insisting one way or the other do not have any method whatsoever to test biological life (or a SETI signal, etc.) to see if it is ID positive.

Posted by: DrFrank | September 5, 2008 4:09 PM

ID in biology comes down to "I don't know wot did it, so god did it". That's basically Dembski's entire 'explanatory filter' is non-obfuscated terms.

If you could point out any sensible ways in which the detection of agency has been applied to biology, I'm sure we'd critique them for you. Simply drawing bad analogies with other fields doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 5, 2008 4:18 PM

The Clown, #35: Before we can talk about whether or not ID was involved in the origin of life, we'd better have a method to identify it.

Hey, we agree on something! So, since we don't have a method to identify ID in genomes, Dembski, Behe, and the other clowns (sorry, no offense) at the Discovery Insitute and the Boards of Education in Florida should stop talking about it.

Posted by: Prof MTH | September 5, 2008 4:18 PM

Clown, if you redefine words to mean what you want them to mean, you end up misrepresenting what the DI is doing.

His/her name is "The Clown". Why are we taking him/her seriously? S/he is tying verbal balloon animals for us to pop.

Posted by: Darth Wader | September 5, 2008 4:24 PM

Ye gads, my grammar was atrocious in that post - I blame the beer :$

Now that's what I call sacrilege!

Posted by: frog | September 5, 2008 4:28 PM

TheClown: ID detection is a key component of forensic science, SETI and archeology for starters.

Ha, ha, ha, ha! Ha, hahahaha, ha, ha! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
Hahaha! Hahahahahahaaaaaaa!

I think I may have pulled something there.

Now that I've caught my breath, let me explain to you a little something about science. "ID detection" is an empty phrase - it has no theoretical structure to test. What folks in sciences like archeology do is detect a specific kind of intelligence - a human intelligence within a cultural horizon with a given set of technological tools.

Now you'll say "But SETI!!". Well, why do you think SETI has been incapable of detecting intelligence? Because they have that very problem - they're trying to detect a very amorphous kind of intelligence and lack the necessary constraints to be able to identify a specific "something", without reference to anything but "high technology" and "computable".

Now, what does that mean for an abstract "ID"? That only an absolute cretin would advance that as some kind of theoretical structure to be studied. The ID "for biology" isn't even an intelligence constrained by general rules of computation, but an "any intelligence", unconstrained even by the laws of physics. So, complete gobbledy-gook devoid of any meaning.

Really, learn a little science before trying such a clownish line of attack. At least try to posit a highly-constrained (and plausible) class of intelligences to test, and biologists would be more than happy to look for it. But "nothing that designs" -- as I said, cretinous (or insane).

Posted by: JoJo | September 5, 2008 4:30 PM

SETI or Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence assumes intelligence on the part of whomever is sending out radio signals. Hence the name. SETI does not assume that some deity is signaling to the universe in general. ID as generally understood is not part of SETI, just like ID is not part of listening to the BBC World Service.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 5, 2008 4:39 PM

I thought this one was pretty funny, too:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin

Posted by: The Clown | September 5, 2008 4:40 PM

Chayanov@#52: By your comments, I assume you are just starting first year archeology this past week. Here are two examples. I was looking at a display of some chert samples that an archeologist claimed were made by humans. To me they looked like something that could easily be produced by mindless natural processes, nevertheless, the archeologist argued that they were man-made and based that argument on the basis that they were actually anomalous within the range of what we would expect nature to produce (a re-occurring principle I've noticed in forensics, SETI, etc. when it comes to identifying effects that required design). She especially pointed out the edges to bolster the argument. The second case had to do with the trace provided by ground penetrating radar on the sea floor of the Mediterranean. The trace showed what looked like a wall buried under the muck of the sea floor. So once again we were faced with the problem of whether this effect was a product of design, or of mindless natural processes. A geologist was called in and he explained why he believed it was actually a lava dike and not a human artifact.

Nerd of Redhead@#53: How was the first intelligent agent made? That question is not even relevant to the discussion of whether an effect requires a mind or not. Let us say I showed you a laptop computer and you said, 'well how was the first intelligent agent made?' What has that got to do with whether or not a laptop, or a SETI signal, or possible sunken city wall, or the genetic information to encode a protein requires a mind? Ultimately, it is an interesting question, and I don't think the answer is '42'. When we look for natural explanations for an effect and work backwards, we arrive at the ultimate question, 'what is the natural explanation for the origin of natural explanations?' At that point, logic dictates that there cannot be a natural explanation for natural explanations, for we cannot assume nature to explain how it came into existence; that would be a circular fallacy. We can invoke quantum fluctuations at the event horizon of a previous universe, which itself was spawned by a previous one, etc., but we cannot invoke an infinite regression, so we are still stuck with the ultimate question of 'what is the natural explanation for natural explanations?'. It is a circular fallacy to assume the existence of nature in order to explain how nature came about. But that is not the issue here.

Contrary to what Aramael asserted, we do not have a natural method to generate a novel protein family. We cannot even build a completely novel, average length protein (around 300 amino acids) in the lab without using an extant protein as a model. We cannot even come up with evolutionary algorithms that can do it (and our evolutionary algorithms do require a lot of ID in designing the proper fitness function). Let's see your model. The best one I know of is AVIDA and the fitness function in that one did require intelligence to program. Even then, it generated a pathetic 32 bits, using 2 and 4 bit jumps, ridiculously unrealistic when it comes to the fitness increments of building real proteins.

Anyway, it is Friday and time to quit slacking off from work and get home. It's been fun stirring the pot a bit here. I've seen a lot of ID people who don't know sweet tweet about what they are talking about, but I don't see that things are any better here. Have a great weekend.

Posted by: Prof MTH | September 5, 2008 4:44 PM

Clown: I am really curious: can you please reveal the identity of your university, with its "senior immunologist" who is an ID'r?

My guess:
Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College

The "senior immunologist" is the person who gives the animals their vaccines protecting them from disease while traveling in cages.

Posted by: Nibien | September 5, 2008 5:11 PM

Is it just me, or has it become rather clear that Clown suffers from some kind of mental impairment?

I think it's rather obvious he does, at the very least he's so woefully misinformed and ignorant of the subject he makes me cringe.

Either way, I don't know why people are taking him seriously. It's like Kenny2.0

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 5, 2008 5:36 PM

Clown, my question regarding the how the first designer came about was very appropriate. If intelligence is required to make a protein, then the intelligence must be present before the protein. At some point, there had to be the first intelligence. I am trying to get you to show your analysis of what made the first intelligence. For example, you could posit god as the first intelligence. But then the burden of proof showing god exists is upon you. Or, you could presume the first intelligence evolved. In which case the rest of your argument is bogus. In any case, you need to do much more than a little rhetorical hand-waving to convince this crowd.
Now, can you give a rational answer to the question of how the first intelligence came about? If you dodge it again, we have your number.

Posted by: BobC | September 5, 2008 5:41 PM

There is a professor on my campus who is pro-ID as well as a senior immunologist. So representing ID people as this comic does is not being entirely honest.

Translation: There is a professor on my campus who is pro-MAGIC as well as a senior immunologist. So representing MAGIC people as this comic does is not being entirely honest.

Your professor who is a proponent of magic is an idiot and a disgrace to the human race. He needs to grow up. There is no magic in this universe. Only retards believe in magic.

Posted by: BobC | September 5, 2008 5:49 PM

Is it just me, or has it become rather clear that Clown suffers from some kind of mental impairment?

I never met a creationist who wasn't at least a little bit insane. Whatever they call their creation myth, intelligent design or creation science, it's still nothing more than a childish belief in magic. There's no excuse for believing this crap in the 21st century. To be a creationist requires insanity and breathtaking stupidity.

Posted by: Patricia | September 5, 2008 5:50 PM

WTF? Clown is what schools are turning out these days? He makes no sense.

Posted by: BobC | September 5, 2008 5:53 PM

Make your arguments and counter arguments without insults.

As if a creationist retard has ever been able to understand anything. They just need to know that everyone else thinks they're nuts and they will never be allowed to stick their hopeless stupidity into science education.

Posted by: James F | September 5, 2008 5:56 PM

Zach @29 wrote:

Just to clarify - this is meant as more an attack on the idea that ID is a program of forward-moving research in itself than an attack on creationists as being able to do good science. That's an untenable attack, and I wouldn't make it.

I enjoyed your comic, Zach, but, with additional clarification, I have to disagree with you that it is an "untenable attack." Let's examine the facts:

1) "Creation science" and intelligent design have failed to produce a single peer-reviewed scientific research paper presenting