…and this is a 
Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
Category: Creationism
Posted on: October 11, 2008 12:46 PM, by PZ Myers
The Brunswick school district, AKA Dover's dumber little brother, is still struggling with the creationists trying to smuggle creationism into the science classroom. The latest report, though, suggests that the pro-science side is being aggressive in fighting back, and the pro-ignorance side is backing off due to pocketbook pragmatism — a costly court case could hurt them badly.
I thought this comment was revealing.
District 2 Republican Catherine Cooke, who presents herself as an active parent and therefore insider in the county school system, said she knows creationism is not to be taught as science, but she's not against the topic being explored in some form.
"There's a lot of scientific proof for creation," Cooke said, without elaborating on that proof. "It's not one-sided."
Wow, Ms Cooke: a contradiction — she knows it's not to be taught as science, but she thinks it is scientific — and a falsehood — there is no scientific evidence for creation. It actually is that one-sided.
I also liked the subtle dig in the reporter's description, "without elaborating on that proof." Of course she didn't, she can't. I've sat down with a lot of these people who claim there is science behind creationism, and when I ask them to get specific and tell me what some of it is, they suddenly get the look of a poleaxed rabbit and start stammering the names of creationist authorities who told them so, at best.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Burning Umberella | October 11, 2008 1:30 PM
Poleaxing rabbits is something only an evil atheist such as you could've thought of.
Not that your wickedness is in need of any proof, since you go around asking for "specific proofs" when everyone knows that God moves in mysterious ways.
Posted by: BobC | October 11, 2008 1:32 PM
I don't know much about Brunswick County in North Carolina but I bet the number of competent biology teachers there is exactly zero.
Catherine Cooke, who of course is a Republican, says there is lot of scientific proof for magical creation. Lots of it. It's probably overwhelming. How do these idiots get on school boards?
Posted by: JStein | October 11, 2008 1:44 PM
I refuse to let myself be astounded by the depth of human stupidity and yet, here I am, staring at that sentence. What the hell is going on in this woman's brain? It's like a volcano exploded and started gushing stupid.
Posted by: scooter | October 11, 2008 1:48 PM
The pro-creationists are ideologically all over the place, so until they agree with each other, they won't be a threat.
The most intelligent quote was from a born again, who apparently has a realist streak, and fiscal responsibility stripes:
Good for him.
Amusing that one of the players on the biology side is named Christy Judah
That's a pretty confusing name.
Posted by: scooter | October 11, 2008 1:52 PM
BobC @ 2 : How do these idiots get on school boards?
Elections
Posted by: Abel Pharmboy | October 11, 2008 1:59 PM
What I also find encouraging is in the sidebar of the article which advertises a talk by Richard Leakey on Monday at relatively nearby UNC-Wilmington entitled, "Why Our Origins Matter." Brunswick County has some beautiful beaches and is adjacent to pretty enlightened Wilmington in New Hanover County. However, the inland towns are very Bible-based - that's why I tend to support DonorsChoose science teacher projects in this part of the state.
Posted by: psyentist | October 11, 2008 2:28 PM
A few questions for all the intellectual giants that frequent this sorry excuse of a website.
1. Given that not a single person on the planet knows the exact cause of gravity, what makes you think you "know" anything about origin of life issues? Please note that I said cause, not effect.
2. If PZ is such a great thinker, why does he "believe" in the infernally stupid theory of global warming (caused by humans)? This does nothing to lend any credibility to your claim to be a scientist.
3. In as much as there is no plausible evolutionary explanation for the concept of love/hate, both concepts that PZ claims to believe in; what great pains do all of you go to to explain to the significant others in your lives that you indeed don't love them but rather feel biologically compelled to share resources with them? Sounds really romantic to me. I bet none of you have the guts to try this out on your so called "loved ones."
4. Anyone here care to take a stab at a real science? Try explaining the fact that everything we know about quantum physics is based upon mathematics of imaginary numbers ie NOT REAL. One very painful result of this accidental theory is the forced conclusion that the logically impossible is indeed necessary.
I don't claim to have all the answers, unlike most of the self procalimed geniuses around here. The unmitigated hubris of almost everyone here makes you sound like so many madmen barking at the moon.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | October 11, 2008 2:32 PM
PZ, what seems to be trying to say if I havre parsed the wording correctly is that she knows that courts have ruled that creationism cannot be taught as science but she thinks that there is in fact scientific evidence for creationism.
Posted by: Heh | October 11, 2008 2:35 PM
"I don't claim to have all the answers, unlike most of the self procalimed geniuses around here. The unmitigated hubris of almost everyone here makes you sound like so many madmen barking at the moon."
The reason you don't have the answers is because you haven't actually read up on anything you just criticised. Any answers anyone gives to you, you won't accept, because you're already ignored them all.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 11, 2008 2:36 PM
psyentist, you about you answering a question? Did you ever have an original thought, or you just a cut/paste guy. Your questions are cut/paste and have been answered repeatedly if you just did a little research. But then, that would require actual thought as to how to frame the proper questions, which would show the fallacies in your questions.
You can't disprove science with questions, just evidence. Where is your evidence?
Posted by: Aquaria | October 11, 2008 2:36 PM
As a blue-collar non-scientist, my science knowledge is... Well, substandard, at least compared to most people around here, but I'm looking like Nobel-Prize material up next to this moron.
Posted by: I am so wise | October 11, 2008 2:37 PM
they suddenly get the look of a poleaxed rabbit and start stammering the names of creationist authorities who told them so, at best.
To be fair, and to highlight a failing of the education system, that is true of most evolution believers (except obviously change creationist to evolutionist.
Posted by: psyentist | October 11, 2008 2:40 PM
To Heh - Lame attempt or more correctly a none attempt to deal with material you clearly don't understand. Next batter.
Posted by: David | October 11, 2008 2:40 PM
psyentist:
1. We can make guesses. Guesses that make far more sense than simply "god did it."
2.I'm not touching this.
3.We love/hate because as a social mammal it is helpful to the continued existence of our species. Those ancestors that didn't hate others and went through life loving everything even that which harmed it are now dead. Those that didn't love didn't find mates to reproduce.
4. I see no reason not to study quantum physics as it is part of the world god gave us. God lets us create art, doesn't he? Then consider it imaginary art.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | October 11, 2008 2:45 PM
Psyentist, an understanding of gravity has nothing to do with the origin of life whatsoever. What makes you think understanding one has anything to do with understanding the other?
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | October 11, 2008 2:45 PM
1. What does not knowing the cause of gravity have to do with knowledge regarding the origin of life?
2. Why can't global warming be at least partially caused by humans? It only makes sense that humans aren't helping the matter at the very least.
3. Love and hate most assuredly evolved, the same way a mother crocodile instinctively doesn't swallow its young when she moves them back and forth from land to water in her mouth.
4. I don't know much about quantum physics, but you don't know much about anything.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 11, 2008 2:46 PM
"Unmitigated hubris"? Tee hee. Good one!
Oh, wait, were you serious?
Well, then, it's time for another edition of PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Focusing on point #4, then, here's are a few simple questions which anyone who has studied introductory quantum mechanics should be able to answer.
1. For ten points, calculate in the Heisenberg picture the time evolution of a harmonic oscillator state produced by acting on the lowest-energy eigenstate with a spatial translation operator.
2. For five points, does the energy of a hydrogenic atom depend upon the angular momentum quantum number l, and if so, under what circumstances and why?
3. (5 points) Given the canonical commutation relation [x,p] = i, derive an expression for the commutator [x,p^n]. (15 points) Use your result to express the momentum operator in the position basis.
I give partial credit.
I'm sure you appreciate that knowing all the answers isn't necessary, just knowing enough that you're not wasting everybody else's time by blathering about stuff you do not understand.
Posted by: Negatron | October 11, 2008 2:48 PM
Psyentist,
to answer, in brief:
1) know the diff between evolution by natural selection and abiogenesis. No one claims to know exactly how life began, but evolution of species has over 150 years of evidence. Learn a little.
2) PZ posted on what he means by 'believe' when he gave a good response to how to answer the question of 'do you believe in evolution?' Search for that, it will provide insight.
3) Not everything is understood, the brain is an amazing complex organ. However, natural selection does provide some interesting explanations. Most importantly, lack of knowledge does not equal existence of god(s).
4) Everything we know about quantum mechanic is not based upon imaginary numbers. Particle accelerators are very real, produce real, tangible, verifiable results. That is just one example. There's more, but I'm not going to make a monster post you probably won't bother to read.
YOINK!
Posted by: ggab | October 11, 2008 2:48 PM
PZ
Instead of signing in, can you set it up so that we have to answer a simple logical question before we post?
It would save us having to deal with silly little gnats like this.
Posted by: DaveL | October 11, 2008 2:49 PM
Wow, that's so ignorant it's staggering. I take it you don't actually have any understanding of the mathematics of "imaginary" numbers.
They are no less "real" than the Real Numbers. Have you ever held 3.17882 in your hand? Have you seen the square root of pi? Cooked up the golden ratio in your oven? Of course not. Just as there are many real-world applications that cannot adequately be described in terms of integers, there are others that cannot be properly represented in the reals, and require the complex numbers.
This isn't unique to quantum mechanics, but in fact is an inescapable part electromagnetism and circuit theory. I guess the irony of using a computer built on quantum mechanical principles by electrical engineers to ridicule the concept of imaginary numbers completely escapes you.
Posted by: Loren Petrich | October 11, 2008 2:53 PM
Imaginary numbers? That's because early-modern European mathematicians were reluctant to accept that these could be legitimate numbers, just as they had trouble with zero and negative numbers.
The great mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss once proposed "lateral numbers" as a better name for imaginary numbers, but his proposal did not catch on. Likewise, "asset numbers" and "debt numbers" might be better names for positive and negative numbers. Or to stick with geometry, "forward numbers" and "reverse numbers".
Posted by: psyentist | October 11, 2008 2:53 PM
David,
1. You are 100% correct, we can make guesses, hopefully educated ones.
2. Can't blame you for not wanting to field this one.
3. Love and hate to be real must be, by their very nature, freely chosen not compulsory (biological) or they have no meaning. Thus my challenge.
4. I wouldn't suggest that quantum physics not be studied, I've done it myself - having two degrees in chemistry. I simply suggest that sometimes it is OK to follow these accepted theories where they lead even if its highly inconvenient - namely profound illogic. This same thing can be seen numerous times in my chosen field.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 11, 2008 2:55 PM
"Imaginary" numbers are called "imaginary" for much the same reason that Native Americans are called "Indians".
Posted by: ErikFK | October 11, 2008 2:58 PM
psyent - I can't imagine you're real. You must be something like an imaginary troll.
If they had called the "imaginary" numbers (case 1) "superrealistic" or (case 2) the "godful" numbers would anything in this world have been different? Would you then consider quantum physics to be absolutely real (case 1) or proof that god exists?
You apparently believe in the word and not in the thinking - and your comments have therefore the relevance of a flea's fart. The way you use your brain is simply a disgrace. You may as well continue reading the bible 'til your brain is sucked dry...
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 11, 2008 2:58 PM
The equation of "compulsory" with "biological" is a false one; you presume the conclusion of your argument.
Do they not teach high-school mathematics to chemistry majors anymore?
Like I said before, put up or shut up.
Posted by: David | October 11, 2008 2:59 PM
psyentist:
3. Understanding the biological reasoning for love/hate does not make them any less meaningful.
Posted by: Jason A. | October 11, 2008 3:01 PM
"I don't claim to have all the answers, unlike most of the self procalimed geniuses around here."
Included in the same post as you claim to definitively know that a couple centuries worth of accumulated knowledge by hundreds of experts in the fields are wrong.
I know there's a word for someone accuses others of doing something that he himself is doing. What is it again?
Posted by: ggab | October 11, 2008 3:02 PM
Blake
My answers
1. = 42
2. = 42
3. = I'm not quite sure, but I believe the answer is greater than forty one, while less than forty three.
Posted by: Donnie B. | October 11, 2008 3:02 PM
Chemistry. Whew. For a minute there I was worried you'd turn out to be an engineer.
So I assume you're working on your answers to Blake's quiz? Or maybe you're finding just the right words to explain why you spewed your bile over a subject of which you clearly have next to no knowledge.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 11, 2008 3:04 PM
David (#26):
Correct. And even if it did, that would not make biological explanations for love and hate factually wrong. To assert that a proposition of empirical fact must be wrong because its being right would be morally squicky is to argue from adverse consequences — an invalid crossing of the is/ought line.
Hey, you can't always get what you want.
Posted by: raven | October 11, 2008 3:05 PM
Oooh, ooooh a crazy troll. This one is way out there crazy.
Actually everyone on the planet capable of coherent thought knows what "causes" gravity. That leaves you out. It is a property of matter. That is why stuff dropped falls on the ground and why you are not floating in space. You do know that you aren't floating in space, don't you, at least when you take your meds.
As to origin of life issues, what makes us think we know anything about it is a rather simple if alien concept to you. Data, piles and piles of data, mountains of data. Facts and some theories.
The rest of your points are equally stupid but since you are crazy, nothing anyone can say will make any difference.
PS BTW, the computer you use to access the internet is based in part on quantum mechanical principles. QM is accepted because it is verifiable, predictive, and useful.
Posted by: psyentist | October 11, 2008 3:06 PM
Wow, it really is that easy to set off a bunch of madmen. Good luck barking at the moon.
Posted by: ErikFK | October 11, 2008 3:10 PM
psyent - thank you for being so stupid. Now we really feel likes geniuses :-).
Good bye dear imaginary troll...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 11, 2008 3:11 PM
Every profession has a few eccentrics in it. We usually try to get them into a place where they can't do much harm. In my business, we try to either shuffle them off to operations or quality assurance, where they don't have to think to much, and they can follow scripted instructions.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | October 11, 2008 3:14 PM
Pyentist, your four idiocies got clobbered here. Calling us madmen just confirms your willful ignorance. Beating your chest doesn't help you btw. It is just a typical response from an internet clown.
Posted by: David | October 11, 2008 3:16 PM
We do not bark at the moon. We send people to it to bark at the earth.
Posted by: Ward | October 11, 2008 3:16 PM
@ #20
LOL!
Well said.
Posted by: James F | October 11, 2008 3:32 PM
#7
Anyone here care to take a stab at a real science? Try explaining the fact that everything we know about quantum physics is based upon mathematics of imaginary numbers ie NOT REAL.
Can this really not be parody? Blasted Poe's Law....
Posted by: Patricia | October 11, 2008 3:33 PM
#7 - psyentist - You quite obviously don't know anything of the self 'procalimed' geniuses here. I have taken your challenge.
I shashyed into the front room, where my GOB (grumpy old bastard) was reading a blasphemous book, and remarked to him in a forward and brazen manner that I felt biologically compelled to share resources with him. He acted immediately to wrestle me to the carpet and share, freely, his biological resources with me.
So fool, your challenge doesn't stand the test you set.
Concern noted.
Piss off.
Posted by: Stevee8282 | October 11, 2008 3:34 PM
#36
Well we did once upon a time.
Posted by: David | October 11, 2008 3:35 PM
#20:
If I had 3 apples and I cut the fourth into two pieces one being 17.882% of the mass/volume (your choice) and the other piece being 82.118% of the apple and held the smaller piece in my hand, I would have 3.17822 apples.
Take a look at the parthenon for the golden ratio.
I can't think of a good geometrical example for the square root of pi. Any ideas?
Posted by: steve8282 | October 11, 2008 3:37 PM
#39.
Sounds like science can be more fun than religion.
Posted by: scooter | October 11, 2008 3:37 PM
psyentist @ 7
I don't claim to have all the answers
I think you should begin by formulating some good questions first.
unmitigated hubris
I'll have you know that all of my hubris has been properly mitigated to the standards outlined in the American Society of Professional Mitigators' handbook.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 11, 2008 3:50 PM
Wrong, on two counts. First, the Golden Ratio is an irrational number, so no amount of jiggering with rulers and dividing the results will yield its exact value. Second, the claim that the Golden Ratio was used in the Parthenon's design is a myth anyway.
Posted by: scooter | October 11, 2008 3:54 PM
Blake Stacey @ 17
oooo oooo I know this one!!!
1. For ten points: 42
2. For five points:
That's a trick question because you have not indicated whether the angular momentum is up and down, side to side, or counterclockwise, nice try though.
3. (5 points)
X^P= FAIL, preceding V~is^Ta= FAIL FAIL
Bill Gates
Ha ha, that's 23 points for scooter!!! I cede the rest of my time to the awesome psyentist.
Posted by: Iaintcomefromnodamnmonkey | October 11, 2008 4:02 PM
3. In as much as there is no plausible evolutionary explanation for the concept of love/hate, both concepts that PZ claims to believe in; what great pains do all of you go to to explain to the significant others in your lives that you indeed don't love them but rather feel biologically compelled to share resources with them? Sounds really romantic to me. I bet none of you have the guts to try this out on your so called "loved ones."
"When we observe the care with which a mud dauber prepares a mud enclosure, inserts a paralyzed victim as food and deposits an egg, can we be so anthropocentric as to deny this the name of love? How else could we interpret the male sea horse's protective act of accepting babies into his pouch, the months-long incubation of an emperor penguin's egg on the feet of its vigilant parent or the epic journey of Pacific salmon returning to their natal stream to mate and die in the creation of the next generation? If these are innate actions dictated by genetically encoded instructions, all the more reason to conclude that love in its many manifestations is fashioned into the very blueprint of life."
-David Suzuki
Posted by: ErikFK | October 11, 2008 4:09 PM
Iaintcomefromnodamnmonkey - sure you ain't coming from one. You're one!
Evolution doesn't explain concepts - humans invent them, so they must explain them. And humans are the result of an extraordinary adventure called evolution. Sad your monkey brain can't imagine that something like that is possible and think that goddidit is a better answer.
Posted by: DaveL | October 11, 2008 4:09 PM
What you have there are real world things described by real numbers, not the numbers themselves. By the same token we have materials with complex dielectric constants, and components with complex impedances - very real, concrete things that are described with imaginary numbers.
So how is one more "real" than the other?
Posted by: Cactus Wren | October 11, 2008 4:11 PM
I love it when the scientifically illiterate put forward non-questions with an implicit, "You evolutionists say you have all the answers? Well, answer this, why don'tcha? Huh? Huh? You can't, can you, smart guy?"
Psyentist's question #1 is, even in the eyes of this non-scientist, right up there with "You evolutionists say the world is the way it is because of scientific laws, but who passed the laws? Huh? Huh? You don't know, do you, smart guy?"
Posted by: Sastra | October 11, 2008 4:18 PM
Joshua Zelinsky at #8 is probably right that Ms. Cooke's making a distinction between science and what the courts allow, but she might also be reconciling the 'apparent' contradiction another way. It's pretty common for people to think of "science" as a very broad, loose category involving anything and everything that has to do with knowledge and experience -- so there are a lot of different kinds of "science." There's the science in science books; there's the science in making bricks; there's the science in knowing how to be a good parent; and there's the science in experiencing God through prayer. Paul had a mystical vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus, and thus verified Christianity "scientifically." Uh huh.
For example, my woo-ish New Age-y friends have no trouble proclaiming that vitalistic energy fields are scientific -- and agreeing that physicists don't recognize them. Upon questioning, it turns out that by "scientific" they mean "you can experience them for yourself."
psyentist #7 wrote:
I'm not sure where you're going here. It looked at first glance as if you're making some kind of dualistic division between physical processes and internal feelings (or maybe abstractions?), but in #22 you seem to be making a dualistic distinction between free will and biological compulsion.
If it's the first one, then I think you'd also have to argue that there would be no "plausible evolutionary explanation" for any internal sensations at all, including hunger, pleasure, and pain -- but that doesn't seem like much of a leap. "Love" and "hate" are simply abstract concepts which refer to certain kinds of pleasures and pains, experienced on the subjective and social level.
If this is a problem with freedom vs. compulsion, keep in mind that our choices are influenced by our desires and personalities, and would be part of the deterministic flow themselves. It is not an either/or where either we act on nature, or nature acts on us. We're nature, too.
Posted by: freelunch | October 11, 2008 4:20 PM
How do we get idiots on school boards or the legislature or Congress? We elect them. When the Republican fool promises us less taxes and more government, we don't actually believe him, but enough of us vote for him anyway that we've suffered from irresponsible political dialog at the federal, state and local levels because voters aren't willing to call the lying candidates liars. When Democrats, despairing of doing anything else make the same silly promises, we are screwed. The good news has been that Democrats have been slightly less irresponsible than the Republicans lately, but that's no thanks to American voters. As Pogo reminds us, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 11, 2008 4:25 PM
Irrelevant.
Life is made of cells which are made of chemicals. Therefore, we "know" that the origin of life must have been a chemical event.
It was still irrelevant.
Which part is "infernally stupid"? The global warming part, or the caused by human part?
And as you pretend to be a chemist, can you back up your assertion of global warming's alleged stupidity with any science?
Because trusting climatologists and meteorologists to do their job and present their peer-reviewed findings honestly is wrong?
False.
And from the false premise, a false conclusion.
All of mathematics is only as real as what it describes in the real world. "Real" and "imaginary" numbers are, as pointed out above, merely labels applied to certain classes of numbers.
Quantum physics is of course very real -- that is, demonstrated by experiment, as well as explained by theory.
False.You are indeed making a claim that you have answers, although, of course, all of your answers are simply wrong.
You, on the other hand, sound like someone who has overdosed on moronic acid. Seek medical help quickly.
Posted by: Iaintcomefromnodamnmonkey | October 11, 2008 4:27 PM
ErikFK, relax. First of all, the name I chose is a tounge-in-cheek on a ridiculous argument I've heard from more than one creationist.
As for the Suzuki quote, I always interpreted it as an way of saying that love isn't just a human phenomenon, that it exists in "many manisfestations". I posted it as a response to Psyentist's question 2. I have no problem at all with the idea that love a biological process, or "dictated by genetically encoded instructions" as Dave puts it.
Believe me, Brother. I ain't no damn creationist.
PS: You're a monkey
Posted by: David | October 11, 2008 4:34 PM
#44: You are overly critical of my attempt at a joke. No one else seems to have gotten it anyways though (#48). Thanks for the link, interesting stuff.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 11, 2008 4:34 PM
Of course. Because "science" means "knowledge" -- and they have a different way of knowing.
QED.
PRIVILEGED EXPERIENCE IS PRIVILEGED.
Posted by: ErikFK | October 11, 2008 4:42 PM
Iaintcomefromnodamnmonkey - damned! You got me. I had just left my cage in the zoo to use my keeper's laptop to surf the internet.
But I know your real name. It is actually youaintnodamneddescendantofmine.
LOL on me!
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2008 4:49 PM
Wow, it really is that easy to set off a bunch of madmen. Good luck barking at the moon.
translation:
"Curses! Foiled again."
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 11, 2008 5:05 PM
Sastra@50
Maybe Ms. Cooke is just getting on the Steve Jones (geneticist-University College London) bandwagon. Jones is saying that evolution is coming to an end if not already stopped. Since he is a respected scientist, many in the science community are upset with him. I don't know why. Jones has been saying the same thing for the last 14 years. In his 1995 book he claimed "natural selection has been repealed". So, why these evo-devos are getting upset now is puzzling.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2008 5:09 PM
So, why these evo-devos are getting upset now is puzzling.
are you having trouble with the timing, or the nature of the criticism of Jones?
either way, that you find it puzzling, if you are really aware of what the issues are, is a bit...
puzzling.
Posted by: ice9 | October 11, 2008 5:14 PM
Actually, the "dig" in that story ('offered no proof') is one more example of the cowardly journalists finally starting to get off the "balance" and get on the "journalism." We're seeing it more and more, thank Tarvu. Though the barking lunatics of the far right love to call that bias, it's actually just conscientious writing. Did she offer proof? Did we report the last 8,000 times when they said things like this that they had no proof? No. Should we continue to give them a free pass? no. Report it, and ignore the morons.
I consider that an improvement.
ice
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | October 11, 2008 5:42 PM
I don't know much about Brunswick County in North Carolina I bet the number of competent biology teachers there is exactly zero.
I don't know where Bob went to school but I bet the number of competent teachers of any kind is exactly zero.
Why let knowing any useful information get in the way of forming an opinion.
Its the Democrat way!
Posted by: Escuerd | October 11, 2008 5:44 PM
psyentist:
I think that part gives the parody away.
Posted by: Nibien | October 11, 2008 5:49 PM
Summation of Psyentist:
I can say the most asinine things ever, then call everyone madmen when they point out I'm a complete idiot! Praise Jesus!
Posted by: Ermine | October 11, 2008 5:50 PM
Psyentist:
Let's just stop right there. I challenge you to link to even one post by *any* of our usual posters where they claim to have all the answers, much less 'most' having made that claim.
Can't do it, can ya? What do you know, yet another liar for God. Why am I not surprised?
Oh no! Someone pointed out my obvious lie! I'd better claim they're 'angry' and 'barking at the moon'! Judging by your behavior so far, that's your next course of action, right? Why DO those evilutionists get so angry? All we did was lie about them constantly, what's their problem?
You're either a troll or an idiot - or a troll AND an idiot, and you wouldn't know real science if it bit you on the ass. Don't waste our time.
Posted by: JD | October 11, 2008 5:59 PM
That was pretty good. In addition to the Molly, PZ needs to have an award for the best comment skewering a creationist / IDiot / religious whackaloon. Preferably awarded to one where the sarcasm and ridicule is readily apparent to us, but not necessarily to the dimwitted victim.
I nominate #20.
Posted by: Kel | October 11, 2008 6:07 PM
They keep this mantra up, I'm really not sure why. There's no proof of creation and it is one sided. The world has been dated through several rocks and with several techniques for over 4.5 billion years old, and life gradually emerges in the fossil record. So what's the evidence for creation?!?Posted by: Silver Fox | October 11, 2008 6:20 PM
Ich @ 59
"timing or nature of criticism of Jones"
Timing and criticism actually go together. In 1955 when he published The Language of the Gene some eyebrows may have been raised but no great furor. However, since then, the intelligent design folks seems to have claimed him. Their only argument with Jones is: how can evolution come to a stop when it never began?
So now on 10/8/08 he gives a lecture on 14 year old material and the evo-devos all get themselves into a wad. The puzzlement is: why the acceleration of critique?
Posted by: guthrie | October 11, 2008 6:24 PM
Psyentist- I'll touch #2- On my side I have thousands of climate interested scientists, gigabytes of data, over 30 years of investigation, all the computers you could need, over 100 years of laws of physics, the scientific societies of the world, and just to sum it up, evidence and successful predictions.
You, on the other hand, have give nothing. So whats your wonderful proof against Anthropogenic global warming?
Posted by: Geoff | October 11, 2008 6:25 PM
I'm even older than PZ and I worked hard for my chemstry degree. Like many chemistry students, I found QM really, really hard, so understood what I could and learned the rest by rote.
So said, Psyentist makes me feel like a genius. Is S/he a Poe? P can't possibly be a graduate chemist from anywhere that should be able to award degrees. Wait, P claims to have TWO chemistry degrees, obviously the $25 graduate one and the $37.50 masters.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2008 6:33 PM
The puzzlement is: why the acceleration of critique?
new generation of scientists, far more sensitive to the bad arguments.
In fact, if one can thank the recent fundie flailings for anything, it's that it has raised the consciousness level for bad arguments relating to evolutionary theory of any kind.
even old ones.
Posted by: Kel | October 11, 2008 6:36 PM
Origin of life issues. Basically an origin event is necessary so it must have happened. Evolution deals with the diversity of species, natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, all these are to do with the diversity of life. This is scientific fact. What we know is that the world is around 4.5 billion years old, the origin of life happened reasonably early (within the first billion years), and it's only in the last 700 million years or so that complex life formed. We see the progressive nature of the fossil record, we see the emergent life. So we know that life must have had a beginning around 4 billion years ago.With the origin of life, all we can do is come up with ways it could have happened, like the Nebula hypothesis we are looking at events that happened billions of years ago so even if we find a way to turn non-replicating organic material into replicating organic material, it still might not be the way it happened. But we know an event did happen as it's necessary. It had to have happened, just how is the mystery. Human induced climate change is real, what's unknown is the extent to which human activity is at fault. There's good science behind it, and many scientists working on it. http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_human_induced_climate_change.html Who says there's no plausible evolutionary explanation for the concepts of love and hate? They seem entirely consistent with evolutionary theory. They are entirely materialist functionality and they offer survival advantages. Love helps reproduction. Love keeps the family unit together. Love helps educate the next generation, and love helps with social bonding that keeps the community together. There's so much that love does that it fits perfectly with a Darwinian explanation. Biology is real science creatard! It doesn't suddenly become non-science because you don't take the time to understand it. And who says that our counting system is right? Our counting system neglects many important numbers that we call irrational numbers which are vital to the way reality works. Why are irrational numbers any more absurd than π? Both have practical uses. I'm not sure how many people here are self-proclaimed geniuses, I'm not one. Of course there needs to be humility in the face of the unknown, but without realising that there is so much known already then we are never going to get anywhere. Trying to score a point by showing the intersection of the known and unknown to cast a shadow on what is known is just being intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: Chris Townsend | October 11, 2008 6:40 PM
There seems to be some confusion over Steve Jones. He's not saying evolution has come to an end, he is saying that human evolution has come to an end. Now, some of his arguments for this appear strange, to put it mildly, but he hasn't become a creationist. Indeed he attacks creationism regularly.
See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/feb/03/genetics.research
http://royalsociety.org/event.asp?id=4140
Any creationist who listens to Steve Jones's Royal Society lecture isn't going to regard him as anything other than an enemy, unless of course they cease to be a creationist due to the strength of his arguments.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 11, 2008 6:42 PM
Strictly speaking, IDiots have no problem with evolution (or should have no problem); they merely claim that not everything can be explained by evolution or materialistic science.
You must be thinking of hardcore Creationists.
Unless, of course, IDiots are Creationists. So much for the Disco Institute's rhetoric...
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | October 11, 2008 6:48 PM
So whats your wonderful proof against Anthropogenic global warming?
I think you overstate you case. AGW has some hard science in favor of it but still doesn't in my opinion reach theory status. There is doubt in both the ideal of why and if warming is actuality occurring, and if it is whether or now we could of should doo anything about it. It might even be a good thing due to solar output seeming to decrease.
Anyone who says that they know exactly what is going and what needs to be done about it is making a political statement, not a scientific one.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2008 7:08 PM
So whats your wonderful proof against Anthropogenic global warming?
we duly note you did NOT answer the question posed, Eric.
There is doubt in both the ideal of why and if warming is actuality occurring
nope, not really, especially given that if one looks at historical data, we SHOULD actually be in a cooling trend right about now.
if it is whether or now we could of should doo anything about it.
again, the only real complaints about whether we should "do" anything about it come from those who have entirely vested interests in NOT doing anything about it.
Anyone who says that they know exactly what is going and what needs to be done about it is making a political statement, not a scientific one.
a piss poor argument, given how much effort is required to actually MOTIVATE a political agenda to begin with.
or did you also forget the effort it took to curtail chloroflourcarbon production?
you're in pretty shallow water there.
Posted by: Kel | October 11, 2008 7:17 PM
Reducing our carbon footprint would be a good start tbh.
Posted by: Monado | October 11, 2008 7:18 PM
The plausible evolutionary explanation for love and hate is to keep resources in the family. Rats, when they pair up, go around killing all the other rats in their area (paired or not). Usually the male kills males and the female kills females. The remaining, strongest pair raise a large, loving family. One reason you seldom see rats in the open is the unremitting hostility between tribes of rats, so they seldom leave their territory. All the rats in one tribe share genes and their love for each other and hate for strangers helps to transmit those genes.
It's similar for humans, where "us vs. them" has been a way of life for tens of thousands of years before we got rich enough to make sharing with everyone (not just our little kinship group) an ideal.
Does that help?
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | October 11, 2008 7:19 PM
Duh. I don't HAVE an answer disproving AGW. It's up to science to prove that it dose exist. That's how science works ok.
Yes, really there is doubt.
And if it is true, I can thing of several other things that are more threating that need attention that AWG.
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 11, 2008 7:23 PM
Kel@71
Creationists don't seem to have an issue with the necessity of an origin event. In fact, they think they know what it was. That's why they keep the "mantra up"
They seem to get tired of always being asked for proof of a Divine hand, when scientific naturalist (evolutionists) can't show them a single solitary example of a living human clearly in the process of transpeciation. They suspect that those four billion year old rocks that you allude to shows little more that a handful of micro adaptations. Now, if you could show them a single human who is clearly in the process of going from human to the next step, I think that would clinch it for you. However, asking them to wait for another billion years is probably not going to cut it.