…and this is a 
The latest issue of Science has a deservedly cruel review of Steve Fuller's dreary philosophical assault on evolution, Dissent over Descent: Intelligent Design's Challenge to Darwinism. I could tell from the title alone that the book was going to be worthless—Intelligent Design creationism provides no coherent "challenge" to evolution other than the purblind relabeling of it as "Darwinism"—but poor Michael Ruse had to actually read the whole book. Here's his quick summary of the contents:
More amused than cross, let me go to the heart of Fuller's case against Darwinian evolutionary theory and for IDT—for his is as much a negative critique of the opposition as a positive defense of his own beliefs. Fuller feels that Charles Darwin failed to make the case for his mechanism of natural selection. Darwin did not give a cause for evolution. He certainly did not unify the field. At most he gave lists of facts. Moreover, today if we feel that advance has been made, it is primarily in the molecular field, and this owes little or nothing to traditional evolutionary thought. At best Darwinism is a kind of tarted-up natural theology and, this being so, why not IDT?
Well. If that is an accurate description, and I have no reason to think otherwise since I have read some of Fuller's pronouncements on these topics and they are entirely in line with the summary, then Fuller is an even bigger fool than I thought. Those statements are wrong in every case. Not just wrong, but transparently wrong, since even a non-philosopher like myself can read The Origin and see that his accusations against Darwin's argument are false, and as someone who follows the field of molecular evolution somewhat closely, I think his claims about the state of the modern biological sciences are utterly silly.
Fortunately, Ruse has concisely skewered Fuller's arguments for us.
The important thing is that all of this is completely wrong and is backed by no sound scholarship whatsoever. In at least one case, Fuller makes his case by an egregious misreading—of something I wrote about the role of genetic drift in Sewall Wright's shifting balance theory. For the record, Charles Darwin set out to provide a cause, what he called—following his mentors like William Whewell (who in turn referred back to Newton)—a true cause or vera causa. Darwin felt, and historians and philosophers of science as well as practicing evolutionary biologists still feel, that he succeeded, for two reasons. First, he showed how organisms can be changed by human picking or selecting. Although Fuller repeatedly claims that Darwin intended no analogy here, that is simply not true. In the face of virtually everybody—including Alfred Russel Wallace, who (in the manuscript he sent to Darwin in 1858) explicitly denied a link between artificial and natural selection—Darwin insisted that we can gain confidence about selection in nature from what happens when humans are active. Second, Darwin brought everything together in a "consilience of inductions." He argued that if you take selection as the causal mechanism, then you can explain instinct, the fossil record, geographical distributions of organisms, anatomy, systematics, and embryology. In turn, the success of these explanations feeds back to support the belief in selection. About as unifying a setup as it is possible to imagine.
One can go on to look at things today. It is ludicrous to claim that modern evolutionary biology is not integrated with molecular biology. Motoo Kimura's neutral theory depends crucially on the claim that selection has little or no effect on processes down at the molecular level. Genetic fingerprinting has proved absolutely vital for observational and experimental studies of evolution. Someone like British ornithologist Nicholas Davies, working out the relationships among individual dunnocks (Prunella modularis), would have been powerless without the technique. And in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), currently the hottest area of evolutionary research, how does one speak of genetic homologies between fruitflies and humans without talking about molecules?
Somehow, Fuller has been granted the status of an authority by Intelligent Design creationists. I don't know how or why, but I hope they keep picking buffoons to represent their cause.
Ruse M (2008) A Challenge Standing on Shaky Clay. Science 322(5898):47-48.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Leigh Shryock | October 14, 2008 10:45 AM
Well, it's not like they can get anyone respectable to present their case for them. What with them losing any respect that they had once they do so.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 14, 2008 10:45 AM
So? Einstein didn't unify the fields either. ;-)
Sorry. 7:45 AM here. Way too early for physics humor.
Posted by: Anders | October 14, 2008 10:47 AM
"Somehow, Fuller has been granted the status of an authority by Intelligent Design creationists. I don't know how or why, but I hope they keep picking buffoons to represent their cause."
Sure you do P.Z... sure you do...
Posted by: Mu | October 14, 2008 10:47 AM
This brings up the question, how does ID deal with human bred species? While we can't make fish become pigs, humans have created the most amazing new species. Were those all latent in the original design? Or are we all little gods (after all, we are created in his image).
Posted by: shane | October 14, 2008 10:48 AM
Oh no, Darwin gave us a bunch of facts? That when put together...Posted by: Pete Moulton | October 14, 2008 10:59 AM
"...I hope they keep picking buffoons to represent their cause." Who else would do it?
Posted by: E.V. | October 14, 2008 11:01 AM
Given the old monkeys/typewriter/enough time proverb, I doubt they could even rise to the level of Dr. Seuss within a few hundred millenia, but Fuller might find himself outsourced within a week or two.
Posted by: Pete Moulton | October 14, 2008 11:01 AM
"...I hope they keep picking buffoons to represent their cause." Who else would do it?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 14, 2008 11:04 AM
I don't know if I'd call Darwin's natural selection a vera causa. One could argue that natural selection was a mechanistic view of matters for which the "most true" causes were not yet knowable.
That's all word play, however. It's was as close to a vera causa as anything could be at the time, and I would actually prefer (against Fuller, anyway) to bring up Darwin's analogy with language evolution, particularly since the egregious Fuller isn't complaining about the latter.
The fact is that language evolution was understandable enough without, say, the "true causes" of cognitive processes and social evolution. For Darwinian evolution to be its equal scientifically, it only needed a reasonable causal factor behind it, and Darwin adequately argued for natural selection. At that point, then, biological evolution was much closer to a vera causa (depending on how we define it) than was language evolution, and many of the evidences were similar for both.
If Fuller is at least consistent, he'll have to argue that language evolution isn't science, because although a great deal that Darwin didn't know about biological evolution has been found out since his time, the basic brain mechanisms of language evolution are hardly known to much of the "mechanical" detail. He'd still be stupid (or whatever his problem is), but at least he might not then be a snivelling self-refuting jackass.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Ploon | October 14, 2008 11:13 AM
All of this of course without naming the false dichotomy underlying the "challenge": if "Darwinism" is wrong, then "Intelligent Design" must be right. For which there is no logical reason. But then, if logic were at all involved, then they would actually have to propose hypotheses and test them, wouldn't they? "Hmmm, now to think up an experiment... Hey god, could ya give us a hand here?"
Posted by: eric | October 14, 2008 11:15 AM
Hmmm...you may want to slightly amend your post, PZ. The Ruse book review was in the Oct 3 issue of Science, not the latest Oct 10 issue.
Posted by: clinteas | October 14, 2008 11:20 AM
I propose a radical shift in our way of arguing with Creationists LOL
Laugh at them,ridicule them,tell them they're fucked in the head.
But for god's sake,lets stop taking the arguments made by them in their cute ID books seriously,and lets stop refuting them with the means and methods of science and rationality.
Its just giving this nonsense much more credit than it deserves.
Posted by: Peter Camenzind | October 14, 2008 11:29 AM
[deleted]
["Peter Camenzind" is just that old idiot, Charlie Wagner. He gets deleted whenever I find him morphing his name again. --pzm]
Posted by: E.V. | October 14, 2008 11:35 AM
#13
You're either a poe or a moron. (Don't you luv false dichotomies?)
Posted by: mike | October 14, 2008 11:35 AM
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." -- Voltaire
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 14, 2008 11:37 AM
Peter. Care to provide us the evidence of such?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 14, 2008 11:39 AM
What is this Darwinism that IDers keep talking about? That sounds like a cult of Darwin. I am an evolutionist. Evolution is far more than what Darwin said. He put some general ideas in place, some right, some wrong. But he was the first to do so on a big scale. Later scientific work modified and filled in gap in his theory, and more recent discoveries in molecular biology, DNA, and genetics confirm his theory, and not one like ID.
Those who try to pretend ID is real are fools, like Peter #13.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | October 14, 2008 11:40 AM
Peter Camenzid you are right, Darwinism essentially was superceded by the Modern Synthesis in the 1950s and molecular biology and especially comparitive genomics has moved evolutionary theory so far away from Darwin that in essence he is just dead history. If it wasn't for creatiofools attacking evolutionary theory by calling it Darwinism then us biologists would hardly even think of him. We have in fact people like you for keeping his memory very much alive and kicking in an age when he has not only been proved more right than just about anything else in science but also been fitted out with a cast iron mechanism in genetics who needs the old fossil?
After the publication of The Origin of Species Scientists and Naturalists fanned out aross the world and catalogued and classified and dissected and analysed every living things they could get their scalpels on. The journals from the time are full of their work. I collect for my sins comparative muscle anatomies. i have one for eg for the European Badger. No need to do it again, it's all right there. The mountain of modern evolutionary theory is built on the bedrock of that work.
What is perhaps telling is that the peak of the comparative anatomists in Europe was the late 19thC whereas all the stuff from the US is basically not until the 1920s.
Posted by: E.V. | October 14, 2008 11:41 AM
Peter:
So far, you're the Sarah Palin of the thread.
Posted by: Jello | October 14, 2008 11:43 AM
Peter, here's a bit of wisdom for you, "Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt." Your trying to fight a wildfire with a squirt gun dude, quit while you can.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | October 14, 2008 11:43 AM
Hallelujah! About time, too. I hate that word! Let's get back to calling it the theory of evolution, like we did before the creationist pecan-logs started trying to rename it as if it were religion.
Thanks Peter, glad to hear the news.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 14, 2008 11:45 AM
I have nothing to add to any of this except to say, ignore Peter Camenzind. The fool is only derailing this thread, taking everything off topic.
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | October 14, 2008 11:45 AM
I know this is hardly a mature, adult response, but if the scientific theory of evolution is "Darwinism", then shouldn't the theory of Intelligent Design be "Johnsonism"?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 14, 2008 11:45 AM
Peter, my mind is open, but it requires evidence. Like articles supporting ID that can be found in journals like Science and Nature. Journals where Nobel prize winning science is often first published. If ID is true, then evolution is false and a Nobel prize is waiting for whoever makes the case for it.
Now Peter, how many articles in Science and Nature support ID? Somewhere around zero. It is a bankrupt idea with no evidential backing. So where is your proof? Put up or shut up.
Posted by: E.V. | October 14, 2008 11:47 AM
*irony meter implodes* Peter Ashby explained it all for you. Come back again Pete C, when your head is disengaged from your ass.Posted by: James Haight | October 14, 2008 11:49 AM
Yuh. Open your eyes, open your mind.. and abandon all semblance of rational thought.
Posted by: raven | October 14, 2008 11:49 AM
Actually what is dying is the influence of Nihilistic Death Cultists with brains the size of walnuts. Such as yourself. There is even data on this point, 50% of the GOP wants to toss the other 50%, the religious kooks out of the party. Because they have destroyed the party along with the USA.
Another fact, not that facts are anything familiar to you. In November the Theothuglicans are going to lose big time. People are sick of crazy creeps ruining the country and the citizenry.
The current poster girl for fundie idiots, Palin, has turned out to be a stupid, ignorant, hate filled clown that few trust or like. Much like yourself.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 14, 2008 11:51 AM
Peter, please supply scientific references to back up your ideas. Otherwise, you are just a con man making noise. Show the evidence to back up your claims. Talk is cheap. Proper evidence is golden.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 14, 2008 11:53 AM
poe
Posted by: raven | October 14, 2008 11:57 AM
Steve Fuller is indeed a world class buffoon. ID is the least of his fallacies.
He is a Post Modernist who believes there is no real world. So we can just Make Up Anything and these become facts that describe reality.
There is of course, no evidence for this whatsoever. And virtually no one in science accepts his premise that opinions, fantasies, and magical thinking determine what is reality. At the base, his philosophy is just nonsense.
Posted by: john ilya | October 14, 2008 11:58 AM
If Fuller's main argument for why Darwin didn't demonstrate natural selection to be the mechanism for evolution then the argument doesn't even make sense. Every scientist gives facts to support their hypothesis. That's how it's done.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 14, 2008 11:59 AM
I saw ariticles supporting standard biology, that is evolution. Again, where is your proof on ID? Put up or shut up.
Posted by: clinteas | October 14, 2008 12:02 PM
As much as raven and the Rev are right,and as much as we love a good troll bashing,see my point @ 12.
Its pointless,and not worth the effort.
//You have only to look.//
Exactly.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 14, 2008 12:02 PM
Peter, lets define your creator. Is it god or an advanced alien? If it's god you have to first prove god. Again, where do we find god in the scientific literature?
Posted by: raven | October 14, 2008 12:05 PM
The actual number of peer reviewed scientific papers supporting ID in the last 100 years is pretty close to zero.
You are simply lying, the only thing IDists are capable of doing.
The number of peer reviewed papers supporting evolution is not well known. It is in the hundreds of thousands at least, maybe millions. Whole libraries worth for sure.
Posted by: john ilya | October 14, 2008 12:08 PM
What I meant to say was:
If Fuller's main argument for why Darwin didn't demonstrate natural selection to be the mechanism for evolution is because he listed facts, then the argument doesn't even make sense. Every scientist gives facts to support their hypothesis. That's how it's done.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 14, 2008 12:09 PM
Wait a second, wasn't referring to PZ as "Paul" one of the trademarks of somebody who got thrown in the dungeon already?
Posted by: Iain Walker | October 14, 2008 12:10 PM
Peter Camenzind (#32):
Your link just goes to a PubMed search for the term "molecular motors". Nothing supportive of ID there.
Posted by: Jello | October 14, 2008 12:12 PM
Wow, linking to a list of legitimate biology studies and trying to pass it off as proof of ID? I knew IDiots were intellectually bankrupt but that's like stealing someones's english essay and handing it in to your math teacher. Did you even read the list?
Posted by: frog | October 14, 2008 12:12 PM
Even if Darwin himself did not give a full multi-scale theory of natural selection (to some extent he didn't have the math), who gives a flying fuck?
This ain't theology where the discipline lies on the authority of the prophet! If you'd want to attack somewhere, it would have to be the neo-Darwinist synthesis, which does give a full multi-scale theory of evolution, with all the mathematical bells and whistles, and the succeeding 80 years of work.
I call strawman on Fuller. Next, we attack physics, since Newton never explained gravitational force, and left it as a spooky action at a distance!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 14, 2008 12:13 PM
Yes, your argumentation from ignorance is quickly proving yourself to be both a fool and a liar.
Posted by: E.V. | October 14, 2008 12:14 PM
#41:
Give Blake Stacey a cigar!
Posted by: frog | October 14, 2008 12:15 PM
Peter: As for my "creator", I just don't know.
Then please come back when you do know. If you're positing a cause, you need to fully describe that cause or you're just playing the old "dormative principle" game.
Posted by: RAM | October 14, 2008 12:16 PM
#32, you're a demented moron.
You cite a number of hard working scientists doing carefull research, (and of course doing nothing of your own), and claim their work supports your silly superstitious world views.
Idiot!
Please, I challange you. Win the next Nobel prize, and claim your place in all future history books, show us proof of ID, or your god.
Anything will do.
Got anything?
Anything?
Posted by: raven | October 14, 2008 12:16 PM
This is just the standard Fallacy of Argument from Ignorance and Personal Incredulity. Which proves nothing. It is, "I can't see how my foot evolved so god exists."
The troll has nothing but a common error in logical thinking that is so old, it was first expressed in Latin when Latin was a living language. Move on, nothing to see here.
Posted by: E.V. | October 14, 2008 12:20 PM
Awwwww. I wanna see him bitch-slapped a coupla' more times with SCIENCE and REASON!Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 14, 2008 12:21 PM
People. Blake (#41) is right. "Peter" is just Charlie Wagner. Yet again.
It is beyond pointless to engage with Charlie; better minds than ours have failed for many years to crack his case-hardened pighead.
Please: do not feed the Wagnertroll.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 14, 2008 12:22 PM
"Fool or liar"? I thought it was "liar, lunatic or Lord"!
Posted by: CJO | October 14, 2008 12:24 PM
For the sake of [extremely weak] argument, let's say they weren't produced by evolution. What is their causal history, then? While I don't have access to the list of articles you linked to on PubMed (and I'll wager you haven't actually read a one of them) I think it's safe to say that they encompass what has memorably been called a "pathetic level of detail," and further, that they do not posit magic in order to reach their conclusions.
Let's see a detailed, falsifiable account of the origin of just one molecular machine by mechanisms other than evolutionary.
If you say no, it, the conjunction again occurs:
Fool and liar.
Posted by: clinteas | October 14, 2008 12:24 PM
raven said @50::
//This is just the standard Fallacy of Argument from Ignorance and Personal Incredulity//
Here you go....
//ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Posted by: BobC | October 14, 2008 12:25 PM
Intelligent Design's Challenge to Darwinism
Translation: Magic's Challenge to Science
Posted by: s1mplex | October 14, 2008 12:25 PM
Peter is just one of Charlie Wagner's many personalities. At one point a few of them were interesting, but now... well, you can see for yourself.
Posted by: Anthony Taylor | October 14, 2008 12:28 PM
P.Z.,
The ID crowd doesn't care if their words are presented by buffoons, ignoramuses, morons, or stooges. They are not trying to convince people for whom these traits matter. They merely hope to stir up the masses who think elitism is bad, that intelligence is suspect, that education is dangerous. These are the people who will actively disbelieve things with evidence, but embrace things without evidence.
As long as they have folks who are willing to spew their anti-intellectualism in the name of the destruction of the materialistic society, they are succeeding.
Posted by: E.V. | October 14, 2008 12:30 PM
Scooby Do-esque denouement:
Posted by: BobC | October 14, 2008 12:31 PM
Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
The creationist retards would be lot more than uncomfortable. If they thought they shared an ancestor with the chimps they would become mentally disturbed.
Posted by: JStein | October 14, 2008 12:32 PM
Wow. Michael Ruse butchered his arguments, and well he should, as they make little or no sense.
Like you said, it's a shame that he had to read the whole book, but somebody has to do it.
He should be featured on an episode of Dirty Jobs.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 14, 2008 12:32 PM
Taking pride in not being able to see how wrong you are when told by people better educated and intelligent than you...
You just made my day
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 14, 2008 12:34 PM
And that would be detectable how?
Take Charlie, for instance.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: bernard quatermass | October 14, 2008 12:36 PM
"Awwwww. I wanna see him bitch-slapped a coupla' more times with SCIENCE and REASON!"
Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen with someone who can neither recognize nor acknowledge either.
That is the main problem with trolls. Baiting them starts out fun, but once you realize the mental cement hardened long ago, it quickly becomes sheer tedium.
And then, hours into the tedium, you begin to realize they are just playing the same tape, over and over and over and ... because they are incapable of doing anything else.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 14, 2008 12:37 PM
Hammer meet imbecile.
Posted by: clinteas | October 14, 2008 12:39 PM
//Hammer meet imbecile.//
Waste of energy.
Imbecile,meet killfile.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 14, 2008 12:39 PM
You haven't said anything of note.
Posted by: bernard quatermass | October 14, 2008 12:42 PM
"I can SMELL the fear..."
Odd. I'm not afraid. And since 1) fear has no smell and 2) smell cannot be transmitted over the Intertubes anyway, I can only guess that what you are smelling has actually just released itself from your own upset little insides.
Better grab a corn-cob and git cleaned up.
Posted by: Jello | October 14, 2008 12:42 PM
No peter, that's just your own BS.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 14, 2008 12:44 PM
Let's see, Waterloo for "Darwinism" was penciled into the calendar at exactly what date?
I'm afraid of the Y2K bug as well. It's a-comin', and I sweat the cold, salty water of fear.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Jared | October 14, 2008 12:50 PM
Troll has met the killfile...
Posted by: E.V. | October 14, 2008 12:51 PM
Did Charlie the Peter get dumped? I was looking for the afore mentioned "smell the fear" post and... -oh, I just found PZ's delete note @#13.
This particular troll needs some serious mental health care.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 14, 2008 1:11 PM
Zounds, the dungeon is getting crowded!
Posted by: H.H. | October 14, 2008 1:15 PM
Prediction: this devastating critique will be spun by IDiots as "yet another ID article appears in a peer-reviewed journal. The tide is turning. Darwinism is doomed! Waterloo!"
Posted by: Dale Husband | October 14, 2008 1:58 PM
How can you tell who is what? And why was he linking to Barack Obama's website? Was he using too many swear words?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 14, 2008 1:58 PM
Charlie's cell is, anyway.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 14, 2008 2:03 PM
IP address.
The intartubes and knowledge about them are your friend.
Posted by: The Gay Species | October 14, 2008 2:04 PM
It's more often Michael Ruse who has been confused, but he is gradually "getting it," for someone who is a self-proclaimed philosopher of biology. His deficits did not allow such proclamations without a howl, but over scores of time he is catching on.
Posted by: BdN | October 14, 2008 2:39 PM
I'm not really sure what is the accusation really about when you say "self-proclaimed philosopher of biology"...
Posted by: James F | October 14, 2008 2:43 PM
Somehow, Fuller has been granted the status of an authority by Intelligent Design creationists. I don't know how or why, but I hope they keep picking buffoons to represent their cause.
As far as I can tell, the only representative of the IDC camp that does any valuable scientific research is Scott Minnich (viz. his work on Yersinia pestis). Note that while you virtually never hear public statements from him, he was one of the authors of Explore Evolution...very insidious.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 14, 2008 2:49 PM
I'm certainly not a scholar of Ruseiana, but I have noticed him indulging in the Courtier's Reply and suchlike tomfoolery. Maybe we should all be happy he's finally found somebody smaller than himself to beat up. (-;
(Yeah, I'm not a very nice person. I have a kind heart. . . in a jar on my closet shelf.)
Posted by: BdN | October 14, 2008 2:56 PM
Well, it's not like I wanted to defend everything he has ever written, but I find it a little quick to dismiss him over his argument about, mainly, Dawkins' God Delusion, while he has written and taught about evolution theory for the past, almost, 40 years.
Posted by: Charles Sane | October 14, 2008 3:03 PM
This blog entry is simply way off base. Right from the start.
This article is not to be found in "The latest issue of Science..." as Myers claims.
It was in last week's issue (October 3rd.)
Therefore ID is correct.
Ok - maybe just being sarcastic about the ID part.... ; )
Posted by: Xen | October 14, 2008 3:06 PM
You should also check out A.C. Grayiling's review, the authors response and A.C.'s retort, the exchange was quite amusing.
By the way, love the blog, first time commenting :)
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 14, 2008 3:11 PM
This article is not to be found in "The latest issue of Science..." as Myers claims.
that might be because I had posted some links to a couple of interesting articles from issue 322 in the thread on the fossil "shrimp", which was from the latest issue.
he might have thought the articles were from the latest issue, since I was talking about them in that thread.
easy mistake.
Posted by: Charles Sane | October 14, 2008 3:21 PM
[quote]"This article is not to be found in "The latest issue of Science..." as Myers claims.
that might be because I had posted some links to a couple of interesting articles from issue 322 in the thread on the fossil "shrimp", which was from the latest issue.
he might have thought the articles were from the latest issue, since I was talking about them in that thread.
easy mistake."[/quote]
I just trying to be funny. Obviously doesn't even qualify as a mistake.
I asked my cat before sending it and he agreed it was funny.
I'll be sure to half his portion of pounce treats tonight for the questionable advice.
Posted by: BdN | October 14, 2008 3:48 PM
The article and response(s) Xen is talking about :
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1856
Posted by: Jeff | October 14, 2008 3:56 PM
#81 I thought it was funny, and Mr. Whiskers shouldn't be deprived of his treat.
Posted by: Tom | October 14, 2008 4:32 PM
I'm waiting for the sequel, you know, the one in which Fuller feels that Einstein failed to make the case for general relativity. Einstein did not give a cause for gravity. He certainly did not unify the field (I guess that is a pun, no?). At most he gave lists of equations.
Posted by: The Gay Species | October 14, 2008 5:44 PM
Read, for example, On Homosexuality (or my review of it on Amazon.com) to see what I mean. (e.g., #74). He misstates Popper numerous times, regards Freudian metaphysics as valid, and does not know the axiological difference between ethics and morality -- for starters.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 14, 2008 5:54 PM
I just trying to be funny.
i got that. yes it was funny.
Obviously doesn't even qualify as a mistake.
there are an awful lot of pedants around these parts. Just thought I would add that for their sakes.
Posted by: Patricia | October 14, 2008 6:27 PM
Blake Stacey - Don't feel bad about your heart. My dog believes he has his testicles down at the vets in a jar, for safe keeping.
The trouble with trolls is, they have no brains to put in a jar.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | October 14, 2008 7:09 PM
-"I'm worried, Ray. All my readings point to something big on the horizon."
-"What do you mean, big? "
-"Well, let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of Creotard energy in the New York area. Based on this morning's reading, and this being the anniversary of 'Origin of the Species' and the upcoming election, it would be a Twinkie thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.
-"That's a big Twinkie."
Posted by: C*harlie W*agner | October 14, 2008 7:33 PM
Thanks, Owl. I'm flattered!
You got it mostly all right. Except for "crank"
Well, maybe that too! :-)
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 14, 2008 7:56 PM
Chuck, you're so fucking stupid, one wonders how you even feel qualified to comment on somebody else's assessment of your idiocy. Hell, you're such a known fool and a liar that no rational individual acquainted with your bullshit would trust you to reliably report on the colour of socks you're wearing today.
In fact, there are more peer-reviewed articles published every year describing your abject lack of intellect than there are supporting intelligent design.
One only has to look.
Posted by: Patricia | October 14, 2008 8:26 PM
Oh stop with the namby-pamby Brownian, what do you really think of Chuckles wits?
Posted by: DS | October 14, 2008 9:18 PM
Stephen Heersink at #73 & #85:
Wow. What a couple of stupid comments. Actually, Ruse helped create the philosophy of biology as a discipline, e.g. by writing The Philosophy of Biology (1973) and founding the journal Biology and Philosophy. What have you done lately, friend, besides write a review on Amazon?
Blake, @ #76:
This obnoxious ad hominem is based on... your awesome omnipotence? Or have I somehow missed 'Blake Stacey' at all the important meetings and workshops where actual philosophers and biologists get together and talk face to face?
Both of you happen to be talking about a very close friend whom I admire and respect tremendously. So before you get your panties in a bunch over my apparent lack of humor, think about what you'd say to a couple of jackasses who ignorantly attacked one of your good friends (if you have any) just to make themselves feel important on an internet chat board.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 14, 2008 10:35 PM
My good friends generally don't care what random strangers on the Internet have to say about them.
Posted by: Kel | October 14, 2008 10:47 PM
When you put your opinion out there, it's going to be attacked by people who disagree with it, and it's going to be mocked by those who find it foolish. The beauty of obscurity is that no-one really cares what you say.
Posted by: tresmal | October 14, 2008 10:50 PM
Jim Ramsey @23 said: "I know this is hardly a mature, adult response, but if the scientific theory of evolution is "Darwinism", then shouldn't the theory of Intelligent Design be "Johnsonism"?"
It is my opinion and, as far as I can tell, the opinion of most regular commenters here, that maturity is vastly overrated. "Johnsonism" is a fine name for ID.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 14, 2008 10:55 PM
tresmal and Jim Ramsey:
Occasionally, people in these parts refer to Intelligent Design as "Paleyism", to emphasize that it hasn't really progressed since 1802. It might be a bit too obscure to really catch on, however.
Posted by: windy | October 14, 2008 11:37 PM
That's no random stranger, that's David Sepkoski! Who, I hope, is not going to pull a Henry Gee on us despite the early warning signs.
I respectfully point out that at least comment #85 criticises Ruse's arguments, not his person, it may or may not stem from ignorance but it's hardly an "attack". I'm sure that Fuller has good friends too, should we spare their feelings by not calling him a fool? (I don't mean to imply that Ruse is anything like Fuller, he's light years ahead of him, but Fuller's friends might disagree.)
Posted by: SC | October 14, 2008 11:42 PM
Who, I hope, is not going to pull a Henry Gee on us
Man, that was strange.
Posted by: windy | October 15, 2008 12:01 AM
Man, that was strange.
Here's his impression of what happened. "a rather rough bar where only people actively damaged by religion can hang out" - well at least the first part is true, LOL.
Posted by: SC | October 15, 2008 12:26 AM
Now that's funny. Pharyngula, on the seedy waterfront of Blog City, its denizens sluts and hard-drinking scientists, where arguments cut like a knife and cyberpistols are drawn with little provocation. Keep your head down, and don't bring up Dawkins unless you're looking for a fight...
Actually, I thought it was Nick Gotts who made the remark about book sales, to which Gee responded something like "Don't be so bloody impertinent."
Posted by: Robert Dan MacDuff | October 15, 2008 12:48 AM
In "discussions" with fundies and other evolution deniers, I have found the following helpful: Rather than describe evolution as a "mechanism", I describe it as what happens, in certain circumstances, in the complete absence of a "mechanism." If there exists a reproducing organism which can change randomly from one generation to the next, (it has to be random, since any non-random series of changes would immediately attributed to you-know-who in the sky,)and which does this reproducing in an environment which is also subject to changes, then evolution is the only thing that can happen. People tend to think of "mechanisms" as engines of intentional change.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | October 15, 2008 2:59 AM
Oh the irony. Tell me, Dr. Sepkoski, is any of that ad hominem drivel supposed to convince us that Dr. Ruse has not indulged in the Courtier's reply?
Posted by: The Gay Species | October 15, 2008 5:35 AM
David Sepkoski, like Michel Foucault, hangs his hat on history, and thinks that makes him competent in biology in philosophy. He cannot be troubled to seek out facts, so let me point it out to others, lest another historian mislead readers down cul-de-sacs.
Michael Ruse is a FARCE among philosophers of SCIENCE, beginning with Sir Karl Popper, John Searle, and Ian Hacking. His dabble with biology commits the FACT/VALUE FALLACY too often to be taken seriously, a fallacy well-known since David Hume, 1740. The fallacy insists one cannot derive a FACT from a VALUE or a VALUE from a FACT, or what David Hume in the 18th CENTURY termed the "IS/OUGHT" Fallacy. G. E. Moore's "naturalistic fallacy" is similar, but different. If Prof. Sepkoski is interested in FACTS rather than RUMORS, he can read "Treatise on Human Nature" (1740) or Principia Ethica (1903). But since he refuses to read reviews on Amazon.com, readers will have to undertake the task for themselves.
Before restorting to ad hominems and argumentum ignorantum, since Prof. Sepkoski won't read Ruse's "Homosexuality," (1988) published by Basil Blackwell, readers may perhaps agree with Ruse, Freud, and Sepkoski that our arrested sexual development is the cause of all your sexual orientation problems, including those of us with a pathological sexual orientation known as HOMOPHILIA -- and if you want to follow THEIR failed cures, psychoanalysis and reparative therapy avail to pretend to to cure the problem.
With Popper, Searle, and Hacking in toe, some of us took it to the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, Hawaii -- while Prof. Sepkoski seems to have been defending Ruse and Freud's "homosexual pathology" and "the cure," approving Ruse's use of hormones per German endocrinologist Dorner who wanted to treat all pregnancies with hormones to prevent the terrible scourge of "homosexuality." Ruse thinks its rather draconian, and given the limitations of the homosexual pathology, probably more draconian than it is worth. (This in 1988!!!!!) Ruse concluded the cure was probably worse than the disease. The DISEASE!
While Prof. Sepkoski defends Prof. Ruse and endocrinologist Dorner's Hitlerish hormonal therapy to CURE homosexuality, some of us ACTED to ensure THE TERMINATION of the entire nonsense. Prof. Sepkoski won't be satisfied, perhaps, but hundreds of us pressed the APA to cease and terminate its reparative therapies and other "cures" of the biologically normal (per E. O. Wilson). Either PROVE A PATHOLOGY AND CURE, or CEASE. Cease what? Electrodes attached and inserted into men's penises, anuses, and erogenous zones like Pavolovian conditioning to send painful electrical current when psychiatrists showed patients pictures of beautiful naked men. Aversion therapy sure worked for some men, the painful electrical succeeded in deadening their response to sexual arousal, and so frustrated, most killed themselves. Oh, yes, the Psyches considered it a "cure" of homosexuality, but at the expense of the "host" and a totally normal human being.
Look at Albert Ellis, Ph.D.'s "Origins and Cure of Homosexuality," 1965, reprinted 1975, still in wide circulation to cure the "homosexual pathology" into the 1980s. Psychologists, unlike psychiatrists, can inflict HARM and INJURY, which M.D.'s Hippocratic Oath proscribe. Even today, the Psychologists' scope of practice permits aversion therapy and reparative therapy, such as NARTH uses, since Psychology lacks a SINGLE TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS.
Of course, it is only normal to be homophile if one is a BIOLOGIST or a PHILOSOPHER in the Anglo-American tradition, unlike Prof. Sepkoski. If one is outside THAT tradition, Biologists and Philosophers (contra Sepkoski and Ruse) maintain homophilia is a normal standard variant of the human sexual condition -- not to mention 1430+ other species. Professors Sepkoski and Ruse can lure homophiles into cures of congenital sexual orientation; unfortunately, the FAILURE rate is virtually 100%, which any enlightened homophile will gladly assure others is preposterous to pursue. Enjoying the fellowship of Harvard and Berkeley Biologists and Philosophers E. O. Wilson, Karl Popper, John Searle, and Paul Feyerabend. E. O. Wilson, we do not give Harvard's Gould and Lewontin and credence.
(P.S. Tempting to refer Prof. Sepkoski to those who committed suicide after enduring the "cure," the dead cannot be consulted, even if they count as psychological successes. Perhaps Prof. Sepkoski and Ruse would like to volunteer for NARTH's reparative therapy? Aversion therapy? Pavlovian conditioning? No? The risks exceed the rewards? Psychiatry does NOT have a single TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS, but that did not stop Ruse, so why would it stop you? Of course, since you are an assistant professor of HISTORY, you may already KNOW Prof. Fries rejection of psychology in the 19th CENTURY, since it is "faced with a trilemma -- dogmatism vs. infinite regress vs psychologism. Even Sir Karl Popper cited Dr. Fries in his 1934 essay, "The Empirical Basis." Almost EIGHTY years ago, well-known to BIOLOGISTS, PHILOSOPHERS, and even some psychiatrists, namely Michael McGuire and Alfonso Troisi, "Darwinian Psychiatry" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
But what do I know?
Posted by: SC | October 15, 2008 5:52 AM
By the way, I just reread the Henry Gee exchange. Dr. Gee should also do so. Ichthyic did not hurl insults at him, but repeatedly requested that he substantiate his claims and challenged him on their content. In response, Gee became increasingly belligerent and irrational. He was given every opportunity to make his case, and failed to do so. (And it was in fact Nick Gotts who brought up book sales.)
Posted by: maxamillion | October 15, 2008 7:46 AM
Somehow, Fuller has been granted the status of an authority by Intelligent Design creationists. I don't know how or why....
Perhaps because he is the only one with a job?
Posted by: JBlilie | October 15, 2008 7:51 AM
ID is not science. The ID cdesign proponentsists have but a single argument to make (they have no theory, no experiments, no data, no results) and I will summarize it: [Biological feature X] is too complicated for me to understand how it could have evolved, therefore God had to have done it, QED. This is simply a non sequitur. William Dembski's, my, or your lack of intellectual skills or knowledge neither requires nor implies anything about the nature of reality. A federal judge has ruled in detail that ID is religion. Magic explains nothing. Magic is not science. Incredulity is not science: it is IGNORANCE. Science DISPELS ignorance by hypothesis and testing to find out the FACTS in the case (rather than assuming some sky-daddy.)
Posted by: windy | October 15, 2008 2:00 PM
...since he refuses to read reviews on Amazon.com, readers will have to undertake the task for themselves.
could you provide a link - I can't find your review?
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 15, 2008 9:33 PM
JBlilie at 106
"ID is not science....It has no theory"
It is not science in the parochial sense of the term. Most of the folks in ID probably do not know that they do have a nascent theory. So they present as though they don't have one.
The foundation of their theory goes back to Descartes' mind/body dualism. We know that we are more than material and that reality is more than idealism. This is a fact of our experience. So, the question is how do the two relate to each other? That's an age-old question. The challenge of evolution is to avoid treating the mental as an epiphonomena of the material which to this point it has not done. The challenge to ID is to present a designer/creator that is both transcendent and immanent. If they reach that point then they will have a panentheistic synthesis that would constitute a formidable Theory.
On balance, it would seem that the IDs would have a much easier assignment than the naturalistic evolutionists. Far be it for me to tell them how to run their operation, but as a helpful hint I would suggest that they look at the framework laid out by Teilhard de Chardin.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | October 16, 2008 2:28 AM
The foundation of their theory goes back to Descartes' mind/body dualism.
That's a rather poor foundation, since Cartesian dualism is dead due to the interaction problem.
We know that we are more than material
No we don't.
Posted by: Kel | October 16, 2008 2:35 AM
Is this the same way that gnostics "know" God? Show evidence that we are more than material.Posted by: Ichthyic | October 16, 2008 3:03 AM
Most of the folks in ID probably do not know that they do have a nascent theory.
but you not only know better than us poor scientists, you even know better than the inventors of this bullshit that they actually DO have a theory, right?
you're one crazy mofo.
If they reach that point
they won't need to do anything else, because they will not only have proof that god exists, but exactly how he operates in the world.
like I said, you're bugfuck nuts.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 16, 2008 3:07 AM
Of course it's 'easier' - all you have to do is believe in magic. That's dead easy. Understanding evolution is hard; probably why the intellectually lazy prefer the path of no resistance, the one down which lies the answer of 'goddidit' and, once there, they can stop bothering to think or investigate any further.
Posted by: Iain Walker | October 16, 2008 8:24 AM
Silver Fox (#108):
That's remarkably back to front. ID-ists do present their ideas as if they had a theory (which, once you actually examine their claims, they don't - not even a nascent one).
Hmm. I can see why one might make that connection. Cartesian dualism certainly helps makes the notion of agency unintelligible, and ID seems to rely quite heavily on an unintelligible notion of agency.
Well, the latter may be a fact, but the former isn't. If our experience tells us anything about agency and intentionality, it is that they are properties of physical things.
And why do you think evolutionary biology should try to do so? What if epiphenomenalism turns out to be the best model for "mind"-body interaction? (Note: I'm not an epiphenomenalist - I'm just curious as to why you seem to think it can be ruled out of court so readily.)
No, the challenge to ID is to present a designer/creator that is (a) coherent, and (b) testable. Your suggested challenge is likely to end up offending on both counts.
Good idea - it'll be even harder for ID to get taken seriously as science if they retreat into mystical gibberish.
Incidentally, if anyone here hasn't read Sir Peter Medawar's classic take-down of de Chardin, then do so now, because you've missed a genuine treat.
Posted by: windy | October 16, 2008 11:50 AM
And I doubt that epiphenomenalism is something that evolutionary biologists can generally be accused of anyway. (Except by people like Silver Fox who assume that some form of dualism must be true.) In what possible sense is evolutionary psychology (good or bad) guilty of treating mental events as "epiphenomenal"?
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 16, 2008 11:54 AM
ID-ists do present their ideas as if they had a theory (which, once you actually examine their claims, they don't - not even a nascent one).
the ones with the experience creating this meme actually do admit they don't have a theory.
see, e.g., Phillip Johnson.
they also know that the people that they dupe with this shit will happily call it a theory, no matter what.
It's another case of the rampant double-think that is permeating this country.
...and religion is the primary enabler of double-think.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 16, 2008 11:56 AM
In what possible sense is evolutionary psychology (good or bad) guilty of treating mental events as "epiphenomenal"?
I know that was rhetorical, but for the dumbass it was directed to, who likely won't get that...
It's not; in fact, it's exactly the opposite.
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 16, 2008 12:08 PM
Iain 113
To refer to the fact that ten billion years of evolution took place before anything resembling a living organism appeared in creation as "mystical gibberish" is dumbfounding. To attempt to challenge what I would presume to suggest to ID that they might consider as a theoretical base for their point of view by referencing some sort of Parmenidian "snap shot" of creation is to lose sight of all the great revolutions of science from Newton to Einstein to quantum which have all brought us to the brink of chaos where all hangs in a delicate balance between order and disorder.
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 16, 2008 12:14 PM
Iain 113
To refer to the fact that ten billion years of evolution took place before anything resembling a living organism appeared in creation as "mystical gibberish" is dumbfounding. To attempt to challenge what I would presume to suggest to ID that they might consider as a theoretical base for their point of view by referencing some sort of Parmenidian "snap shot" of creation is to lose sight of all the great revolutions of science from Newton to Einstein to quantum which have all brought us to the brink of chaos where all hangs in a delicate balance between order and disorder.
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 16, 2008 12:17 PM
Iain 113
To refer to the fact that ten billion years of evolution took place before anything resembling a living organism appeared in creation as "mystical gibberish" is dumbfounding. To attempt to challenge what I would presume to suggest to ID that they might consider as a theoretical base for their point of view by referencing some sort of Parmenidian "snap shot" of creation is to lose sight of all the great revolutions of science from Newton to Einstein to quantum which have all brought us to the brink of chaos where all hangs in a delicate balance between order and disorder.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 16, 2008 12:17 PM
To refer to the fact that ten billion years of evolution took place before anything resembling a living organism appeared in creation as "mystical gibberish" is dumbfounding.
no...
to watch you make a complete strawman out of what he actually said in that post is what's dumbfounding.
can't you get that you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about?
If not, I rather think you might try visiting a hospital and have your head examined.
To attempt to challenge what I would presume to suggest to ID that they might consider as a theoretical base for their point of view by referencing some sort of Parmenidian "snap shot" of creation is to lose sight of all the great revolutions of science from Newton to Einstein to quantum which have all brought us to the brink of chaos where all hangs in a delicate balance between order and disorder.
utter gibberish.
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 16, 2008 12:19 PM
Sorry about the double post: I received an error message saying that the first did not go thourgh.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 16, 2008 12:20 PM
Lets see, the present estimate for the age of the universe is about 14 billion years, and the age of the solar system and earth about 4.5 billion years. So your age estimates seem to be a little off.
The rest of your argument is woo. If you wish to posit god, you need to prove god. You have shown yourself to be incapable of that, so you need to avoid getting near that argument, because you will be called on it. If you have another creator, like and super intelligent alien, you need to define it to the point it can either be proved or disproved.
Like anything that is science, you will need evidence. ID postulate has none, and will never develop any that isn't explained better by evolution. Goddidit is not a scientific answer, and never will be.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 16, 2008 12:24 PM
Sorry about the double post
nobody is asking you to apologize for THAT bit of idiocy.
It's what's IN your posts that you should apologize for.
...to your parents, your neighbors, and any kids you either have or might have in the future, that are most assuredly embarrassed to even be associated with you.
you don't need to apologize to the rest of us.
just leave.
Posted by: windy | October 16, 2008 12:31 PM
Did I parse that right? Do you think evolutionists are the "snap shot" types??????????? On the contrary, the "snap shot" is all the ID movement has ("irreducible complexity"!), so you are basically asking them to abandon their whole argument, which, again, sounds like a good idea.
But I don't know why you consider their task "easier" if you're asking them to abandon everything they got so far, go pull something out of de Chardin's ass and try to make something coherent out of that.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 16, 2008 12:34 PM
There is a regular misunderstand that happens with a lot of ID proponents. They appear to see it as a philosophical issue. Science does not mind ID being brought up in philosophy or comparative religion classes. It belongs there. Silver Fox appears to arguing religion/philosophy in a scientific thread.
Scientist require evidence, not talk, in order for an idea, like ID, to progress through the scientific stages until it reaches a full blown theory, like the theory of evolution. Until ID can show the evidence, it must remain in the religion/philosophy category. At the moment, the proof is zero. Until ID proponents start putting their evidence into the scientific literature, it will remain zero.
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 16, 2008 12:35 PM
Ich @ 116
"in what possible sense....treating mental events as epiphenomenal"
In the sense that it takes what is a counterintuiative experience and reduces it to a material derivative.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 16, 2008 12:39 PM
In the sense that it takes what is a counterintuiative experience and reduces it to a material derivative.
face it, you're just making up shit.
that makes NO sense whatsoever.
At this point, I have actually concluded you are suffering from some sort of psychological malady.
...not that I hadn't long ago (when you posted under the pseudonym "Max Verret") that you at best were a waste of time.
*plonk*
Posted by: windy | October 16, 2008 12:42 PM
(You were quoting me, not 'Ich':)
That's not epiphenomenalism, that's materialism. So basically you are saying that materialists need to stop being materialists. Well, that's your opinion. However your accusation makes no sense because talking about the evolution of experience requires that it's not epiphenomenal. Since, if it has no effects, it can't evolve.
Posted by: SC | October 16, 2008 12:43 PM
I don't believe you. More likely, you received an error message instructing you not to repost your comment, but did not read it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 16, 2008 12:47 PM
Say What?Sounds like a sting of large words strung together to make a nonsense statement. Don't try to baffle us with such BS. There are people smarter than me in philosophy/theology that will call you on it.
Your smartest move would be to remove your foot from your mouth and leave.
Posted by: Patricia | October 16, 2008 12:48 PM
Ichthyic - You're right about Silver Fox. He's such a total ass. He professes to be a christian, but when pressed to stand up for his lord and master he just falls apart, and doesn't have a bone in his body.
Silver Fox = Worm. You betcha!
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 16, 2008 12:53 PM
nerd 125
You perseverate on the notion of "proof" when in fact there is none either in religion or science. You have about as much chance of proving Heisenberg's uncertainity principle as I have of proving God. You presume to have "proof" only because you take a "snap shot", a frame of time, in a continuous process. As Parmenides said, when you put your foot in a stream, it is no longer the same stream.
Posted by: Tulse | October 16, 2008 1:00 PM
Actuallly, I'm not sure we even need to talk of epiphenomena in the case of non-humans in evolutionary psychology -- it is certainly the case that one doesn't need to posit subjective mental states in evolutionary psychology (which is traditionally what is referred to when talking of epiphenomena). We can talk about evolved behaviours in organisms without actually thinking that they have some sort of experiences of those behaviours. And yes, even in people one could argue that the causality seems to be at the biological level, leaving very little role apart from epiphenomenon for the subjective states.
But of course that's not a problem of evolutionary psychology -- accounting for subjective mental states in a material world is a problem in general, one that has been wrestled with long before evo-psych came along (see, for example, Descartes).
But invoking sky daddies doesn't really solve that problem except by fiat (which is of course no solution at all).
(Just to be clear, I am not at all advocating for a non-materialist explanation of mental causation -- just arguing that coming up with a materialist explanation is very hard, and that neither evo psych nor any other discipline really offers any such explanation.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 16, 2008 1:03 PM
Silver Fox, still full of shit I see. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has proven very useful in explaining quantum phenomena. If it didn't, you would never hear of it. So there is evidence that specifically identifies and uses the principle saying it works in the scientific literature.
Now where is the equivalent proof for your imaginary god in the scientific literature?
Posted by: Patricia | October 16, 2008 1:11 PM
Do try to impress us for once Silver Fox. Trot out your gawd.
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 16, 2008 1:43 PM
nerd @ 134
"Heisenberg Principle .."Proven" useful in quantum phenomena"
Obvious you refer to the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Let's look at it: Heisenberg provides a way to calculate experimental quantum results. However there is no underlying reality that is measured. The way to understand Heisenberg is by wave-particle duality. So you have no trouble with that duality but when it comes to mind-material duality, you can't brook it, and has to reduce the mental to a material derivitave.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 16, 2008 1:59 PM
SF, you are off into never-never land again. The principle works because people use it to explain observations. But note, it is a principle, not a law. It could be superseded tomorrow by another, better principle, or by a sounder theoretical underpinning.
As to the reality that is measured, it the the photons and electrons that are measured and they correspond to what the principle predicts. The principle itself is an idea. An idea that has been proven time and time again to work. So as far as science goes, the principle has been proven to be true.
You are trying to divert the attention from your inability to prove your god to the same degree of rigor. God is simply unnecessary to explain the universe. That is your problem and you are dealing with it badly.
Posted by: windy | October 16, 2008 2:56 PM
(small clarification, I wrote before "if it has no effects, it can't evolve." Just in case anyone thought "wait a minute, what about neutral traits", those also have the material 'effect' of getting inherited.)
That would be evolutionary ethology. Evolutionary psychology explicitly deals with mental/psychological traits.
Yes. What I meant was that much of evolutionary psychology implicitly assumes that mental traits have effects. This assumption does not prove anything, of course, just that it does not make sense to accuse ev psych and other evolutionary accounts of epiphenomenalism, since they are pretty much opposite to it (as Ichthyic recognised).
For example, it has been suggested that humans have an evolved tendency to fear snakes. (Or to fall in love, or to 'get' religion, etc.) About the only way to make sense of this is if it makes a difference in the material world if you have these mental states or not. IOW, much of the hypotheses of ev psych are incompatible with epiphenomenalism.
Posted by: CJO | October 16, 2008 3:06 PM
The way to understand Heisenberg is by wave-particle duality. So you have no trouble with that duality but when it comes to mind-material duality, you can't brook it, and has to reduce the mental to a material derivitave.
But the concepts share no features except the semantics of "dual." A coin has two sides, therefore... nothing, really. Why do you think you can derive a conclusion about the human mind from quantum physics?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 16, 2008 3:14 PM
Channelling new age woo. Now he's hit rock bottom.
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 16, 2008 3:57 PM
cjo@139
"but the concepts share no relationship except the semantic of dual"
But, the dual "semantic", as you put it, is critically important as parallel construction in the theoritical base of the creator/designer that the IDs are looking for. And they find it in the way that creation (of the designer) is put together. Look at another parallel construction: when General Relativity showed that space, time, and matter were linked in a unity and that creation was in a relational sense, it was strongly suggestive of the kind of relational thinking that is seen in Trinitarian Theology.
These are the linkages where the theoritical framework of ID is found. They are the pathways to the Divine.
Posted by: Tulse | October 16, 2008 3:59 PM
Much of evolutionary psychology draws on ethology for its evidence and justifications. I'm not sure there is a bright line between them (apart from "one only studies humans", which in evolutionary terms isn't all that meaningful).
And I'm not sure that all evolutionary psychologists would argue that they are looking at mental/psychological traits -- in many cases what is explicitly looked at is the evolution of behaviour.
Sure, in the sense that much of the hypotheses of economics, sociology, or politics are incompatible with epiphenomenalism in that sense. Practically any discipline that addresses human behaviour (with the possible exception of behaviourist psychology) presumes some causal efficacy of mental states.
My point above, though, is that we don't demand such efficacy in ethology -- we don't generally presume, for example, that ants have mental states, despite their evolved behaviour that could be described as involving such notions as discrimination and decision-making.
Posted by: windy | October 16, 2008 4:46 PM
Again, my original point was only to refute Silver Fox who assumed that 'evolutionists' are especially prone to treating mental phenomena as epiphenomenal, so I'm not sure why you are telling me this :)
I think you are mixing up a couple of things here. How did you get from "we don't ascribe mental states to all animals" to "we don't demand efficacy of mental states in animals"?? We don't generally presume that ants have epiphenomenal mental states, either. And I think your premise is wrong: if for some reason an ethologist ascribes a mental state to an animal, we are likely to assume that it is efficacious. I think many ethologists would consider it likely that mammals feel fear and pleasure. What kind of nutty ethologist assumes that mammals feel only epiphenomenal fear and pleasure? Are there any?
Posted by: CJO | October 16, 2008 4:51 PM
Look at another parallel construction: when General Relativity showed that space, time, and matter were linked in a unity and that creation was in a relational sense, it was strongly suggestive of the kind of relational thinking that is seen in Trinitarian Theology.
What a load of bovine excrement. First of all, did you pick out "space, time, and matter" as a triad to play up your fictitious "suggestion"? Because you left out energy, which would take us back, in a meaningless metaphysical sense, to the unity of supposed dualities: matter/energy, space/time. So far, so much fail.
And then you make the baldly laughable claim that "Trinitarian Theology" is based any kind of "relational thinking" other than the doctrinal anxieties of 3rd and 4th Century Christian apologists trying to "relate" to absurd and irreconcilable concepts. Next you'll tell me that statistical mechanics answers, once and for all, how many angels really can dance on the head of a pin. Face it, theology --all theology-- is intellectual tennis without the net.
Posted by: windy | October 16, 2008 4:52 PM
Remember when people were still trying to pretend that ID is not theology? Those were the days...
Posted by: Kel | October 16, 2008 4:57 PM
Wow, the process took twice the age of the planet! If you want to kick down men of straw, go to a farm.Posted by: Kel | October 16, 2008 5:03 PM
Difference between religion and science being that with science we can see the effects of proof in science. You say such funny things about science for someone using a computer.Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 16, 2008 5:05 PM
Oh, sweet Aphrodite. The quantum mystics are coming out of the woodwork again. Sigh.
This can only mean. . . .
It's time for another edition of put up or shut up!
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.
Posted by: CJO | October 16, 2008 5:10 PM
Blake, the fact that you chose to ask three questions in your quiz is strongly suggestive of the kind of relational thinking that is seen in Trinitarian Theology.
Translation: You lost me at "eigenstate".
Posted by: Kel | October 16, 2008 5:14 PM
@silverfox
Are you actually going to explain this assertion silverfox, or should we take it as empty rhetoric?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 16, 2008 5:17 PM
And the fact that my third question is a two-parter is strongly suggestive of the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, as specified by the filioque clause.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 16, 2008 5:20 PM
I don't think Blake will be getting an answer. Max/Silver is full of too much woo/god to truly understand any science. He was using big complex words in the off chance he could BS us. Trying to BS this site is next to impossible, as there is always someone more expert in the field than the poor poster, especially somebody as dense as Max.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 16, 2008 5:25 PM
Which is why I'm usually pretty careful before I open my trap to pontificate about biology!
Posted by: windy | October 16, 2008 5:27 PM
Hah, when I read SF's post I thought "Cue Blake with the Picard facepalm". So I was half right.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 16, 2008 5:28 PM
. . . usually.
(Incidentally, since it's been going on for at least two weeks, will Max/Silver get plonked for morphing?)
Posted by: Kel | October 16, 2008 5:35 PM
Same, I stick to generals for most things because my degree was in computer science. So unless it's about mathematics / logic, then all I have is external learning for knowledge.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 16, 2008 5:47 PM
I think PZ has been too busy traveling and teaching to plonk Max, or Max hasn't quite got there yet. Max is definitely on my little list of those who should be plonked (for godbotting, stupidity and morphing). My bigger list is for the Molly nominations.
Posted by: Patricia | October 16, 2008 5:57 PM
Holy shit, he's still preaching!?
Perhaps I should go get some sangria and start descending into obscenities.
I'm amazed PZ hasn't noticed what an asshat Silver Fox is.
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 16, 2008 6:12 PM
Blake 148
"express the momentum operator in the position basis"
Come on, Blake: you know (or maybe not) that as you approach the position you lose the vector and as you approach the vector, you lose the position. There is no underlying reality in the Heisenberg computation.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 16, 2008 6:20 PM
SF, maybe Heisenberg made more than one contribution to quantum mechanics. In any case, you are wrong, as always. You forgot to show your work.
You also forgot the last two questions. Again, show your work.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 16, 2008 6:24 PM
OK, now it's time for the Picard facepalm.
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 16, 2008 6:27 PM
nerd 157
"too busy traveling and teaching to plonk"
It would not be necessary for PZ to "plonk" me. It PZ were to indicate that he did not want me posting on his blog, I would not do so.
I would miss most of you as you have provided many hours of stimulating conversation. I have NEVER called any of you an a**, an idiot or moron (I have been called all three). However, if "plonked", as the evolutionists say, life goes on.
Posted by: Patricia | October 16, 2008 6:29 PM
This blog has really been quite the education for me. I didn't realize that the religious of the world were just as stupid everywhere. I thought it was only here in Oregon. Amazing!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 16, 2008 6:36 PM
Nerd of Redhead (#160):
You're wasting your breath, and Silver/Max is wasting our time, being blitheringly immersed in self-satisfied ignorance of material covered in any decent first-term quantum mechanics course. The Fourier-transform relationship between position- and momentum-space representation is basic, basic stuff; comment #159 reveals that Max knows nothing of it, and is just keying off vaguely familiar words. The Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures, along with their respective equations of motion, are also introductory topics, with which Max demonstrates a lack of acquaintance.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 16, 2008 6:37 PM
SF, we don't find conversation with you to be stimulating. Insipid and boring come to mind. Not an original thought proposed for many months. All the dodging and weaving from presenting real answers, like to Blake's quiz to show us you really understand QM. We call people who come here just to rile us trolls. If that is your purpose, then you are a troll and should be banned. If you fall under that definition, then removing yourself prior to PZ intervening would be polite.
If you want to learn something and enjoy the dialog, you should just lurk for the most part. Many people observe and do not join in.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 16, 2008 6:48 PM
And with rackets optional, and no balls. Yes, theistic theologians just play by waving their hands around a lot.
(And when I write "rackets optional", I mean that religion is a racket. Although the theologian might not be a racketeer.)
Posted by: Kel | October 16, 2008 6:54 PM
Come on SilverFox, please back up your following assertion with evidence or admit it was utter nonsense.
Shouldn't be too hard. If we know it then there should be some damn strong evidence to support it.Posted by: Patricia | October 16, 2008 6:57 PM
Pleading politeness doesn't absolve you from being a troll Silver Fox. Go read the rules for the blog and you'll see that you are clearly guilty.
Of course if you produce your god, then PZ might be impressed, a little.
It's time for you to pick the color of curtains you want for your cell, as Ichthyic would say.
Posted by: Count Nefarious | October 16, 2008 7:07 PM
I don't mean to side with the mystics, whom I despise as much as anyone, but the first and third of Blake's questions are hardly fair. It's possible to understand quantum mechanics to a reasonable extent without being able to easily solve those problems.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 16, 2008 7:08 PM
By the way, Blake, since I am no expert in QM:
Would it be correct to say that since QM predicts the behavior of nuclear decay and fusion reactions, that therefore quantum mechanics is at the foundation of the dating of the age of the earth by radioisotope ratios, and the the dating of the age of the sun, and even the universe itself?
Posted by: Count Nefarious | October 16, 2008 7:09 PM
Most introductory QM courses I've seen have made no mention of the respective Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures. In the UK, this distinction usually isn't introduced until at least the fourth year of a physics degree.Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 16, 2008 7:19 PM
Golly gee, what's wrong with the UK? :-/ I had all that stuff sophomore year; everyone else saw it before they were halfway done with being juniors.
I picked those questions partly because I wanted ones to test conceptual understanding rather than the ability to plug-and-chug, and partly because they pertain to subjects (coherent states and canonical quantization) which are relevant to the relationship between classical and quantum physics.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 16, 2008 7:25 PM
Owlmirror:
Yes, I'd say that's fair. For example, the rate of nuclear decay via alpha-particle emission depends upon an alpha particle's ability to tunnel through the potential barrier created by the intra-nuclear attractive forces. Of course, it often happens that once you know the "emergent properties" of the many-particle quantum system, like the radioactive half-life, you can model the system using those parameters and classical probability.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 16, 2008 7:27 PM
It PZ were to indicate that he did not want me posting on his blog, I would not do so.
are you sure PZ never made his displeasure with you known when you used to post as Max Verret?
of course, unless pz finds displeasure with you, you think that nobody else here thinks you bugfuck nuts?
*hint*
you are, maxy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 16, 2008 7:30 PM
I have NEVER called any of you an a**, an idiot or moron (I have been called all three)
something tells me you aren't getting the right message out of that.
Posted by: Kel | October 16, 2008 7:35 PM
I'd be far less inclined to call someone an asshat if they backed their assertions with evidence. How do we know that there's more to us than material?
Posted by: Patricia | October 16, 2008 7:36 PM
I wonder where everyone is? Today the threads have as many trolls as regulars.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 16, 2008 7:36 PM
The other reason I picked those three questions were because they were the first three which came to mind the last time somebody was asserting what quantum physics was all about. . . better items for the "put up or shut up" challenge certainly exist (I mean, the perfect test question must have, among its many other excellent attributes, the attribute of existence, right?).
Posted by: Kel | October 16, 2008 7:39 PM
Blake, what would be some good general concept physics books to start out with? Beyond high school physics, I've only studied kinematics / dynamics so my knowledge in certain areas is really poor. Especially in Quantum Physics
Posted by: Patricia | October 16, 2008 7:45 PM
You have to be dense indeed, not to realize that name calling and swearing, here, are sports.
Posted by: Norman Levitt | October 16, 2008 7:58 PM
Over the years, I've had quite a few encounters with S. Fuller, in print and vive voce, the latest of which was my review of his "Science vs. Religion", in Skeptic Magazine, leading to an extended exchange in the same publication. ("Dissent over Descent" seems to be a re-warmed version of "Science vs. Religion"--hardly surprising since Fuller generally composes his screeds by cannibalizing his previous efforts.) Fuller's headlong plunge into nonsense hardly began with his decision to serve IDeologues and the Discovery Institute as an official useful idiot. Early in his career, he contrived something called "social epistemology", which, to characterize briefly, was a tissue of pseudo-sociological blather designed to rationalize the disparagement of science as such in the name of a quasi-populist pseudoscience. His claim was that one does not need to be familiar with the content and logic of science in order to pose a "critique"; it sufficed, rather, to absorb Fuller's dicta concerning the putative social structure of the science establishment, whereby one could reduce scientific results to the self-interested and unwarranted claims of scientists to social hegemony. On the basis of that inane doctrine, Fuller was able to satisfy much of the gullible academic community that he was a champion of the left and of some sort of "liberation".
Playing this role while turning out page after page of redundant, self-citing nonsense proved to be a clever way of climbing the greasy academic pole, leading to a professorship at Warwick--a decent university, once. What this demonstrates, sadly, is the intellectual vacuity of large swaths of "scholarly" life, which seemed, in the case of the sociologists willing to take Fuller at his own evaluation of himself, to have been denuded of any ability to bring informed, critical thought to bear on the assessment of claims and theories. Apparently, the fact that Fuller was a non-stop word-processing machine and inveterate loudmouth sufficed to prove his intellectual worth, as conceived by a tribe as stunningly ignorant of science as Fuller himself. Turn out tons of gobbledygook, (even if published in your own journal), stick your nose into every conference that will have you, and you must be some kind of groundbreaking postmodern thinker--right? This seems to be the way it works in much of the social sciences, as we have come to know them in this woozy age.
Why Fuller decided to become the pet rock of the ID crowd is not entirely clear. Being the errand-boy for the right-wing frothers surrounding P.E. Johnson is hardly a move that solidifies one's reputation as a leftist. On the other hand, the cynical mind that sees old-fashioned greed as an ever-present factor will note that with the ID flacks peddling his books through their own theocratic network, Fuller stands to earn far more in royalties than ever comes one's way through standard academic publication. The same crowd that buys Dembski, Behe, and Wells can easily be persuaded to add Fuller's crap to their libraries. As the bank robber Willie (the Actor) Sutton said, when aked why he robbed banks, "because that's where the money is" (though these days Sutton would probably have to reconsider the appropriateness of banks as a source of loot).
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 16, 2008 7:59 PM
Kel:
The Feynman Lectures on Physics are standard and revered. Halliday, Resnick and Walker's Fundamentals of Physics is a freshman textbook which comes recommended by lots of people.
Which quantum physics book you start with depends on your level of mathematical sophistication. Feynman's QED is among the best popularizations I've found. If you've handled matrices and differential equations, Griffiths' Introduction to Quantum Mechanics should be approachable (I know electrical engineering people who jumped into a physics class which used this book and had no trouble, for what that's worth).
Rumour has it that giant piles of physics textbooks can be found on BitTorrent, but, you know, that's just hearsay. . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 16, 2008 8:05 PM
Watching Walter Lewin's lecture videos could also be a good way to solidify your grasp of the basics.
Posted by: Kel | October 16, 2008 8:19 PM
My mathematics skills aren't too bad (well at least I hope not), I had to do a fair amount in my degree. So I've touched on ODEs, linear algebra, discrete mathematics, game theory, statistics & probability, matricies, etc. Thanks for the info, I'll be sure to check it all out.
Posted by: Iain Walker | October 18, 2008 8:50 AM
Silver Fox (#117-#119)
Not as dumbfounding as your deliberate misrepresentation of my point (did you even click on the link to Medewar's review?). De Chardin is notorious for his woolly thinking, empty rhetoric, and his wilful misuse of scientific concepts - in those respects, he was the Steve Fuller of his day. I see you also share his predeliction for conflating a multiplicity of processes under the term "evolution", all the better to equivocate with.
And you also seem to share de Chardin's predeliction for pomposity, evasiveness and high-flown hyperbole. The fact that you prefer to indulge in this kind of fatuous blather rather that address the points or questions that I put to you is really quite revealing.
Posted by: Iain Walker | October 18, 2008 9:44 AM
Silver Fox (#132):
While I agree in principle that imprecise usage of the term "proof" is often unhelpful, "proof" (in the narrow mathematical/logical sense) is not the only possible mode of epistemic justification. As Nerd of Redhead points out, one can place a high degree of confidence in Heisenberg's principle because it enjoys empirical support. The existence of God enjoys no such support, so the two aren't really comparable.
Actually, it was Heraclitus who said that you cannot step into the same stream twice (which is presumably the image you were looking for). Parmenides' main idea was that that which fundamentally exists is static and unchanging, while Heraclitus held that even at the most fundamental level, everything was in flux. If anything, Parmenides' philosophy was the opposite to the one you are attributing to him.
On the face of it, your grasp of Greek philosophy seems even weaker than your grasp of quantum mechanics. You really are quite the intellectual fraud, aren't you?
And Heraclitus was wrong. You can step into the same stream twice, because our criteria for the re-identification of streams over time do not depend on the presence of the same water molecules. A stream is a geographical feature, identified by location, direction of flow etc. The same applies to other dynamic systems - we can re-identify the same system from one moment to the next, whilst recognising that the system has also undergone change.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 18, 2008 9:52 AM
Iain, PZ has asked Silver Fox to stop posting here.
Posted by: Iain Walker | October 18, 2008 10:03 AM
Nerd of Redhead (#187)
Dammit, I'm always the last to know ... I'll just have to wait for the next godbot who mistakenly fancies him/herself a philosopher.
(Thanks)
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 18, 2008 12:07 PM
Nerd: #187
PZ has never asked that I not post on his blog. About three weeks ago, I stopped posting as Max after discussing my posting habit with someone more experienced at blogging than me and he suggested that I should not post by any name that could represent a real person since that might envite identity theft. Posting should by by clear pseudonym. When I posted by Max, I never posted by any other name; when I posted by SF, I never posted by any other name. PZ commented that he wished posters would stop morphing. If what I did was morphing then I morphed.
At #157 Nerd suggested that maybe PZ had been too busy to "plonk" me. I responded that "plonking" would not be necessary because if PZ suggested that he did not want me to post on his blog, then I would not do so. That's what I said at #162
At #165 Nerd raised the issue of "trolling" and suggested that even without PZ intervention it would be polite for me to remove myself from posting at this site. I suspect that Nerd is correct; it would, at the least, be impolite
of me to continue posting on this site.
As I posted at #162 I have found my interaction here stimulating and educational. At #165 Nerd stated that my postings had been insipid and boring and I suspect that her impression represents that of several, if not many, others.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 18, 2008 12:21 PM
Silver Fox, please check this thread.
Posted by: Iain Walker | October 18, 2008 12:45 PM
Silver Fox (#189):
If it's any consolation, I found you mildly diverting, although I was tiring of your evasiveness. But a word of advice: if you're going to pontificate about philosophy, then bloody well learn some, or you're going to continue to look like an incompetent pseud no matter what forum you post to.
Posted by: Patricia | October 18, 2008 12:51 PM
Silver Fox, PZ did say he'd like you to scram.
So which is it? Put up or shut up.
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 18, 2008 12:53 PM
Nerd at 190
Thank you for the reference. I had not read any of that thread until now. PZ's invitation to leave is accepted.
As a parting note, PZ notes that creationists do post here. I am an evolutionist in that I think it appropriate to see evolution as a way of looking at the development of organisms over time. I do not find that to be in conflict with creation, but under the circumstances that is a discussion that we can't continue
Again, thank you for the reference.
Posted by: Kel | October 18, 2008 7:12 PM
Now we'll never know how we are more than material!
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 18, 2008 7:38 PM
Now we'll never know how we are more than material!
We'll just have to muddle on, somehow...
:p
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 18, 2008 7:43 PM
Nerd stated that my postings had been insipid and boring and I suspect that her impression represents that of several, if not many, others.
remarkable bit of deduction, there, Sherlock.
LOL
well, at least he left me laughing.
5 bucks says he'll be back next month.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 18, 2008 10:13 PM
Ichthyic, I suspect that nobody will take any money on the proposition that Max/Silver will stay away. Like with Peter the Rookey, we are his guilty pleasure.Max, I'm male, the Redhead is my wife. She doesn't do computers, hence my moniker (with a nod to Bride of Shrek for inspiration). Science is evidence based. So if you return, and wish to talk god, evolution, or evolution alternatives, bring the right evidence. And by evidence I mean something physical that can be inspected by all parties. A philosophical argument is worthless as evidence.
Posted by: Patricia | October 18, 2008 10:31 PM
He'll be back. They always come back. Except curiously Brenda von Dear, Sir/Madame.
Honestly, I hope she comes back for another Beltane bash. That was a real corker, and I had so much fun.
As the date gets closer I plan to dig out my Balzac and Cervantes, to get into the proper mood.
Maybe a little Alister Crowley wouldn't hurt. *smirk*
Posted by: The MadPanda | October 18, 2008 10:40 PM
Sorry, I can't resist a Parthian shot...did the Creotard just claim not to have a problem with evolution?
(shakes head)
Coulda fooled me. Silly D'Orc.
Patricia, may I suggest a side order of Lovecraft and Derling to go with your Cervantes and Crowley?
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Patricia | October 18, 2008 11:05 PM
MadPanda - Lovecraft I have heard of, but I admit total ignorance of Derling.
A dear friend of mine that is a Mason has given me a first edition 'Morals and Dogma' by General Albert Pike for my birthday, I can't wait to dive into it!
Thanks for the tip on Derling. :o)
Posted by: The MadPanda | October 18, 2008 11:23 PM
Glad to be of help, Patricia. (grin) But I must smack my forehead in annoyance at failing to proofread. Mea culpa.
Not Derling--Derleth. August Derleth.
I hadn't heard of him either, prior to playtesting something awfully Cthuloid that mentioned the Lovecraft, Howard, Derleth thing. It also mentioned a fellow by the name of Clark Ashton Smith, who's work sounds appropriately gloomy.
General Pike's book sounds interesting. More fodder for D'Orc bashing, I presume?
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Patricia | October 18, 2008 11:44 PM
Actually, Gen. Pike is one of the greatest Free Masons in history. For me, as a woman to have a copy of a first edition of Morals and Dogma is quite a feat!
I was able to score a 'Rites of Memphis' through my local bookstore. As I recall, *snort* it is like a 93rd degree, and it includes ritual sex.
Posted by: The MadPanda | October 18, 2008 11:51 PM
Congratulations on your score, then! May it be both thrilling and amusing in equal measure.
The MadPanda, FCD