…and this is a 
Ruse vs. Fuller
Category: Creationism
Posted on: October 14, 2008 10:32 AM, by PZ Myers
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?