A professor at the University of Vermont, Nicholas Gotelli, got an invitation to debate one of the clowns at the Discovery Institute. Here's what they wrote.
Dear Professor Gotelli,
I saw your op-ed in the Burlington Free Press and appreciated your support
of free speech at UVM. In light of that, I wonder if you would be open to
finding a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about evolutionary
science and intelligent design. The Discovery Institute, where I
work, has a
local sponsor in Burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this
happen. But we need a partner on campus. If not the biology
department, then
perhaps you can suggest an alternative.Ben Stein may not be the best person to single-handedly represent the ID
side. As you're aware, he's known mainly as an entertainer. A more
appropriate alternative or addition might be our senior fellows David
Berlinski or Stephen Meyer, respectively a mathematician and a philosopher
of science. I'll copy links to their bios below. Wherever one comes down in
the Darwin debate, I think we can all agree that it is healthy for students
to be exposed to different views--in precisely the spirit of inviting
controversial speakers to campus, as you write in your op-ed.I'm hoping that you would be willing to give a critique of ID at such an
event, and participate in the debate in whatever role you feel comfortable
with.A good scientific backdrop to the discussion might be Dr. Meyer's book that
comes out in June from HarperCollins, "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the
Evidence for Intelligent Design."On the other hand, Dr. Belinski may be a good choice since he is a
critic of
both ID and Darwinian theory.Would it be possible for us to talk more about this by phone sometime soon?
With best wishes,
David Klinghoffer
Discovery Institute
You'll enjoy Dr Gotelli's response.
Dear Dr. Klinghoffer:
Thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a
debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more
recent relabeling as "intelligent design") with a speaker from the
Discovery Institute. Your invitation is quite surprising, given the
sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you
yourself posted on the Discovery Institute's website:http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/
However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific
community has come to expect from the creationists.Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics
need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist
to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite
an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a
Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and
that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars.
Creationism is in the same category.Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren't members of
your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed
journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by
scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish.
Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas
that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly
explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying
to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or
scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel
Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the
prominent mainstream journals."Conspiracy" is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the
frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke,
because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and
on new empirical studies that overturn previously established
principles. Creationism doesn't live up to these standards, so its
proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books,
blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don't maintain
scientific standards.Finally, isn't it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded
institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation
at a little university in northern New England? Practicing
scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science
departments around the world, often on controversial and novel
topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science,
they would receive such invitations as well.So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will
wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages
of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn't science
and doesn't merit an invitation.In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation
and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an
evolutionary biologist, I can't tell you what a badge of honor this
is. My colleagues will be envious.Sincerely yours,
Nick Gotelli
P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further
e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been
entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.
More like this
Wherever one comes down in the Darwin debate, I think we can all agree that BERLINKSKI IS NOT A MATHEMATICIAN!!!
Brutal
really brutal
Fucking beautiful, nothing else quite describes it. This made my day.
Wow. Pwned.
What's that the kids say? PWND?
Alan, Leon and any other of the creationists who have been dropping by...
I hope you read that because it is exactly what we've been telling you.
Brilliant!
Wow... he really hit the nail on the head. :P
Perfect!
Wonderful response to a Disco Toot intellectual transvestite.
Oh, SNAP!
To paraphrase something a fellow student said to me once after I roundly criticized somebody else's suggestion for a project we were all working on :
Now, Now Nick it's okay to stick the knife in but you mustn't twist it.
"Just another example of big science suppressing other theories in order to keep raking in the big bucks" in 3.. 2.. 1..
Wow. That was pretty damn awesome.
That reply is quite simply exquisite!
hehehe
Clap, Clap, Clap. Right up there with Lenski's takedown of AS. Beautiful.
Wow. That's what you call a smackdown.
that was so completely sexy....
i need to change my pants
It's nice but I still prefer Dawkins' rather terser "That would look very good on your CV: not so much on mine"
*sniff, sniff* I smell something burning all the way from Seattle!
To be fair, though, it wouldn't absolutely have to be in Science, Nature, or PNAS. Their data could appear in, say...(Lewis Black mode) ANY PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL!!!
Don't call us, we'll call you.
Bloody brilliant response. If I were to meet Dr. Gotelli I'd definitely have to buy him a beer.
It would be great to see the DI post his reply on their crapsite. As we all know, they lack the, um, testes to do so. Sadly, I fear that this will be a well written retort that will hit a number of great blogs but will soon be forgotten/ignored by creatards and the like all too quickly.
Is there anyway this could get out in a major publication somewhere? I'd send it to New Scientist so they could amends for their massive screw up but I still don't think it would go anywhere.
Nonono people, you're getting the wrong impression.
See, the weak and feeble evilutionist is scared, he knows the almighty Truth(tm) of creationism will prevail... blablabla and so on.
Seriously, 'they' will present this as a victory.
But what am I telling you, you know that...
Shorter Dr. Gotelli:
"Do some science, then we'll talk."
Sweet.
Way to go Nick! This is the sort of reply any real scientist should give to an invitation to debate creationist IDers. They profit from any acceptance to debate or appear with them - 'see how important we are, real scientists will debate with us, etc., etc.' Don't give them any credibility or waste your time folks.
"Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. "
Exactly. This whole business as to scientists protecting evolution for fame is just an opposite. Any scientists that disproves evolution (or makes a major dent in it) would be instantly famous.
""Conspiracy" is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn't live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don't maintain scientific standards."
Beautiful.
This is something the public really doesn't understand. Not all journals and studies "count." If some fringe "scientific" viewpoint can't make it into mainstream journals and its advocates instead have to form their own little special magazines and journals and institutes where they do their science -- because the standards are lower -- then it isn't part of science, and you can't call it 'scientific.'
I was frustrated this morning arguing this very point to a "Pet Energy Therapist" who insisted that "smoothing out the life energy" to cure health problems in humans and other animals was completely scientific, and there were lots and lots of studies supporting it all. At the same time she was arguing that it was mainstream, she talked about "different approaches of science." She had the rest of the room on her side (they love diversity!)
What made it harder of course is that, unlike creationism, alternative medicine has made big inroads into academic organizations and institutions -- driven not by sound science, but by politics, ideology, and money. This allowed her to claim that I was rejecting mainstream medicine (though she had no real answer for why physicists were not interested in this entirely new form of energy, other than the 'different approaches' argument.)
If Dr. Gottelli had allowed the debate, he's absolutely right. They'd point to the superficial fact that it was debated on campus as evidence that creationism was a real, significant alternative scientific viewpoint (one that, perhaps, would depend on your "approach.")
Priceless! this is one for the 'keep' folder. I've only lurked until now (since crackergate) but had to say this 'in person' - Dr. Gotelli is a class act! Way to Go!
Well that is stating your position is a clear manner. How the Discovery Institute spins this out to be fun.
<Nelson Muntz>
Hah-Ha!
</Nelson Muntz>
If they're so stuck for venues to, um, verbally do their science or whatever the hell they think debates are, the IDiots are more than welcome to use my place. They can manage their own travel, room, and board, though. I won't be attending.
Composed entirely of Awesome and Win.
Obviously Dr Gotelli doesn't read ALL "peer-reviewed" journals!
(like this one)
His entire reply is well written and an excellent example of an appropriate response to such requests, but this is far and away my favorite line:
"Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute's website"
*grin!* Love it!
*Applause*
That should be made into a form letter for every biologist that the DI and their fellow delusionals approach. Pure gold. I gotta save me a copy.
He forgot to mention that if they really felt a need to debate in person, they could also show up at any of the regularly occuring biology meetings. They would be allowed to ask any questions they want of the speakers, and the only "silencing" that would occur is if their question run astray of the topic of the lecture (as any good moderator should do). Scientists do this all the time.
Of course, they won't do that, because they know they don't stand a chance in a room full of experts.
We need to make it a lot more clear: don't give us crap about "public debates." Scientists hold them all the time. Just pay your registration fee and you are welcome to participate.
Beautiful; exquisite. Monment of silence in appreciation.
Oh, and all the furniture has been marked for police identification.
I've been to Latin America. I've seen what those who live by Jesus Christ do with other peoples' stuff.
Five bucks says the DI never mentions it again.
Epic win.
YES!!!! NICK GOTELLI WINS TEH INTERTUBES !!! That is indeed, going to leave a mark on Dr. Klinghoffer!
BWA Ha Ha!
Way cool. The response is honest and direct, only slightly stinging in tone, buoyed with good humor and includes bonus instructions to budding scientists. How could'ja ask for more?
On second thought, it's wicked cool.
Niiiiiice. I'm currently in a discussion about ID creotardism elsewhere, and I'm itching to use a few lines from this letter.
We've already had all the usual obfuscations ('we get no funding therefore can't do our research', 'science limits itself too narrowly to allow progressive ideas from outsiders' and the all-time classic 'waaaaaaahhhh').
At the moment, it seems all the ostensively reasonable IDers have been slapped around more than they liked, but the real deep-end nutters (bent and a bit soft - Cashews?) are still there to play with.
Quoting a current highlight of nuttiness (my translation - I vow that this is no worse than the original in German):
"As the blueprint of the future human is sunk deep into the material with the sowing, then strives upwards through the lives of blind plants up to the lower and then higher in the animal kingdom, ever one is virtually deserted by the other of the previous section and, finally, finding in its peak people gifted with rationality and finally reaches culmination of his development in the knowledge of himself and cognizance of God."
Help me please, what does that even mean?
And can you guess what question that was supposed to (partially) answer?
If you guessed "Why doesn't God heal amputees?", you were right. But nobody guessed that.
BTW, re: my comment above about public debates at conferences. I forgot to point out (not that you here need to be told) that the thing to remember is that this is not an evolution/ID issue, it is a science issue. The whole "public debate at conferences" approach is ubiquitous throughout all fields of science. Chemistry, physics, geology, meterology, biology, comp sci, doesn't matter - this is how science is done. So they can't claim we are setting up unfair rules - they are the rules we all abide by. In fact, their approach to public debate is, in fact, completely out of line for how science is done.
It's like I said to that clown in that other thread: debates are mostly good for determining who is the bigger bullshitter. It's a testament to the shallowness of the creationist/ID mind that they keep thinking that debates are the grand arena of ideas. Especially televised debates.
F-ing A, that reply is brilliant! Go Dr. Gotelli, whoo-hoo!
That made my day.
Totally sick pwn.
This is a great point, Pablo. Lots of science, including the hammering out of ideas prior to publishing, takes place in conferences and meetings, which are much more open than scientific journals. If they're really stuck for a place to talk, why aren't they attending those? They'll have whole audiences of biologists whose eyes they'll be able to open. I mean, why bother parading about in front of undergrad students, most of whom won't bother taking any further biology classes, when they can attack the disease of Darwinism at the source?
Oh yeah, because they're a bunch of lying fucks.
Magnificent response. Three cheers for Dr. Gotelli!
No kings,
Robert
Brah - fuckin' - voh
I love the way he called them out on their dishonesty. Even his point about trying to gain scientific credibility with debates instead of actual research is spot on.
I think it is important that these people are exposed in public for their anti-science, anti-reason views (but not from a platform where they receive some token of legitimacy). That does not mean their crap should get special treatment though, the peer reviewed publication criteria (criteriON) is a good first start.
Professor Gotelli's response was brilliant. I agree, he must be the envy of many academics. We need PWND awards for this sort of take-down (skepchick's top 10 maybe?)
They are like some secret society, with their concern troll tactics. But this is NOT a secret society or conspiracy, if only because their goals are public and open (the overthrow of social democracy for a theocracy where their orthodox ridiculous views make them our leaders). PWND needs to be the rule of the day or we will be an idiocracy before we know it. Legislation and the hijacking of rule of law (with incarceration) is no more than modern day witch burning. "Defamation of Religion" is their call to arms. "Defamation of Stupid" more like it (oxymoronic).
idiocracy + violence/imprisonment = theocracy
The recent cedeing of the top of Pakistan to a militant taliban presence is a case in point. Someone allowed these thugs a voice and then someone gave them guns. They need tpo be stopped before they are given any legitimate voice. Their claims are fraudulent, not legitimate.
People like Ray Comfort should have bananas in their hands, not guns. Their stupidity needs to be displayed on youtube for all to see.
We need to move the debate on from their pathetic bleating of "everyone picks on me for being a stupid, dumb, loud-mouthed idiot" to (us) "These people are stupid, dumb, loud-mouthed idiots and need to be discredited and silenced until they can say something they can back up".
Tax subsidies and grants are just feeding the trolls.
Frakking awesome.
Wow! Just nice. Love this answer!
KERPOW!!!! What an awesome response. I wonder if the good Dr. would mind if people used bits and pieces of his reply. I think that it would help sink the ID movement trying to make its' way into schools again this year.
David Klinghoffer doesn not have a PhD. He has a Bachelors Degree from Brown University.
Well hey, Stein was good enough to pontificate in a movie, why can't he debate ID?
Is David tacitly admitting that Stein is an ignorant dishonest bastard?
Why did the Dishonesty Institute put up such a fuss when Stein was allowed to know that people at UVM were on to his deceit? Apparently because they know it's true.
Anyhow, I'm glad Gotelli put ID and the egregious Klinghoffer in the company he deserves, with Holocaust deniers and astrologers. Gotta sting.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
To say the least. Lots of weak-ass shit shows up at conferences (I've done my share), but it is a place where discussion occurs (which you don't get in the literature). And I've been on both ends of the stick in this regard, been the one in the audience pointing out the flaw, and been on the stage going, "Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" and babbling like a duck.
I had a colleague in a prior location who had some fairly, um, controversial models of water and was upset that the mainstream folks weren't listening to him. I convinced him to get to the ACS conference and present his stuff there, and he did. They gave him a talk, and he stayed for the symposium. Unfortunately, he embarrassed himself massively throughout the week and it effectively killed his career (he was an old guy) but he couldn't complain he didn't have a chance.
I think of him on Thanksgiving. He wasn't vegetarian, but he felt sorry for the turkeys, so he always made tomato soup for Thanksgiving dinner. Homemade tomato soup, with tomatos from his garden, in fact.
I think Gotelli comes across as a bit peevish. The piece on him wasn't particularly harsh. That superior manner of his irritates me, and I am no friend of creationists.
Nick Gotelli ROCKS !
\m/
What a dude.
Awesome.
Jeremy Irons in a lab coat.
Also... Dr.(??!?) Klinghoffer
Bravo, Nick Gottelli!
Can you say ID Creationism FAIL???
I think Dr. Gotelli gave these guys exactly what they deserve. They are desperate to rub shoulders with "real" scientists so they can have an air of respectability and credibility. In this case, attempt denied!
nal #57
I was gonna say.
Did he and Bobby Jindal hang out or something?
revjim... whatever. he has a reason to be peevish.
BRAVO!
(standing ovation)
A local church is sponsoring Expelled at the local theater here in Cumberland, WI tonight. I wrote a letter to the editor that should be published in this weeks edition. When there are the obligatory fundie replies, this letter will give me some more ammo for my next letter.
If creationists practiced science, then they would no longer be creationists.
#61
\mm/
(Too much rock for one hand)
Donnie B. (#25):
Shorterer:
-NO!-
I really do love to watch well-performed surgery and this was no exception.
The CRS publication link provided by CS was interesting (not really). More fraudulent claims on legitimacy. One of their points:
"Fresh perspectives on science"
Cable TV has a similar term for when they are repeating a program after its been off the air for maybe a whole 2 months is:
"fresh episodes" (hey we just dusted off the copies, deodorised them and are giving them back to you as "reconditioned, not 2nd hand")
hahahaha
That made my day! I should send that guy a card!
WOW. That post script was terribly to the point! Bravo! :)
Well, being closer to the truth than any hand-waving theologian does get a bit stale after awhile.
The real debates go on in the journals, some of them for years.
When "Big Name" schools like Harvard and Princeton stop encouraging these debates with these dreary debate teams, and stop pretending that a short-timed debate is worth anything at all, we just might see less of this behavior from everyone.
Little nitpick:
It was actually posted by one Anika Smith, not by this Kris Klingel dude.
"I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist."
I think they're going to need some lotion or something to take care of that burn.
Someone buy this man a beer.
I wonder if you would be open to finding a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about evolutionary science and intelligent design. The Discovery Institute, where I work, has a local sponsor in Burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this happen.
Translation:
I wonder if you would be open to finding a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about evolutionary science and MAGIC. The STUPIDITY Institute, where I work, has a local IDIOT in Burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this happen.
I really don't like this part of the letter at all. In fact, these two sentences come close to ruining some excellent pwnage. Something doesn't have to be in Nature and Science to be science and merit an invitation to speak.
That's a keeper. A beautiful putdown.
Dr. Gotelli was as gracious as could be warranted. Can anyone explain the validity of having a debate on the existence of the Tooth fairy? Good job Doc. It all comes down to the same thing , the onus is on “proofing the pudding” for the positive, not the negative. Once one could have more than, “because I say so”, as basis for a debate… those of sound mind would participate.
Gotelli’s response, beautiful.
Yeah, like let us claim magic for explaining the really hard stuff.
Even from the Dover trial, they have such a faulty understanding of the fundamental reasons science works that they don't see a problem allowing "supernatural" explanation. The level of hubris and stupidity is staggering.
. . . and now, more from the Pretty Good News Desk:
PZ, you've had a mammoth fossil named after you!
I just heard this on NPR.
At this rate, you'll be famous someday. Congratulations.
P.Z. may have punded another nail into creationism's coffin but in doing so has proved he has psychic powers:
"You'll enjoy Dr Gotelli's response."
True, I assume he was using them as prominent examples. He could have chosen his words a little better there to indicate they aren't the only places by far that would suffice.
Epic Win!
Kudos to you, Dr. Gotelli.
Wow. It managed to be classy and scathing at the same time. Nicely done!
"Where in the Darwin debate"?!? There is no debate! Not because of suppression, just because there's nothing to debate.
As I've said before, a debate is just two sermons, alternating. The scientist is going to lose to the experienced and dishonest preacher man. Science is done in a lab, or in the field, or in a conference. It is not done by debate.
As long as the ID people keep up the illusion that debates are useful for arriving at truth, they are going to keep asking. In this case, they got answered. And served.
I like the touch of his p.s. - a perfect coup de grâce.
i like his retort but prefer the way PZ's economical reply, "NO," hits the nail squarely on the head.
That is some EXQUISITE pwnage.
The mental image of Klinghoffer and Jindal "hanging out" at Brown is not pretty at all.
Multi-pwn letter.
The DI disowns Ben Stein. Do you think the UVM flap did it in for Stein, or the quote "Darwinism doesn't explain gravity?"
I don't think the DI will let this dog lie (or is it lay?) Attack Gerbil 2nd Class Luskin will respond to all of Gotelli's "inaccuracies and misrepresentations."
Film at 11.
*bowing in deference*
Well said, Prof. Gotelli.
Whee! Boy that's gotta hurt getting kicked in the gut like that.
What a great letter.
Much as it amuses me, I can't claim authorship for that witticism. It belongs to my colleague Bob May, but I admit that I often quote it, usually saying that I don't have the chutzpah to use it myself. The exact words, as I recall them were, "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine" (best spoken with an Australian accent).
Richard Dawkins wrote:
Most things are :)
I ran into something similar with a local preacher who wanted to debate me on Darwin Day.
In my email reply, I stated that since neither of us were biologists, we really had little to say.
I then told him if he could get a tenured professor with a PhD in biology, who was well grounded in the modern foundations of biology to speak on the behalf of his church, then I could probably find a similar person to speak in opposition.
Apparently, I was being "unreasonable".
My 19yo just read this story, and exclaimed:
"Gotelli's SICK!" (That's a good thing)
Calladus wrote:
Heck, you're lucky they didn't describe you as 'militant'.
Orac,
I think you need to read that passage in the context of this one:
Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.
I think he's saying that if creationists actually had something to disprove evolution or prove God, you would certainly see it in Nature or Science, but until that happens they're wasting his time.
Bravo, Nicholas, bravo!
FLAWLESS VICTORY!
You're right; I am jealous.
That was fantastic. Instant cure for a crappy mood.
Orac and revjimbob: Chill. Orac in particular, I have to say that you're reaching ... that passage only sounds bad if you quote-mine. He used such high-caliber journals as examples because he (rightly) credited any research that would prove their "theories" as Nobel-quality.
Dr. Gotelli's display of verbal-chainsaw-fu is a thing of beauty.
Dr Gotelli's response to Klinghoffer is the perfect antidote to reading painful messages from creationists.
I have a few questions:
Klinghoffer writes
"The Discovery Institute, where I work, has a local sponsor in Burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this happen."
Does this mean that the sponsor will pay for the debate and why does the Discovery Institute need someone to sponsor the debate?
Why does Dr Gotelli put Dr. before Klinghoffer's name? Klinghoffer is a doctor of what? I notice Klinghoffer addressed his letter "Professor Gotelli.
Holy shit. That is what I call owned.
Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute's website:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/
However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists.
Sha-ZAM!
Dr. Gotelli wins at life. One Internet for you, sir, on a silver platter.
Hard...with a really big hammer.
That's gonna leave a mark.
You were right, PZ, that was a real treat. "Pwned" indeed!
They would probably counter that they can't get their work into science journals because of discrimination by 'Big Science'. However, they haven't even got anything to publish in their own journal (well, not since 2005)!
I find it hard to even laugh at the cdesign proponentsists any more. Now my feelings are a combination of pity and revulsion.
That is epic ownage. Well done, Mr. Gotelli.
Since I have the energy to de-lurk tonight I'd like to add my bravo for Professor Gotelli as well as a standing (as in on-going)one for Dr. Myers. I always leave this blog feeling better educated.
On that note: What does "pwned" mean? I used to be smarter but I've got chemo-brain again.
That was a genuinely laugh-out-loud arse kicking of epic proportions. Magnificent!
I find UrbanDictionary indispensable: pwned
pwned:
"It can be pronounced as "owned" or as "poned", with both pronunciations being correct. In some cases, you will even hear it pronounced as "pawned". "Pwned" means "to be controlled against your will", or "to be defeated by a superior power"."
http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/p/f/pwned.htm
Even though he won't reply, I do hope Dr. Gotelli shares any response received.
Thanks MH.
See, I'm getting smarter with every minute that I spend here.
Pwned, RejectID and eloquently Gotelli'd.
Awesome response, and very amusing for us, but I don't think it's going to land. The fact is, the mentalities of these yahoos are so different from normal humans that there's no basis for communication.
I'm talking particularly about the invitation to publish their work in peer-reviewed journals (I agree with Orac that specifying Science and Nature probably sounds unnecessarily elitist.) I remember when the cold fusion debacle was fading off into ignominy, the Utah state representative who introduced the legislation to spend $5 million setting up a Cold Fusion Research Institute was met with the objection: "But Pons and Fleischer couldn't even get their paper published in Nature!"
His response? "We're not going to let some English magazine tell us how to spend our money." You've got the same kind of people in the creotard ranks. You're dealing with people capable of calling Nature: "Some". "English". "Magazine".
Think about that for a minute. How do you even talk to somebody like that? You can't. All you can do is make yourself feel good by pwning their ass like Dr. Gotelli did, and resign yourself to the knowledge that they will never understand that they are now your bitch.
I hate to be a downer but, as far as I can tell, it was not Klinghoffer himself who wrote the snarky post about Dr. Gotelli's editorial. It looks like that post on the Discovery Institute site was written by someone named Anika Smith. (And the level of snark in the obviously foolish post didn't strike me as quite meriting Dr. Gotelli's accusation of two-facedness.)(Sorry to be such a stickler but I was disappointed when I clicked on the link because I expected a really nasty post by Klinghoffer himself.)
I also wish that Professor Gotelli had dialed back the sarcasm a bit, especially at the end. But, other than that I think, Gotelli's letter hit the nail on the head really effectively. It seems that it is probably a really good idea when declining invitations like this to explain why; it makes it harder for the creationists to say, "Oooh, they're just afraid of us, or it's all a conspiracy to bury our ideas."
Richard Dawkins@99,
Nice to have it confirmed it was Bob May. Having briefly worked in the Oxford Zoology Department while he was there (though I never talked with him, only learned of his fearsome reputation for both intellectual brilliance and... self-confidence), I was sure it must be when I read it in The God Delusion!
DI is going to need an industrial size vaseline jar. PWND
Forgive me for the light-on-substance response, but:
That.
Was.
Awesome.
I will have a warm fuzzy feeling all day!
By the way, I am new to following the intelligent design "controversy" in any detail. I spent quite a bit of time reading up on it this weekend -- and am now spitting mad at the dishonest tactics of the creationists, who are clearly trying to take advantage of gaps in scientific knowledge of ordinary people like me.
So I can definitely understand the frustration of the regular readers here who have been dealing with this garbage longer than I.
@yorktank #2
No, no, no - that's won't do. Something more substantial's needed for this special occasion.
EPIC WIN!!! LOLZ!
Honorary Molly to Dr. Gotteli.
+1
Laurie @129
"So I can definitely understand the frustration of the regular readers here who have been dealing with this garbage longer than I"
It gets really tedious and time wasting, but it has to be done. Taking out the trash is mind-numbing.
"Never hit a man when he is down. Kick him - it's easier"
Orac: Something doesn't have to be in Nature and Science to be science and merit an invitation to speak.
In general, you're not only right, you're quite right. But in this particular case, you're wrong. They have their own funding mechanism; they've been working at it for decades. Something should have burbled to Science or Nature by now.
We're not talking one PI and a postdoc working in anonymity for six years to come up with a revolutionary understanding neuronal signaling, and publishing in a smaller journal because of the dogma they upset (at least in the short-term), or simply because they need more than 3 pages to describe what they've been up to; we're talking about a well-funded long-term "research" project that has produced zilch, since it is in reality a propaganda campaign.
In this case, calling on them to publish in Nature or shut-up is called for.
It was a very polite reply, as some measure politeness :)
PS. Nerd of Redhead, that reply was uncannily similar to many of your posts...
pwned.
That is certainly true, but I think when you look at the claims being made it is forgivable. If, as the DI claims, evolution has been conclusively disproved and, (as they want to claim), a designer is self evident, we could expect both Nature and Science to devote an entire volume to the idea. Dr. Gotelli set the bar absurdly high because the claims are absurd.
CRS Quarterly?
CRS? As in Can't Remember Shit? or Crappy Reasoning Sells?
#11 'Wonderful response to a Disco Toot intellectual transvestite.'
That is a vile insult to transvestite's everywhere. I will thank you to be more civil in the future.
Orac:
True, and that might have been excessively snarky. But if the creos do find a stratum filled with fossilized precambrian rabbits or a living mammal with compound eyes, they are not going to publish in Proceedings of the Wyoming Amateur Fossil Hunter Conference or Cryptozoology. Nature and Science will be fighting over publishing rights.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if the evidence exists, it will get top billing.
That's a beautiful response. Thanks for sharing it with the masses.
Owned. Pwned. Hell, I'll even go further than that and say qwned.
Fraidy cat.
@Menyambal: "Science is done in a lab, or in the field, or in a conference. It is not done by debate."
So true. Think of why the creationists love debate so much. It's precisely a venue where the scientist can't bring his arsenal of evidence - lab research, fieldwork, fossils, etc. - other than what crumbs will fit onto a few Keynote slides.
All the two sides can bring to a debate is talk and showmanship, which is all the creationist has. "Show both sides of the controversy" debates are nothing more than an attempt to disarm the science side.
I know that like myself, a lot of you are thinking, now why can't I come up with such a concise response to creationists rambling about useless drivel? The answer, sadly (for most of us) is that some people have an explicit expository ability to completely dominate irrational bullshit with a complete reply. No holes in that logic.
While reading this segment of Dr. Gotelli's letter, I tried really hard to put myself in Klinghoffer’s place. Although, I wasn’t all that successful, My face did start to burn. That’s the best slapdown I’ve read in a long while.
Beautiful.
And he makes the point that IDiots refuse to listen to: if a scientist proved that evolution was wrong, he would win the Nobel Prize. He would become the most famous scientist in the world. He would even get on Leno!
Any word on the response to this stirring smackdown?
A standing ovation to Dr Gotelli!
PWNED!! hehe
I love his listing them in with Holocaust Denialists. Oooo, zing! That'll get them pissy.
Fabulous response, made my night to read it.
Pwnd. Thanks for posting this, you made my day.
... my first thought would be 'so time machines do work'. Followed by 'or more likely some creotard has faked it'.
I'M NOT WORTHY! m(_ _)m
Seriously, that was fucking awesome.
Thank you so much for publishing this hissy fit by Gotelli. I am very grateful for the link to the resource "'expelled exposed' exposed". And that's all I'd like to say here. Any web site so bereft of civility is no doubt empty of true and thorough rationality and real intellectual honesty.
P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.
Reading that, I wonder if Klinghoffer even realized he was being ripped a new one. :-D
I had two thoughts when someone first suggested that precambrian bunnies would be the result of time travel - firstly, if I ever had the chance to go back in time I would bring a rabbit and made sure it fossilised in precambrian rock just to fuck with palaeontologists. And secondly, the absence of precambrian rabbits disproves time travel because we don't see any back in time... unless that is another person went back in time and removed the offending fossil.
really? That's all you got Lar?
Any web site so bereft of civility is no doubt empty of true and thorough rationality and real intellectual honesty.
Oh yes, you'll find reams of intellectual honesty over at the Disco Institute!
Have fun deluding yourself.
Ooooh, concern troll is concerned. Has anyone called for a whaaaaaambulance yet?
Pissant.
What about a website and movement so bereft of honesty? What is its measure of intellectual honesty?
Get over being called out on being a dishonest hack if you are part of the ID movement, because that is increasingly being proven to be all that encompasses it.
I'm not sure how one could be civil to the drones from the Discovery Institute, what with them ignoring the last 150 years of scientific progress and existing for the purpose of destroying evolution for the sake of bringing people to Jesus [see Wedge document]. The public evangelising of unsupported science, the persistent attacks on academia, it's continual effort to push their religious ideology into public schools... There's really not that many things one can say about an organisation like that nor the people in it.
"In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can't tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious."
I fell off my chair laughing at this. Wow! Talk about brillant sarcasm. Forget about just plunging the knife and then twisting it. This is more like plunging it then twisting while still keeping a wide smile in one's face. Finally saying 'Have a nice day' after pulling it out!!
rob (sadly) posted at #155:
If I may be forgiven a moment of presumption, why do I get the feeling that the subject statement is somewhat . . . disingenuous, and that, in fact, rob (regrettably)'s desire is to say a great deal more here, possibly quoting from the "neener-neener" school of philosophical discourse?
Acknowledging, of course, purest presumption.
By the way, if you're still reading, rob (sadly), do you perceive this comment bereft of civility?
For the record, rob (regrettably), I'm not convinced that civility was ever a necessary signpost of "thorough rationality and real intellectual honesty," though I have a feeling many readers at Pharyngula would be happy to pour over the evidence you may have suggesting so.
Interesting to note, I often find the debates on this (and other) sites civil, even in disagreement. "Drive by" postings receive, perhaps, somewhat less gentle annotation.
No kings,
Robert
Don't trip over the fucking curb and fall in front of a fucking truck on your way out the fucking door, fucker.
that was an epic response, well played, well played indeed
I just sent Dr Gotelli an e-mail expressing our admiration from all of us at Pharyngula. He certainly deserves recognition and praise for his committment for the cause of science and the passioned rebuttal of the forces of nonsense. Again, a standing ovation to Dr Gotelli!
lol for a moment i thought t he name stephenie meyer was in the letter. whew.
Not pwned
WIN.
When I post about creationism on my blog the best I get is
"It’s trivia. How will that help you at the time of death?
Hare Krishna."
(on the entry about the Burgess Shales). Confused me.
How come ID'ers never ask Pastafarians to debate- what are they scared of?
OMG, all I could think as I read that reply was "I am SO thankful I'm not at the recieving end of this". That was a compete pwning.
Very nice response...it's always refreshing to see knowledgeable, polite, yet truthful rebukes to those who are ignorant and generally hostile.
Wow! That was just amazing. I am so impressed. That was one of the sharpest, wittiest and spot-on honest pieces of writing on the subject of evolution vs creationism I have ever seen (of course, aside from many of your beautiful gems, PZ :))
#153:
Ah, but even if was time machines, time travel ubiquitous enough to ensure precambrian fossil rabbits, given the rarity of fossilization per se, would still blow common descent right out of the water, as it would mean genetic mixing of past and future breeding populations.
Oh, my nonexistent gods and all their cartoon sidekicks; that was one of the most brilliant, eloquent, and savagely magnificent takedowns I have ever beheld. It's great to be among the good guys; we have all the coolest nuclear-powered weapons-grade pwnage!
Wowbagger-
I agree; I find the Aussie accent in women delicious, and I do a pretty good one myself... but it irritates my wife to no end. Oh, well; she had to have some fault...
This is a wonderful putdown, but I doubt the recipient will understand it as such. It may have been more effective to simply say "god bless". I'm pretty sure that would be understood as exactly what it means at the end of your average creationist email. But then, they might see that as some kind of admission. ;)
So, now deprived of the spotlight intelligent design would have gotten at the University of Vermont, the Discovery Institute will do it's damnedest to set up such debates with high school biology teachers in Texas classrooms.
Alas, they have the support of every creationist dentist in Beaumont, Texas -- and that may be enough at this time, to get those debates going.
If only Texans could read Gotelli's letter and comprehend it . . .
I'm sure there are plenty that can.
lol.
Awesomeness. Pure and unadulterated.
Goddamn, I should have read that earlier today. That was good stuff -- especially the closing & PS parts.
Not only do I comprehend it, but I strongly approve of it.
We're not all morons, you know.
I just want to say thank you to Dr. Gotelli. I guess they just need to keep having it explained to them how they're not doing science.
you got PWNED, baby!!!
If only Texans could read Gotelli's letter and comprehend it . . .
I have a houseful of Texans here, and you know what? We all know how to read! We can even comprehend, and not just sound out letters!
Jesus on a pirate plank, what a presumptuous, ignorant thing to say.
Sometimes the good guys win, and this is a world-class EPIC WIN.
Funny, Nick Gotelli doesn't sound like a Southern name, but he sure has that "pour on the syrup while you slip in the shiv" thing we use down pat, bless his heart.
I second the motion for a honorary Molly; the good professor certainly deserves it.
I like the way Nick Gotelli uses the words intelligent design only once, in the first sentence of his letter:
Thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more recent relabeling as "intelligent design") with a speaker from the Discovery Institute.
In the rest of his letter he always uses the words creationists and creationism. He refuses to call the Discovery Institute's belief in magic "intelligent design". Dr Gotelli probably knows those lying idiots are constantly denying ID = creationism.
That was one great big bucketful of awesome.
**swoon**
I only have one complaint. It was too short. I hated to see it end.
This fills me with a giddy joy that I rarely experience.
Wow! So well written. Reminds me of a party i attended about 3 months ago. I am a member of a great local group in N.E. Ohio, The Cleveland Freethinkers. We had a movie night where we gathered at an organizers home and watched "Expelled". We had fun viewing that travesty masquerading as a documentary film, all the while providing an intelligent running commentary and cracking jokes. While Stein and the other pro I.D. folks prattled on about how their rights were being denied, and complained that their side deserved to have their arguments heard, we kept repeating aloud "Where is the science?" To paraphrase another film , "Show me the science!"
This is beyond mere pwnd, or even brutally pwnd.
This is brØtälly PWNZORED \m/(>.<)\m/
Well done, sir.
Col. Klinkhoffer: "But we need a partner on campus."
In legends, the Vampire can only enter a mortal human's home if he is invited.
"In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can't tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious."
Wow! That sarcasm burns like the blast from a nuclear bomb! Eat that purveyors of ignorance!
"P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching."
In other words "don't waste my time you useless bastards!"
The response to the Dimwits Institute letter made me chuckle so much I fell off my chair!
Hey PZ,how did you get hold of his reply letter btw?? Just curious lol
And what a nice pwning it was.
ZING!
That's Kung Fu. Graceful and deadly.
You go, Telli !!!!
I love it when people put the time and effort into a really resounding smackdown. I don't think he sounds snooty or superior at all, just right on the money. Delicious.
A beautifully eloquent response without so much as a hint of punch-pulling. Highlight of my evening so far.
And some people say atheists can't appreciate beauty. That was true beauty right there.
I have a new hero and his name is Nicholas Gotelli.
To rob #155 - Thank you for declining to engage with any of the points Professor Gotelli made, choosing instead to resort to insult and the entirely unsupported assertion that "Any web site so bereft of civility is no doubt empty of true and thorough rationality and real intellectual honesty." You thereby add to the already vast body of anecdotal evidence which indicates that, metaphorically speaking, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Please, if you have any scientific evidence at all which either supports ID/creationism, or disproves evolution, share it with us.
That letter was so amazing, such needly sarcasm, such feather-irony, such cuttingly perfect sentences - it could have been written by someone...
...English.
;)
James F #21:
Such as, say, Proteomics?
That
is
ART.
Another atheist chicken shit
Randy,
see I love it when creationist liars get nicely elegantly eloquently told to fuck the shut up and go away....
Awesome,if you ask me.
How's your paper going for Nature there Randy? Got some evidence yet?
Unintelligent Debunker @ 207
Pisses the crap out of you, eh? Get your imaginary god to smite us down, mere humans with a power of words to negate your insane garbage.
Briliant,
Absofucking Briliant
It made my day.
Class!
Which is yet another example of how medical doctors are not really scientists at all (apart from the vanishingly small minority of medics who genuinely do have a separate science degree and who do science behind the scenes rather than up-front doctoring per se).
It's interesting that, like creationists, many doctors do like to pretend they're scientists though. Everyone secretly knows science is the best.
SEF,
If I may ,thats bollocks.
At least as far as doctor's degree in Germany is concerned,you dont get that title without a scientific project,which usually will involve plenty of lab work,and is in no way inferior to your average doctorate thesis in the anglosaxon academic world.
You do get the title of "doctor" in the US and UK just for the fact of finishing your medical degree,so I guess thats where your post came from.But it doesnt apply to all doctors.
Tres elegant
"FINISH HIM!"
"FATALITY!"
"MORTAL KOMBAAAAAAAAAT!!!!" Cue epic theme music.
Oh if we could only do the video game, imagine the PZ Myers sprite delivering a special combo on Michael Behe.
Prof. Gotelli, I salute you. That reply was made of win and awesome.
I was a little surprised when I got my copy of Mlodinov's The Drunkard's Walk and saw a blurb for it in the back from David Berlinksy. The book has a lot to do with (hell, it's about) chance and randomness, and it seems to sneer at the idea of any premeditated destiny or "design" for most things that we think do. Haven't finished it yet, but it seems to be a great book anyway. Maybe it doesn't talk about evolution.
I carefully didn't say all doctors, clinteas. Germany also has a better reputation for its attitude towards engineering. On the minus side though, Germany (and specifically the German medical profession) spawned Hahnemann and homeopathy ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Hahnemann
Some German doctors are guilty of rampant pseudoscience too. They are not all routinely thinking and behaving scientifically, even if they did once manage to bang some test-tubes together in their student past.
Absolutely true.
However you original post stated that doctors are not scientists,and I just explained to you that that is not the case where I studied medicine.It may be true in the US,but not everywhere.
What title does a non-scientific medical doctor get in Germany instead then?
Some more advice to David Klinghoffer:
Please don't even think of spinning it as Prof. Gotelli being "afraid" to debate you. But you might want to tell us why you ID activists are so afraid to debate each other, especially since your internal disagreements regarding such key issues as the age of life and common descent are just as ireconcilable as your disagreements with "Darwinists".
@185 You do inderstand that for the last 8 years there was one individual who provided strong evidence that Texans were not quite up to par with the intelligence of the general public, right? I know that is a poor excuse to say all "Texans are a bunch of right-wing nut jobs, who should be carried out to the back 40 and put down." But that does apply to George.
As for the letter, what can I say that has not already been said? A most excellent EPIC WIN.
Yeah, but he was only a pretend Texan*, not a real one - though I can't imagine anyone from Connecticut is going to start reminding people of that anytime soon...
What a stupid comment.
No "W" provided us pretty strong evidence that he wasn't up to par with the intelligence of the general public. Though that's even debatable. Why even say the above comment then try and qualify it?
Where are you from?
In the words of Mr Spock: "Captain, I am detecting large quantities of WIN in this sector"
Standing ovation for Professor G.
He never said that.
he could have i guess.
Wow. Just wow. That is an awesome example of how to hand someone their arse on a plate.
A debate between scientists and creationists will never be any more productive than a debate between people who believe that television sets work by a phosphorescent screen being struck by a beam of electrons which varies in strength as it traverses the screen, and people who believe that television sets work by having tiny people inside them who act out all the shows.
Wow. I read the creationists' request and Dr. Gotelli's answer, and about fell out of my chair. My husband (a lawyer) and his fundamentalist brother had an almost identical discussion by e-mail a week or so ago. Sparked off by a visit where he saw our Holiday tree decked in Flying Spaghetti Monsters, he started e-mailing my husband, asking for details about what he "believes" about the origins of the universe. My husband came back with a very thoughtful response about the big bang and current cosmological theories. Fundy Brother tried to use this as an opportunity to proseltyze, claiming he had real "evidence" that goddidit (and threw in a vision he had of our teen-aged daughter burning in hell for good measure).
My husband responded with, essentially, "If your evidence is really that good, write it up as a paper, get it published in a scientific journal like "Nature" so it can be subjected to peer review, and then I'll consider it. Not until then." My husband's e-mail read so much like Dr. Gotelli's that it's almost scary. Except it's not, since what they were both saying is the correct response to all creationists. If you are claiming that what you do is science, then you have to enter the fray with the real scientists, and subject your work to the same level scrutiny that theirs must endure.
Fundy Brother's response was, "Your sarcasm is not appreciated." My husband wasn't too upset by that, since it gave him the opportunity to send his response again, rephrased, with the message that he was not being in the least sarcastic. We are still waiting to see if Fundy brother will try again, or whether he has given up.
#229:
Wait, what? Your brother-in-law has suggested that your daughter will burn in hell for all eternity, and yet he's acting the aggrieved party?
One of the arguments you often hear from IDiots is that only ID can "explain everything". It is true. It can explain everything--just as a quadratic curve can be drawn through any 3 points in a plane, whether there's any real relation or a linear relation or no relation. So what do you lose by that? The problem is that while ID can explain everything, it can't predict anything--unless you want to reduce your creator--oops, designer--to an automaton governed by natural law. That's why ID cannot ever under any circumstances be science.
@Moggie
Yup. Well, he said he had a highly disturbing vision of it in a dream. My husband's response was "If I were taking a medication that was giving me highly disturbing visions, I'd stop taking it. Just sayin'"
Moggie said:
Bizarre, innit? How in hell do the sickos who fantasize about burning people get the reputation of being good and loving? How can anyone suggest that such twisted freaks be given responsibility for morality and justice?
Dr. Klinghoffer freaking wins at life. That letter was awesome. Good for him! :D
First off, that letter by Dr. Gotelli is WIN. Wow. I can't wait to finish this and read it again and then forward it to my friends.
Second, Ubi Dubium, your husband is also full of WIN. He is strong in the Snark.
I want to have Dr. Gotelli's baby!
Um, yeah, sure....
Klinghoffer actually did respond with a whole lotta whine about Gotelli being a hypocrite.
Since most Americans have doubts about evolution and believe in a magic sky fairy, then evolution must be bunk and there must be a gawd. What a douche.
People here are way too hard about not-creationist-ID-scientists. They have proof the creator created this shit.
"You see that bacterium - God made it."
How can you argue with that?
I mean, it's been endlessly reviewed in theological circles and been found to be sound theologically and scientifically; yet still you find fault. Picky picky picky. No wonder science never really made it as a religion! Oh, wait..
Incidentally they have a posted a response over at uncreationist dissent. Apparently Dr Gotelli was rude and petty in his letter. Read dignified, yet patronising.
Great letter Dr D. How about posting here? I'm sure you'll find the company congenial.
In an effort to save a trip over to the dumb-side, here is the response from David Klinghoffer of the Discovery Institute as posted on their website. (I'd post the linkagain, but it's really not needed) My favorite quote, "Nah nah nah, boo boo!" I'd like to see that in a scientific journal!
Start:
What Is Hypocrisy, After All?
I’ve been corresponding with Nicolas Gotelli, a University of Vermont biologist. When I received his response to my initial email, I thought it was so ridiculous and hypocritical that I said to myself, Wouldn’t it be amusing to publish this on ENV? Then I reflected disappointedly, No, it’s a private correspondence, that would be unethical! I can’t do it without his permission and, since he’d have to be pretty thoughtless to allow someone to reprint his hysterically bristling letter, it’s not worth asking.
Luckily, Professor Gotelli has solved my problem for me. He promptly and without seeking permission sent our emails off to PZ Myers, who immediately published them on Pharyngula. You can read the correspondence there. Thank you, gentlemen.
Gotelli is the fellow who wrote an op-ed in the Burlington Free Press expressing the view that it was only proper that UVM should cancel Ben Stein as graduation speaker because the popular entertainer is also a “notorious advocate of intelligent design” who maintains that Darwinian ideas had deadly consequences in the form of Nazi racist ideology (only too true). Gotelli asserted it was appropriate to invite “controversial” speakers to campus, since “one of the best ways to refute intellectually bankrupt ideas is to expose them to the light of day.” But a commencement speaker is someone special, Gotelli went on, someone chosen for his peer-reviewed scholarship.
Someone, it turns out, like the widely published scholar Howard Dean, to whom UVM turned next and who will deliver the commencement address. What, as one online reader of Gotelli’s op-ed plaintively asked, “Was Daffy Duck unavailable?”
Prompted by a friend in Vermont who wanted to see Stein speak at UVM, I wrote to Gotelli on the assumption that just possibly he was sincere in his protestations about being for free speech. Perhaps he would agree to advise me on finding a forum for a debate about Darwinism on the UVM campus, on some occasion other than commencement. I suggested that rather than Ben Stein, it might be illuminating to put up a scientific Darwin critic like Stephen Meyer or David Berlinski against a Darwinian advocate like, oh, Nick Gotelli.
It was a pipe dream of mine. These guys always run from debates as fast as they can manage, hiding and shivering behind the excuse of not wanting to grant public recognition to doubts about Darwin -- doubts shared, of course, by most Americans. Sure enough, Gotelli wrote back, all in a huff. First, he was offended by a post on ENV that mildly guffawed at his op-ed and the choice of Dean as commencement speaker -- thinking I had written the post, which actually I didn’t. Gotelli had misunderstood the author identification. He called the post “sneering” -- which it hardly was -- and decried my “two-faced dishonesty” in now writing to him in a courteous tone.
I always try to write to and about people in a courteous tone. Not so, Gotelli -- or PZ Myers, or most anyone I can think of in the online Darwinist community, where venom and vulgarity are the norm. Which is interesting in itself. I guess ideas have consequences after all.
After throwing around the scare word “creationism” a number of times and mixing it up with other insults and untruths, Gotelli closes by, first, withdrawing his earlier suggestion that Stein (or anyone associated with ID) would make an appropriate “controversial” campus speaker, and then childishly warning that if I should try to reply to him, he would not answer me or anyone else from the Discovery Institute. In other words, “Nah nah nah, boo boo!” as my kids would put it.
Hypocrisy may be the wrong word for Gotelli’s about-face on free speech. Anyone who fails, out of weakness or temptation, to live up to his own openly professed ideals is a hypocrite. That would include most human beings. The normal feeling that goes with this is embarrassment. A hypocrite wouldn’t seek to publicize his hypocrisy.
Maybe, then, the right designation for someone like Gotelli is a cynic. That’s someone who treats ideas as chess pieces. When it suits your purposes, you advance an idea -- like “free speech.” When it doesn’t suit your purpose, the same idea becomes expendable, a useless pawn.
But no, that’s not quite it either. A cynic is typically smart enough to try to keep his cynicism a secret. That’s part of his game strategy. A cynic wouldn’t forward his correspondence to a buddy with a popular website, so that everyone could see how little trouble he takes to consider the words he writes.
The person who would do that isn’t a hypocrite or a cynic. He’s a fool.
Finish
Well, that's all folk!
The only thing I would have added to the letter is that this is NOT a freedom of speech issue. No body is denying the creationist their right to spew their stupidity. We're simply saying that we're not goign to let you spew it in our universities because it's not an appropriate topic for a scientific discussion.
They are perfectly welcome to discuss their opinions in a comparative religion class. But they are no more allowed to present their unproven, untestable, unfalsifiable hypothosis as if it were science than a Scientologist would be allowed to present their concept of Xenu and the Thetans in a psycology class.
Also, this whole concept of "let's debate both sides of the argument" just makes me laugh. The creationist side of the argument comes down to "God did it and I choose to interpret everything I see as having been created by a supernatural being". Whereas, to teach the full spectrum of evidence for evolution would require each student get Ph.D.s in multiple disiplines. Evolution is so well proven in so many ways, do they really think it's possible to distill all that information into a single debate? A single class? Or even a single colege degree?
At this point I'd like to quote George Hrab's wonderful observation:
"If you deny evolution then you're denying biology.
If you deny biology then you're denying chemistry.
If you deny chemistry then you're denying physics.
If you deny physics then you're denying mathematics.
If you deny mathematics then you're denying reality."
Epic win.
Ah the bullies finally get pushed down by the nerd. Shorter Gotelli: "Give me a reason to listen to you, or F off."
Hahaha... and of course he never addresses the reason Gotelli shot him down. It's all about how nasty he was and how he's against free speech.
What an ass. But we knew that already.
Oh and why would UVM want Howard Dean to speak there??? He was only the very popular Governor of the state and helped forged the 50 state strategy that got Obama elected.
Klinghoffer fails... again.
I note in the letter asking Gotelli to do the forum, Klinghoffer offers up a DI book and a DI person to "provide the scientific backdrop". Pretty shameless, no?
Klinghoffer of course ignores the main point of Gotelli's reply.
That public debates are not the place where where science is sussed out.
If he wants to debate, publish, publish, publish to peer review.
Once your work starts to become accepted then maybe you'll get invited to come to speak at places of higher education as someone who actually has something of worth to say.
His reply is fully one big giant side step and whine.
Did the original IDer email actually use COMIC SANS?! I think he should be skewered in public just for his font choice! For SHAME!
Oh yes, and it was a brilliant response, but everyone's already chimed on that one.
----Bree
Its such a great reply. Wonderful.
Shorter Gotelli:
Searching for deeper meanings in shallow water is not a function of our University. Please bugger off.
Enjoy.
It appears that Dr. Klinghoffer has adopted the time-honored technique of lying for Jebus. I've never been really clear on why an omnipotent being would be so vulnerable that you'd have to lie to defend him, but maybe nobody ever explained it to me properly.
Actually, I think a more effective way to deal with these IDiots is to say you'd love to debate them--just as soon as they make some predictions based on ID. That's the thing about any theory that invokes an omnipotent sky pixie for explanation--they've given up any hope of ever being able to predict anything. So, they can't say we're ducking debate...unless they want to also explain why they can't predict anything.
Fantastic response. More academics need to come out and directly, if tactfully, call these frauds out for what they are. As soon as you engage them in public you're playing by their rules. This is truly an excellent response.
What an eloquent way to say, "You and your dishonest, anti-science cohorts can go to hell." That was epic.
Rock on, Dr. Gotelli.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 19, 2009 10:35 AM
Ah the bullies finally get pushed down by the nerd. Shorter Gotelli: "Give me a reason to listen to you, or F off."
The last line is what I tell my students to keep uppermost in their minds when they write a CV. It's also what I keep in mind when attending parties or conferences.
Another quick point here, the links he provides in the article go to pieces that he wrote (look at the Nazi link from the DI News website). He is proving his point by pointing you to his own writing. Now where have I seen circular logic like that before.....
What's wrong with Comic Sans anyway?
If it was good enough for Jesus when he wrote the Bible, it should be good enough for us.
And I note that the forces of santa who run this site won't allow any of us to comment using this font. It's censorship.
If it's not in Comic Sans, it's not true. Accept it!
New here?
No, of course he didn't, that is how PZ quotes idiots.
I find it quite telling that the Discovery Institute's snappy little creationist blog doesn't allow for comments. Gee, I wonder why...
Truly priceless. Sharp, witty, to the point and beyond any reasonable criticism. Mr Gotelli, you made my day!
I like the part about the old ben being an entertainer. Much like ID, it doesn't wash.
Beautiful response.
On a related note. They will be invading my beloved state next week.
The trouble with these new-fangled creationists, the IDiots, is that they want to play at being scientists without going to the trouble of actually doing any science themselves. They're continually trying to invite themselves to the buffet party without bringing so much as a home-made potato-salad or dessert with them - just the ancient, turd-flavoured, discarded chewing-gum they stepped in on the way over.
Good bloody gods. Gotelli *MURDERED* the poor dumb bastard.
Are you sure about that? It seems more like an argument from ignorance to me.
Dude. I'll be grinning all day because of this. And how badly do you want video footage of Klinghoffer's face when he read this?
All right, so I didn't find out if you could comment in CS. I didn't want to even try to find out.
"There are some things we just don't want to know. Important things!" Ned Flanders
Ha, ha, ha! That totally made my day!
Epic win.
I find it very telling that he offers the debating services of a (supposed) mathematician and a philosopher of science, but not an evolutionary biologist or actual scientist of any sort. Hmmm.
ROFLMAO
I want to shake that man's hand!!
*slow clap* Bravo good sir, bravo.
This is why I thought Gotelli made a mistake in not including scientific conferences as part of the media for creationists to participate. As I described above, he should have INVITED the schmoe to come to a scientific conference. Then let's see who runs from a debate?
Again, the point needs to be made clear: SCIENTISTS DEBATE EVOLUTION (in all aspects) GOES ON ALL THE TIME IN PUBLIC FORA. The creationists just refuse to show up.
In order to win you need to attack the enemy.
The IDists know this very well: they attack the theory of evolution, the scientists try to defend it, or to avoid the nonsensical confrontation altogether. That's good enough for the educated minority, but not nearly good enough for the masses. In the eyes of the average person the evolutionists are perceived as the ones that are losing the "battle", and ones that are afraid of debating the "controversy", because the average person does not know much about science and the scientific method.
Therefore we should start an offensive. We should start attacking their theory and let them try to defend it.
Immediately, an important issue will come to light: What is their theory anyway?
They will say that the biological systems are intelligently designed. OK, but by whom? How? When?
Was it the Christian God? Yahweh? Allah? An impersonal all-encompassing spiritual entity?
Was it in six literal days, or was it over a longer period of time? How long a period? Why?
Was everything created as it is today, or did God only create a number of "kinds" which then diversified through variation ("microevolution")? How many kinds were there originally, and what were they?
Did the dinosaurs really exist? Were they destroyed by God because they were evil? Were they all killed off by other animals and humans? Were they too big to fit on the Ark? Were their bones planted by God to test our faith? Are all the "dinosaur fossils" actually invented by evil evolutionists in an atheist conspiracy?
Does the "intelligent designer" take part in day-to-day affairs of his creation, or had he just created it and then left it to fend for itself?
When confronted with a torrent of such questions (followed by more precise sub-questions), the IDist will either be stumped and try to weasel out with vague terms, which will expose him as the narrow-minded idiot he is, or will give specific answers which will get him in conflict with other IDists which favor a specific magical story and perceive all other stories as blasphemy. Divide and conquer.
If I were in the States, I'd start going around with a camera crew and interviewing ID proponents right away.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | February 18, 2009 4:31 PM
P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.
Don't call us, we'll call you.
Don't call us, we won't call you either
Foxtrot. Tango. Whiskey.
I think PZ needs a Top Ten, the Lenski to Schafly responses would be number one, this would rank a close second. Third would have to be the Judge Jones Dover ruling. As for the rest? Any ideas?
Ted
Tedhohio@gmail.com
...Creationist dentists in Beaumont, Tx? Oh dear, I need dental work but I wouldn't want to go to a creationist dentist. I know of a couple of liberal MDs ( as well as a couple of ultra rightists), Don't know about the views of any dentists
May I propose the inclusion into the language of your choice,the new noun "gotelli" as in "Mr. Klinghoffer has been served a large steaming plate of gotelli." or "That which lies in the road yonder resembling a large steaming plate of gotelli is what remains of an IDiot named Klinghoffer or possibly a squirrel"
I'd love to have a recording of Stephen Fry reading that letter. It's brilliant.
Maybe Professor Gotelli can tell us creationists whose Origin of Life theory is correct?
RNA world theory? They haven't made life in a lab yet. Should I take it on faith that they'll do it soon?
Or Eugene Koonin's multiverse theory? He gets around the failure to replicate RNA world, but he doesnt have any data from all those other universes. Should I take it on faith that they exist?
Excellent! And what a coincidence, I JUST FINISHED a similar dialouge on Richard Dawkins' site - http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Ri…
The best part was the creationist, Karl Priest, yelling "coward" over his shoulder as he fled the "debate"
I contacted the Moderator of ednews.org(the "ed" is billed by the site as standing for Education) and informed him that a creationist was using his site to push a religious agenda - see the site to see the Editor's insulting and semi-literate reply (comment #32 from ConcernedEducater[me])
http://ednews.org/articles/33215/1/DARWIN-IS-DEAD-Leave-Him-in-the-Grav….
Would some of you fine, outstanding members of the intelligensia mind leaving some comments of your own?
BTW, does anyone else find the "we can't get funding to do research" excuse really lame? Granted, they aren't going to get federal research dollars, but come on, they have their own stinking Institute!!!!!! Why isn't the Discovery Institute funding ID research?
Maybe because they spend all their money funding speakers to go out and do "debates"?
I would think that this would be a fairly reasonable development project. You could find lots of donors, I bet.
No. He can't. It's a hard question about something that happened a few billion years ago, so there is little left in the way of direct physical clues.
There is, however, considerably more evidence supporting an RNA-world hypothesis (e.g., known ribozymes that can catalyze their own replication) than there is for any scenario that includes a goddidit.
"Maybe Professor Gotelli can tell us creationists whose Origin of Life theory is correct?"
Mr. Gotelli does not care about your question from a scientific perspective because it is not a scientific question, it is philosophical. Philosophical questions have no place in scientific endeavors, as the vice versa would hold.
But as a creationist, perhaps you can tell everyone here which god is the correct one we should be worshipping, and which one created all that exists, by directing us to the associated tomes of empirical evidence.
Nobody here would ask you to take those philosophical ideas on faith, but then, we would also recommend you not take your own faith on faith.
I contacted the Moderator of ednews.org(the "ed" is billed by the site as standing for Education) and informed him that a creationist was using his site to push a religious agenda - see the site to see the Editor's insulting and semi-literate reply (comment #32 from ConcernedEducater[me])
http://ednews.org/articles/33215/1/DARWIN-IS-DEAD-Leave-Him-in-the-Grav….
Would some of you fine, outstanding members of the intelligensia mind leaving some comments of your own?
They pulled your comment!! Left the id, and number, but your comment is gone!!
chaynes #279 wrote:
Maybe Professor Gotelli is waiting for you creationists to present your Origin of Life theory.
Mechanism? Process? Description? Time frame? Please feel free.
Gotelli has failed to impress. He did not say "creationist" enough times. Pathetic. Try to do better next time.
I'm sure he could tell you his opinion about what he thinks is correct, but then again, it is an unresolved issue so there is not a consensus answer.
But there's nothing wrong or unusual about that. Heck, there are countless unresolved issues in science. That's why science is interesting - there is still lots and lots to learn. And the more we learn, the more we know we have to learn.
Just because scientists have not reached a consensus about a topic doesn't mean that "goddidit"
For example, the question of "what caused the extinctions of the dinosaurs" is also still unresolved. Yeah, there are hypotheses out there, with varying degrees of empirical support, but yet they all have issues and questions about them. That doesn't mean God did it, though.
Posted by: a passerby
If I were in the States, I'd start going around with a camera crew and interviewing ID proponents right away.
------------------
Heck, if I could afford a camera crew I would have set out 2 days ago, when my "debate" with Karl Priest began.
I'd love to get that charlatan on video.
They pulled your comment!! Left the id, and number, but your comment is gone!!
---------------
No, the comment is still there - I quoted the poster of Comment #26, so it's a little confusing. Sorry!
"Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 19, 2009 2:29 PM
...
But as a creationist, perhaps you can tell everyone here which god is the correct one we should be worshipping
...
An another good set of questions for the creationists!
Does the "intelligent designer" require worshiping, and in which way exactly?
Are we supposed to conduct certain rituals? Which rituals, and how often?
Or are we just supposed to live by a certain set of rules? And what are these rules?
Does the designer punish those who do not actively worship him, or worship him in a "wrong" way? Does he reward those who do? Or he does not care?
Perhaps you should figure out that the Theory of Evolution isn't making claims on which theory of the origin of life is correct (though there are good theories out there that are being improved upon using actual scientific methods and techniques). But as a scientist, Gotelli requires more than apologetics disguised as sciency sounding "stuff" to be taken seriously. So it's pretty obvious that creationism isn't the correct one.
Creationists should start formulating their ideas into a testable theory and start producing actual science instead of sciency sounding stuff.
They haven't made life in a lab yet? They damn well have, ever hear of Dolly the cloned sheep? Or the heart and other organs printed using a 3d cell printer? Or the living single/multi celled organism produced in the same matter?
And it is a hypothesis until otherwise proven, then it is theory. If creationists can produce a hypothesis and then actually prove it with real science (faith and belief does not count)... then the science world will change, like it did with the discovery of evolution, gravity, subatomic particles, quarks and like it may when the CERN collider actually works.
Btw, I so want to frame his response and show it to my science teacher :)
Wow. Gotelli’s mastery of sarcasm, intellectual rationalization, and demonizing is totally impressive. But of course, verbally describing a house of cards as an impenetrable fortress is still, in the end, an illusion for the liars club members.
For many years, watching the content and results of so many campus debates between the evolution religion and either ID science or creation science, marveling at how flummoxed evolutionists usually became when confronted with simple scientific evidence and common sense, I was always wondering in the back of my mind how they would deal with this problem over time. After all, it must have been terribly frustrating for the pontificates of the evolutionary religious doctrine to deal with the aftermath of students wondering about the meaning of scientific data that seemed to render macro evolution a complete impossibility, asking embarrassing scientific questions they couldn’t answer, and making it too risky for them to fail any student with the guts and intellectual savvy to disagree with the required viewpoint.
I did wonder how they would deal with it, and Gotelli gave me the answer: if you can’t come clean with the logical and scientific absurdity of your position, and you can’t beat them in a debate, just ridicule them while refusing to debate them and carefully positioning yourself as superior in intelligence. But can misused intelligence easily overcome an honest citizen’s commitment to common sense and rational thought?
One of the most widely read authors in history said “every man seems right until another comes forward to question him”. Ah, yes. But what if you could keep another from ever questioning you, and always surround yourself with those committed to uphold your intellectual illusion? Such are our campuses today, free from critical thinking, and with ready punishments for those who dare to question or embarrass even the most obvious of the Party’s illusions. [Ah, such enlightenment and intellectual freedom!]
That’s what Gotelli has mastered so eloquently: by hiding behind the lack of published research in the tomes which the bishops of evolutionary dogma control, by demonizing/ridiculing opposing viewpoints as being unworthy of his time, and by denying any public airings of the vast wealth of disagreeable facts, he can disguise his distain, censorship, and bullying, while maintaining an illusion of credibility, scientific neutrality, and professionalism.
“Peer review” in the “intellectual free market” sounds so wonderfully neutral. But isn’t that merely an illusion maintained for the uninformed and manipulated evolutionary-shrine visitors and worshippers? If it is so free, and if scientists with real data would be such welcome heroes, how is it that so many intellectuals are being dismissed from campuses because they dare break the code of silence to mention uncomfortable scientific facts? For that matter, how is it that there is such a dearth of open discussion on so many (or all) of the scientific discoveries that sound disturbingly like death-knells for evolutionary dogma?
While it could take an encyclopedia set to contain all of them, we don’t have time and your audience doesn’t have patience. So to mention a few: to say that cross-bedding is “extensive” in the fossil record is an understatement of immense proportion, yet it’s merely one of many points which make the evidence for rapid catastrophic formation of the geological strata and fossil deposition truly mind-blowing in scope; the only Grand Canyon theory that holds any water at all puts the canyon formation in either one or two stages of catastrophic-event releases from immense inland lakes, with over 90% of what we see formed in a total span of roughly 14 to 36 months; Mitochondrial Eve’s original-source human DNA was dated at 6,000 years ago in the conclusion of extensive scientific research that was carefully reviewed and quietly deemed to be “unassailable” by a small circle of academic “peers”, then the subject was shelved and blacklisted; 98% of chimp DNA equivalent to human DNA is more like 96% or less when the unmapped portions of the genome are included, which means that every generation had to include an average of 20 to 80 beneficial changes in DNA encoding, depending on how many millions of years you want to insert. (Why don’t such scientific facts get a full public airing in the “scientific” community?)
Unfortunately, since the unimaginable quality control achievement in the DNA reproduction system only allows an estimated 1 error in 10 Billion, macro evolution seems far-fetched to neutral observers. Even more unfortunately, there’s not one single “missing link” from all those generations of DNA alteration, suggesting that macro evolution is an adult fantasy with sexual and religious overtones, rather than a scientific opinion. And of course, that’s why there are so many staunch atheists who have converted to an ID perspective in recent years: it seems nearly impossible to investigate DNA content and maintain an intellectually honest adherence to evolution. In fact, Antony Flew called DNA evolution an “apparent impossibility”. I wonder how Professor Myers has managed the complex rationalizations?
Such scientific data and logical conclusions are the REAL reason that over 80% of high school science teachers and 60% of doctors think that ID needs to be presented alongside evolution in the classroom – despite the fact that both of these groups have been thoroughly saturated in “scientific” university educations. If evolution was anything but an atheistic religious doctrine this integration of classroom logic would have happened long ago, because anything that’s true becomes far clearer and less assailable with close examination. As such, public classroom and debate exposure is the perfect way to silence “IDiots” by disproving the need for Design and demonstrating the superiority of evolution. Come on! “Everyone who’s smart knows we’re right” is still Junior-high egoism that lacks any scientific evidence or credibility, despite Gotelli’s inspirational and talented slap-down sarcasm. Scrimmage-line insults prove nothing: if you’re going to beat your opponents you have to play the game and put points on the scoreboard. Instead of wasting your intellects to bash dissent and unbelievers, why not make real contributions? Debate them openly. Write those textbooks and help that strong majority of doctors and teachers to get over their deeply-rooted scientific doubts! Instead of lazily repeating the artificial constructs of empty, disproven evolutionary fallacies, buckle down and show them evidence that evolution is far more than an empty theory whose exclusive substance is the ethereal swamp vapors of wishful rationalization!
Speaking of intellectual honesty, in closing I would note that while many Christians and members of the public lump Creation Science with I.D., the core thrust of I.D. is purely based on scientific data. To claim otherwise seems dishonest. I.D. does not make claims as to whether the Designer is God or an advanced-race being from another galaxy: it merely presents and discusses the scientific evidence without a predetermined dismissal of what Patrick Glynn called “the simplest and most obvious solution” to the mountains of otherwise inexplicable scientific data.
You, sirs, win two (2) internets for your troubles.
I am more interested that the link included to the discovery institute is a butthurt piece about Professor Gotelli forwarding this communication to you.
Was it always that way? Linking to untrustworthy sources may be a risk, at least with this lot.
Interesting. Where would one find this data? Are there any peer-reviewed papers you could point us to?
Just a highlight from that Wall o' Wrong.
Speaking of intellectual honesty, in closing I would note that while many Christians and members of the public lump Creation Science with I.D., the core thrust of I.D. is purely based on scientific data. To claim otherwise seems dishonest. I.D. does not make claims as to whether the Designer is God or an advanced-race being from another galaxy: it merely presents and discusses the scientific evidence without a predetermined dismissal of what Patrick Glynn called “the simplest and most obvious solution” to the mountains of otherwise inexplicable scientific data.
Yes, let's do speak of intellectual honesty.
The rest of your unutterably moronic screed is about to get an epic smackdown in 3... 2... 1...
Engineer #293 wrote:
No, I don't think so. As Gotelli (and others) have pointed out, scientists are always looking for new ideas. That's part of the nature of the process. If you have the research, then it will be taken seriously.
I think one of the problems is that you don't have the research. That might be at least in part because you don't have an actual theory to work with. Saying "Theory A is not good" is not going to be a sufficient description for "Theory B."
Since you don't seem to be averse to long posts, I'm going to ask you if you could answer a question for me.
One of the people who comment here was once nice enough to summarize evolution into 14 points. If you have a problem with evolution (which you clearly do), then you're going to have a specific problem with one or more of these points.
Could you indicate which one? I'm not clear on where it breaks down for you. Thanks:
VARIATION:
1) Variation exists in all populations.
2) Some of that variation is heritable.
3) Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4) Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via "Crossing over" during meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pairs on a chromosome.
5) Copying errors (mutations) can also arise, because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
6) These recombinations and errors produce a tendency for successively increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population.
SELECTION:
7) Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
8) Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organism's offspring that are able to reproduce in turn, tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.
9) Unrepresentative sampling can occur in populations which alters the relative frequency of the various alleles for reasons other than survival/reproduction advantages, a process known as "genetic drift".
10) Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the "recipient" population.
SPECIATION:
11) Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can "favor" different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
12) A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when a sub-population acquires characteristics which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternate population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.
SUFFICIENCY:
13) The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time.
14) Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on Earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct forms indirectly observed from the fossil record.
"...the core thrust of I.D. is purely based on scientific data..."
OK. Where is the data exactly?
"...it merely presents and discusses the scientific evidence without a predetermined dismissal of what Patrick Glynn called “the simplest and most obvious solution” to the mountains of otherwise inexplicable scientific data."
Are you referring to the predetermined dismissal of the already predetermined and assumed existence of a being nobody can prove exists, and of which no evidence for direct control over anything on this planet has yet been shown?
"...marveling at how flummoxed evolutionists usually became when confronted with simple scientific evidence and common sense..."
Let me fix that for you: "...marveling at how flummoxed evolutionists usually became when confronted with back-breaking tortures of logic and the rantings of musty tribalistic mythology..." There. All better.
"...pontificates of the evolutionary religious doctrine..."
From nearly sentence one of your post I was suspect of your aims, and your naming of yourself as "Engineer" doesn't signal to me you A) are actually an engineer, B) have any real concept of what an engineer is versus a scientist, and C) know what science actually is. The rest of your post reaffirmed the existing model of the typical creationist that comes around here trying to shame genuinely curious people into submission to vaporous fairies. We don't listen to viewpoints like yours because A) they cannot be tested, B) they cannot be proven, C) their validity cannot be ascertained against other religions, D) even if the idea was proven it wouldn't benefit humanity at all because it wouldn't tell us how to solve real problems, E) need I go on? Your point of view is not valid because it gets nobody anywhere, and is nothing but a command for ill-earned and undeserved respect for something you yourself are wholly unable to theorize, test, prove, and make predictions on the behavior of.
But please, feel free to stay and make us laugh.
Engineer #293,
Just so we're clear, you believe there is a global conspiracy that has prevented, for decades, a single piece of data supporting ID (or refuting evolution) from appearing in peer-reviewed scientific research papers? A body of literature that numbers about 17 million as indexed at the National Library of Medicine? As a scientist, I like to know when someone calls me a liar and/or part of a super-powerful cabal. These are very serious charges, after all! Thanks in advance.
"Engineer", go fuck yourself and stop disgracing a noble profession. Your worthless steaming pile of shit only makes it obvious what an idiot you are.
You babble about "debate" but the truth is creationist fuckwits like you don't want a debate. You want a sideshow. You want a chance to spew bullshit to the gullible to reinforce their delusions. You want to lie in public. You've been told repeatedly to present your evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, but you flee in abject terror because you know you don't HAVE any evidence. You keep saying you have evidence, but you never present anything worthy of the name. You could try debating with actual scientists in front of an educated audience at scientific conventions. But you won't. Because you know you'd be laughed off the stage. You know that people who know what the fuck they're talking about will expose your lies and make it obvious what frauds you are. Your only hope is to confuse the gullible. You are despicable ghouls, spreading your toxic stench everywhere you go, taking advantage of innocent people to spread your propaganda. Go fuck yourself.
Other than canards against geology and biology, what do you have, "Engineer"?
Nothing. No evidence for a flood (oh yeah, cross-bedding, never happens today), no evidence for purpose or rationality behind life at all.
End of story, aside from the well-deserved sneers at your bankrupt idiocy. The very baselessness of your unimaginative trollery is the reason for Gotelli's sarcasm, etc.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
”Ben Stein may not be the best person to single-handedly represent the ID side. As you're aware, he's known mainly as an entertainer.”
So even the Discovery institute is trying to distance itself from Ben Stein and acknowledge that he has been a failure. I can't think of better evidence that PZ Myers and co. have won their battle against Expelled.
Such as? You presumably grant that one can observe fairly large changes in the phenotype of some species just during a few human lifetimes (such as dog breeds)? So what is the "scientific data" the prevents like changes from accumulating to such a degree as to cause speciation? Would you agree that, if in the wild, chihuahuas and Newfoundland dogs would not interbreed, and thus be separate species?
Really, why is this so hard to grasp?
The Discovery Institute is furious at being rebuffed by Gotelli:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/was_daffy_duck_unavailable.html
{{{What Is Hypocrisy, After All?
I’ve been corresponding with Nicolas Gotelli, a University of Vermont biologist. When I received his response to my initial email, I thought it was so ridiculous and hypocritical that I said to myself, Wouldn’t it be amusing to publish this on ENV? Then I reflected disappointedly, No, it’s a private correspondence, that would be unethical! I can’t do it without his permission and, since he’d have to be pretty thoughtless to allow someone to reprint his hysterically bristling letter, it’s not worth asking.
Luckily, Professor Gotelli has solved my problem for me. He promptly and without seeking permission sent our emails off to PZ Myers, who immediately published them on Pharyngula. You can read the correspondence there. Thank you, gentlemen.
Gotelli is the fellow who wrote an op-ed in the Burlington Free Press expressing the view that it was only proper that UVM should cancel Ben Stein as graduation speaker because the popular entertainer is also a “notorious advocate of intelligent design” who maintains that Darwinian ideas had deadly consequences in the form of Nazi racist ideology (only too true). Gotelli asserted it was appropriate to invite “controversial” speakers to campus, since “one of the best ways to refute intellectually bankrupt ideas is to expose them to the light of day.” But a commencement speaker is someone special, Gotelli went on, someone chosen for his peer-reviewed scholarship.
Someone, it turns out, like the widely published scholar Howard Dean, to whom UVM turned next and who will deliver the commencement address. What, as one online reader of Gotelli’s op-ed plaintively asked, “Was Daffy Duck unavailable?”
Prompted by a friend in Vermont who wanted to see Stein speak at UVM, I wrote to Gotelli on the assumption that just possibly he was sincere in his protestations about being for free speech. Perhaps he would agree to advise me on finding a forum for a debate about Darwinism on the UVM campus, on some occasion other than commencement. I suggested that rather than Ben Stein, it might be illuminating to put up a scientific Darwin critic like Stephen Meyer or David Berlinski against a Darwinian advocate like, oh, Nick Gotelli.
It was a pipe dream of mine. These guys always run from debates as fast as they can manage, hiding and shivering behind the excuse of not wanting to grant public recognition to doubts about Darwin -- doubts shared, of course, by most Americans. Sure enough, Gotelli wrote back, all in a huff. First, he was offended by a post on ENV that mildly guffawed at his op-ed and the choice of Dean as commencement speaker -- thinking I had written the post, which actually I didn’t. Gotelli had misunderstood the author identification. He called the post “sneering” -- which it hardly was -- and decried my “two-faced dishonesty” in now writing to him in a courteous tone.
I always try to write to and about people in a courteous tone. Not so, Gotelli -- or PZ Myers, or most anyone I can think of in the online Darwinist community, where venom and vulgarity are the norm. Which is interesting in itself. I guess ideas have consequences after all.
After throwing around the scare word “creationism” a number of times and mixing it up with other insults and untruths, Gotelli closes by, first, withdrawing his earlier suggestion that Stein (or anyone associated with ID) would make an appropriate “controversial” campus speaker, and then childishly warning that if I should try to reply to him, he would not answer me or anyone else from the Discovery Institute. In other words, “Nah nah nah, boo boo!” as my kids would put it.
Hypocrisy may be the wrong word for Gotelli’s about-face on free speech. Anyone who fails, out of weakness or temptation, to live up to his own openly professed ideals is a hypocrite. That would include most human beings. The normal feeling that goes with this is embarrassment. A hypocrite wouldn’t seek to publicize his hypocrisy.
Maybe, then, the right designation for someone like Gotelli is a cynic. That’s someone who treats ideas as chess pieces. When it suits your purposes, you advance an idea -- like “free speech.” When it doesn’t suit your purpose, the same idea becomes expendable, a useless pawn.
But no, that’s not quite it either. A cynic is typically smart enough to try to keep his cynicism a secret. That’s part of his game strategy. A cynic wouldn’t forward his correspondence to a buddy with a popular website, so that everyone could see how little trouble he takes to consider the words he writes.
The person who would do that isn’t a hypocrite or a cynic. He’s a fool.
Posted by David Klinghoffer on February 19, 2009 5:00 AM }}}
Those loons are so full of it that I'm amazed that they don't blow up!
*sigh* At this point, you just have to bust out the MC Hawking. (NSFW)
"Waaah! The courteous man made me feel bad! Waaah!"
How, exactly, is Gotelli performing an "about-face" on free speech? He's not stopping the DI from spewing their trash all over the place, but he's damned if he's going to help them in their grasping for the mantle of scientific legitimacy.
They're so pathetically, childishly dishonest.
And once again the goal posts are shifted...Evolution is a theory on the development of life, not origin of life. Silly creationist, evolution says nothing about where life came from - that fact is still as yet undiscovered. Though since the event took place almost 4 billion years ago, surely it can be forgiven that the last 55 years of search into the origin has not yielded a definitive result (but there are some promising leads) Like it or not, life has evolved on this planet over the course of almost 4 billion years and all signs point to a Darwinian mechanism. Just because we don't have a strong theory on the origin of life, it doesn't make the evidence for evolution any less true. Evolution happened, the origin of life is another matter entirely.Just to address one more point, saying "God did it" is merely an assertion and not in the least scientific. The origin of life is a genuine scientific controversy and there are several competing hypothesises that have some evidential merit that are under consideration. Just what does your hypothesis say? What mechanisms are at work? And what evidence is there to support your view? You are going to need to answer all those before your speculation becomes a genuine competing hypothesis. Evolution is true, creationism is dead out the window by pure virtue of being true, if you have evidence that the first protocells that started off the process of evolution were crafted by God, please let us know...
The darwinist response can me summed up by these words:
"Dude, are you kiding me? I can't defend the theory that says that everything created itself! Oh, and by the way, I don't like you!"
How brilliant. How right to the point. How "academic freedom"-like.
Gotelli, I am sure your students are proud that you chickened out to debate the evil creationists.
By the way, I don't recall historians refusing to debate holocaust deniers......
Must be something particular to darwinism!
I do. Most won't dignify shit like ID and Holocaust denial with a "debate".
Your mindless ignorance seems to be peculiar to, well, any lying idiot.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Debate does not settle who is right and who is wrong.
Facts presented to the public are what do it. Put the facts of ID online where everyone can see them for themselves. Or, you know, in a science journal.
Otherwise, ID is indistinguishable from the kid in the playground who cups his hands and says "I've got a gold coin in my hands," and when you ask to see it, he simply says "no" and grins like a retarded twunt.
Mats. It's the creationist who chicken out from science. They don't do research and they don't publish papers.
Dumbass.
Mats #308 wrote:
"Dude, are you kidding us? The theory of evolution doesn't say that 'everything created itself.' If you don't understand the science, you have no grounds to criticize it -- and we don't care if you don't like this."
Fixed.
The surest way to question a scientist is to provide empirical based research refuting his position.
So where is it?
History and science are not the same thing Mats.
Science is debated in the lab, field work, peer review and with actual you know.... science.
One of my professors was intimately familiar with David Irving, and did a fine job of demolishing Holocaust denial without having to dignify Irving by sharing an auditorium stage with him. You see, Irving wasn't so much debated as he was destroyed in print - the evidence for the Holocaust was published in respected journals and well-researched books, and were easily cross-referenced against Irving's selective reading of the facts to show that Irving was playing on the same kind of doubt that "God-in-the-gaps" types do. Plus there's a difference: historians acknowledge that their discipline is open to individual interpretation of facts, far more so than is science. Irving's take can be put in the category of an opinion - and opinions are certainly topics of debate.
Irving and other Holocaust deniers are not merely misinterpreting information; they are decidedly ignoring information that does not comport with their predetermined conclusions and/or intellectual biases.
And did you really want to equate ID Creationism with Holocaust denial, which has NO standing amongst real historians, just as ID Creationism has NO standing amongst real scientists?
A poor, poor analogy, all around.
Mats, #308 The darwinist response can me summed up by these words:
And if creationists could actually present their case without making up what "darwinists" say (or making up facts), then maybe someone would take them up on their challenge to a debate.
Seriously. It's hard to present a case based on science and evidence in a couple of 20 minute segments against a skilled propagandist who can spew lies and half-truths with an entertaining flair.
What, as one online reader of Gotelli’s op-ed plaintively asked, “Was Daffy Duck unavailable?”
Top ten reasons why Daffy Duck would be better than Ben Stein as a commencement speaker:
10. Livelier stage presence
9. More articulate
8. More admirable role model
7. Better looking
6. More even-tempered
5. More popular with the student population
4. Has done something worthwhile with his life
3. More gracious in defeat
2. Does not drop "F-bombs"
And the number 1 reason...
1. Daffy's movies are more based in reality
The "Darwinist" response summed up: You need to do some science before you debate science.
Which is why we see the likes of Deborah Lipstadt doing debating tours with Holocaust deniers.
Dumbass.
T. Bruce McNeely:
You forgot
1(a): Voice more pleasant to listen to.
I can understand why they would run. When I was attending the University of Washington I listened to several debates between university professor evolutionists and creationsits. As I recall there was only one evolutionist that came close to holding his ground. He had three PHDs -- two of them honorary. He was a theistic evolutionist with the oratory skill of Obama. I wish I could remember his name. That fact is, evolutionists have learned their lesson about public debates by getting their asses kicked. Now they hide behind the "publish a paper in Nature" bullshit.
Actually, Chimpy, Deborah Lipstadt will not debate Holocaust deniers for the same reasons Richard Dawkins will not debate creationists, it gives their opponents a baseline respectability that they do not deserve.
Yes, it's hiding. Because science is done in the public arena and not in academic peer review... for fucks sake you can be an idiot at times Randy.
they hide behind the "publish a paper in Nature" bullshit.
Anti-intellectualism distilled to its essence.
Man, that stuff stinks!
Yeah because publishing in science journals isn't science.
What a d-bag.
Randy randy randy.
Winners of debates do not determine factuality.
The Gish gallop and Hovid like tactics do not mean they are right. Only that they can spew enough bullshit that the other side has to spend all it's time shooting down the stream of wrongness.
Plus scientific subjects don't necessarily lend to short spurts like the debate format. That is the realm of sound bites and gotchas.
You know what does lend it self to scientific debate? Published research.
Whats the problem Randy? Where is the research refuting evolution?
#322
Randy, I'll direct the question to you as well. Do you believe there is a global conspiracy that has prevented, for decades, a single piece of data supporting ID (or refuting evolution) from appearing in peer-reviewed scientific research papers? A body of literature that numbers about 17 million as indexed at the National Library of Medicine? The other options are that ID isn't science or that ID proponents are completely incompetent at doing research. Thanks in advance.
I think the likes of Randy wants to just be able to say what he wants, and not be constrained by things like contrary evidence, and have it considered science. Otherwise he's spent a lot of time preaching an untenable position without anything more than "I have a masters in mathematics and I say it's impossible" regardless of what the evidence shows.
Randy, speaking of papers, hows your entropy paper coming? No publish, no glory.
The poorly-named 'Intelligent' Designer wrote:
"Now they hide behind the "publish a paper in Nature" bullshit."
Well, if it's bullshit, why don't you clowns just get off your asses and DO IT?
Yeah I don't follow the Holocaust denier stuff too much but my point was more that it was a terrible analogy. Two separate subjects that have different types of evidence. But yes for the reason you mentioned some of the same legitimate reasons not to.
Would one of you scientists tell us poor creationists what you want us to accept on faith.
Scientists tell us that life was not originated by a creator. Absolutely not. Science says so! Even though they cant show us what did happen.
Some scientists say that life arose from spontaneous reactions of simple chemicals. Merely a simple extrapolation of Miller-Urey. But they cant duplicate these reactions in a lab, after 60 years of trying. They say they need more time. And, of course, more manhours.
Other scientists, like Eugene Koonin, say the reactions will never be demonstrated in a lab. The probabilites are too low to happen, even in a zillion years. But he's no creationist. He says reactions did happen spontaneously. His explanation: There are an infinite number of universes, so the reactions would inevitably happen somewhere and that somewhere was here. But he has no data that any other universe exists. Not even one.
"Now they hide behind the "publish a paper in Nature" bullshit."
Well, you see, the trouble with debates (one of the troubles) is that the scientist is pretty much stuck with the facts, whereas the bullshitter can throw up as much bullshit against the wall as he wants, and depending on the audience, most of it will stick.
One of these drive-by ninnies will have to explain to me again why it is that debates are the end-all-be-all of intellectual discourse and truth-seeking, and why reality apparently should be decided on by a simple majority of everyone. Like I said before, shallow thinking.
No it doesn't, science simply says the question is irrelevant as it's untestable. If you want to believe that God made the first protocell, go ahead. If you have any evidence that a protocell was 'created' and that creator was the Judeo-Christian construct of god, then bring the evidence. If you can't, then your position has no merit and is nothing more than a "god of the gaps".Though again - the origin of life is not the diversification of life. Evolution is true, it's been shown to be true through overwhelming evidence in several different disciplines. The origin of life is another matter entirely. So why is the origin of life being brought up now?
Yeah but poofing the universe into existence you accept on faith... right?
Fucking hypocrite.
"Scientists tell us that life was not originated by a creator. Absolutely not. Science says so! Even though they cant show us what did happen. "
You can't even show us the creator. Fail.
"Some scientists say that life arose from spontaneous reactions of simple chemicals. Merely a simple extrapolation of Miller-Urey. But they cant duplicate these reactions in a lab, after 60 years of trying. They say they need more time. And, of course, more manhours."
You guys haven't found shit. Haven't even been looking. Fail again.
Some scientists say that life arose from spontaneous reactions of simple chemicals.
Amino acids and other long chain organics are hardly "simple."
Merely a simple extrapolation of Miller-Urey.
You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you?
Nothing.
Nothing.
Maybe my response should of been...
Yes, it's impossible we exist! We're not even here.
Correction: scientists tell you that there is no evidence that life was originated by a creator, and in fact no evidence that a creator exists or existed.
Are you really surprised by our failure to replicate poorly understood events that occured over 3.5 billion years ago and required millions of years in 60 years of trying?
And "man-hours"? Do you really think that scientists are paid by the hour or are, like, on a cab-meter or something?
Sven, shit your meter is looking low. Let me add a quarter.
"So why is the origin of life being brought up now?"
Because for some reason it is of vital importance to the egos of shallow thinkers.
Unless you can repeat the Big Bang and create the entire universe in 13.7 billion years in the laboratory, I won't believe evolution!
/creationist
CHAYNES, #334 Would one of you scientists tell us poor creationists what you want us to accept on faith.
I'm not a scientist, but I would say don't take anything on faith. Starting with your Bible.
Now you can try to apply a little common sense to the situation. Why would so many scientists be lying or misled? How could such a lie or mistake be maintained so cohesively over a century in as decentralized institution as science?
You know, Creationists are so rude.
Here I am: God, creator of all things, all-knowing and all-powerful.
I would be glad to debate such an esteemed evolutionary biologist as Richard Dawkins. Really, I would. Professor Dawkins would have his microphone and podium, and an empty place would be reserved for Me. Professor Dawkins would say his piece, and then My voice would boom out "Actually, you're quite wrong. I did it. I did it all." It would be great, and of course, I would win.
But no Creationist has ever, I mean ever invited Me to debate an evolutionist on My own. No, they want to hog the stage all for themselves, get up there with their stinky, weak, imperfect bodies and weak, imperfect minds, and try and speak for Me.
Well, I, the Almighty God, curse all Creationists for their arrogance and pride. I curse them with stupidity. I curse them with never being able prove My existence. I curse them for all time with eternal damnation.
That will teach them to snub Me.
I, the Almighty God, have spoken!
Engineer, Thank you for reminding me why I'm changing majors. (I used to be an Engineering major, if you didn't catch that.)
You know, there might be an itty-bitty little problem with that.
You see, Jesus mentioned to Me a while back that we sound almost exactly alike. The only way that he knew it was Me tying to tempt him, back then in the desert, was because You stage-whispered it to him.
But don't mind Me. I'm sure that people will be glad to believe that it's You, on Your say-so.
Well, they had damned well better. Or else there will be damnation all around, damn it!
That's the last thing scientists want. Firstly, they can show you the evidence. Secondly, they can show you the writing that explains the evidence and how how each piece relates to each other. Thirdly, if you are still sceptical, you can train yourself in the scientific method and participate in the process yourself. If your ideas have merit, then they will get published.The people asking to accept on faith are the creationists. They are asking you to accept that "God did it" is not only a valid answer, but the answer to life's mysteries. It's nothing more than projection on a part of a creationist to say that science is built on faith - anyone who even glances at the process knows it's nothing of the sort, the polar opposite to religion.
Here's why I would never debate a creationist: because someone basing their arguments on fact, logic, and reason is inherently at a disadvantage when talking to someone basing their arguments on lies, bullshit, and emotion.
Creationists get to LITERALLY make up whatever they need, while the scientist is expected to know the evidence, understand the theories, and apply them logically. Which side is harder? Which side can easily respond to ANYTHING at the drop of a hat? Which side can easily wiggle out of a difficult spot? Exactly.
One last thing: someone asked what scientists expect them to believe. By asking that question, all you've done is demonstrate that you don't know shit about science. Here's what I expect you to do: read a science book.
Gee, CHAYNES, you use the word faith as if it's a bad thing...
Whenever I read the responses from the creos, why can I hear the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz singing?
When the DI posits an 'Intelligent Designer' I keep thinking of "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
It's interesting reading comments on a science thread.
All of the comments from scientists and sane people are reasonable, biting, witty, funny and proper.
All of the comments by creationists are ignorant and stoopid.
(and if someone thinks my assessment is arrogant, I'd agree with that.)
I wish I was as charismatic when I tell creationists to shove their pathological beliefs up their respective asses.
There's a fight going on over at ERV where a creotard is lurching back and forth between two different threads trying to avoid facing up to his bullshit. We're all having a wonderful time bitch-slapping him around.
EXTRA! EXTRA!
Klinghoffer responds to Gotelli's response:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/was_daffy_duck_unavailable.html#mo…
mmmm, creationist goodness!
Kel said:
Kel, you have been drinking the cool-aid on the blog too long. Have you been trained in the scientfic method? What makes you think people like me haven't been? This argument that you are spouting is just something to hide behind.
By the way, I am now reading "Why Evolution is True".
Question from Intelligent Designer: Have you been trained in the scientfic method? What makes you think people like me haven't been?
Answer from Intelligent Designer: Now they hide behind the "publish a paper in Nature" bullshit.
That was easy!
How long have I been trained in the scientific method? Not long - perhaps just over a decade of formal training, though it's irrelevant. I know how to apply the scientific method and what constitutes both good and bad science. How have I done this? By actually immersing myself in science, listening to those who have much more experience than I, reading science books, watching science programs, performing experiments myself; I've done a lot to figure out what is and isn't science.
By the continual public evangelisation of unscientific ideas that have not withstood the scrutiny of the peer review process. Anyone who thinks that public debates on ideas that have no empirical backing as opposed to fighting out ideas in academia is either ignorant of the scientific process or trying to deliberately subvert it. So which is it for you Randy? Ignorant or deceptive?
If explaining how one can go about having their ideas recognised academically and thus being able to join in an academic dialogue is hiding, then guilty as charged. If you think I'm wrong on any of those points, feel free to raise your objections. Likewise anyone else who feels I'm distorting the scientific process or have a fundamental misunderstanding, please sing up. I'm eager to learn and I don't mind about being wrong. So put up or shut up Randy, show me where my characterisation of the scientific method is misrepresentative.
'Intelligent' Designer wrote:
How about the fact that, given the content of many of your posts, you don't seem to be able to apply it?
That, as far as I'm concerned, is a pretty good indicator that you either weren't trained in it or - more likely - you've chosen to abandon it because it doesn't allow you to do what you want to do, which is make shit up as you go along in order to support your beliefs.
Because you and your ilk spit out crap like this:
The only thing I've seen ID proponents cling to is the assertion that Darwin was wrong. No data, no published papers, just a never-ending claim that 150 years of progress in evolution never happened.
Randy, tell me something.
How do you think that scientists promote their theories / hypotheses in the scientific community? I'm not just talking about evolution, I'm talking about all fields of science.
It's through peer review. It is the best structure we have for weeding out the good from the bad, the unsupported from good empirical science, the crack pots from genuine new discovery. Debates only prove who can score points, it doesn't prove anything about the validity of what is being debated.
Why should peer review change? So far what we have seen from creationists is trash. From ID it is sciency trash. It is rejected because it doesn't measure up. If you are so convinced of your science shouldn't it be easily supported?
Now if it works for the entire rest of the many scientific fields why do you supposed it shouldn't work for this subject? Is there that big of a conspiracy?
Oh, I dunno, maybe the way you continuously screwed up such basics as what entropy actually is, and refused to either educate yourself or acknowledge that you were wrong in the first place?
Hey, feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating a rigorous explanation of how entropy (as defined by either statistical mechanics or information theory, pick one) disproves evolution. Or admit that you were wrong. Either one.
Good. Have you learned anything?
It is noticeable how poorly constructed and written the creos' complaints are - I mean how difficult is it to say that they don't understand science?
They have to realise, which they don't, that science isn't religion, that it isn't founded on belief or faith, and that disputes are settled by experiment, not debate.
Plus they've got all that emotional investment in their faith - if you spend all your time obsessing over what god wants you to think and do, well, there's no time to think differently, and above all no possibility of being wrong since your inspiration is divine.
And so it happens that the most credulous of people end up denying the very things they should believe in or, as scientists say, accept.
And, hey guys, why is that your god wants you to seem so stupid? Because you sure do.
Thanks for your interesting replies. I am very relieved to learn that you scientists like evidence. Someday, perhaps, you will find some to back up you theories.
Perhaps you will demonstrate how life forms from methane, water and ammonia. The primordal soup science that our biology teachers taught us. Some of us creationists are from Missouri, and lacking your faith, we do like to be shown. Eugene Koonin does say that you'll never succeed in this demonstration, but maybe you'll prove him wrong.
Or perhaps you can get us some measurements from one of those other universes. Knowing that there are at least two universes would help us creationists believe that there are an infiite number of them. For now, we're skeptical of biologists like Koonin who explain wildly improbable events, such as the primordal soup story, by assuming that an infinite number of universes exist. We've only seen peer reviewed data on one universe, but I suppose we lack your faith
If you do come up with either of these, please put it in Nature and Science. Remember, until it appears there, it isn't science.
A theory is a hypothesis that is strongly backed by evidence. This is why evolution is a theory and the question of the origin of life remains a hypothesis. Do you understand the difference?
Supposing that the "primordial soup" theory is wrong (not evolution the way), are you claiming that automatically means a creator of some sort is responsible?
Chaynes, read up on abiogensis. Parts of abiogensis have been demonstrated, but it is not filled in yet. But people are working on it, and it will be filled in without the need for invoking imaginary deities. God is never needed for anything, except explaining peoples delusions.
The Rev. BDC beat me to it, but I'll second his raising the question: why, even if we never demonstrate that life forms from those things (or anything else for that matter), are you then justified in inserting a god into that gap?
And why your god? Why not the god of a different religion? The inability to recreate abiogenesis says precisely zero about which god might have been responsible if there is a creator.
Why not a deist god that has no interest in your fawning and grovelling and whiny demands for wish fulfillment?
Kel,
Somehow I don't believe that you have a decade of formal training in the scientific method. Can you describe to me what you think constitutes formal training? Did it take you 10 years to get your bachlors degree or what?
I am aware that get a lot of your science ideas from watching youtube.com. I don't know how many videos you have asked me to watch.
What was the last science book you read?
It's true, I don't apply the scientific method in my blog posts -- it a blog. It's not like PZ applies the scientific method in this so called science blog. This blog is about ridiculing people of faith not science. It really a place where christianophobes and the like can spout their bigotry and feel good about it.
Why are you attacking my qualifications? It doesn't make what I say any less true. If you have a problem with the way I apply the scientific method, just say so.
I got you to watch the videos because they were delivered in such a way that I thought you might be able to get something out of them. Clearly I was wrong.
I'm currently reading "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre, but the book I read before that was "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark" by Carl Sagan. Both relevant enough to the scientific method? Huh?
Wah, wah, wah. Not to mention entirely irrelevant.
Isn't it funny how one can deduce glazed eyes from Chaynes's perky post?
Don't come here to lecture people on "faith" and "evidence". Your excess of the first blinds you to the second.
It's the poor level of your argument that hurts. Your mis-characterisation of "scientists" as part of an opposing religion, your use of the word "faith" to mean "evidence-based knowledge." Your arrogance in coming here and thinking that just with a few words you can change anyone's experience and analysis.
And, that your arguments just ooze stupidity and incomprehension. Jesus is making a fool of you. Is that what you want?
Randy, when you say things like this you illustrate exactly why people doubt your claim that you know anything about the scientific method.
Randy may know a little of the scientific method, but he doesn't show it. He prefers to belie his monicker.
Well, there's a book I'm reading which is great. It's called Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters by Don Protheroe. Well-written, well-illustrated, and containing all the evidence you could wish. And plenty of wonder and beauty.
Sadly, none of the creos posting here will read it because they think it might destroy the religious beliefs they hold so dear, and we can't have that now, can we?
I'm sure you'd enjoy it though, Kel.
Nerd, I know you have more experience in applying science than I have been alive. So can you verify that my understanding of the scientific method is correct? If not, where would be a good place to start in order to fix my misunderstanding?
Apparently, fossils make baby Jesus cry.
I think it's on my amazon wishlist, though if it's not it will be added soon. As soon as the Aussie dollar goes back up, I'll be doing an order off Amazon - there's a few books on there I want to get stuck into soon.
Kel, have you heard me correcting you? So you have been doing fine by me. I can monitor your posts a little closer this next week, and if I see something significant I'll mention it. But, I'm not going to quibble if the "t" is crossed on the straight or on the slant.
Sam Singleton Atheist Evangelist applauds both the style and substance of Professor Gotelli's RSVP. It recalls the position stated in this week's Sermonette, "Why Atheists Always Lose when Debating with Theists," at www.samsingleton.com
Randy, leave Kel alone or we'll have to put you in the "Gimp Tank" again.
...and no food, this time.
It really a place where christianoidiotphobes and the like can spout their bigotry and feel good about it.
yup.
...and I always feel good smacking you upside the head, Stimpson J Cat.
Yeah, I gathered that. I've found on here and elsewhere that when one thinks another has said something wrong, they'll bring it up. Only a fool would think that this place here is one giant circle jerk, regulars get into heated discussion all the time over things as little as what a certain word can infer.Watch out, now Randy is going to attack your qualifications. ;)
And talking of Nazis and Hitler, as all we "Darwino-evolutionists" always do - now there was a man who not only understood evolution but was prepared to do something to help it along - that Nazi Bishop has just been told to leave Argentina. Good.
Let Stimpy come after me, if I'm wrong then surely he'll be able to show it. I have nothing to hide in my history and how I've come to learn about science, though I can't think of anything more irrelevant. If I'm wrong, it doesn't matter if I've spent decades working in the scientific arena. And if I'm right, it doesn't matter if I'm a homeschooled evangelical who has never set foot in a labratory. Let Stimpy show me where exactly I'm wrong instead of trying to see if I have the authority to say I'm right.
Personally I'm not anti-christian, just anti-stupid-christians. Is that an unreasonable position to take?
If your faith is so weak that it can't handle reality, ye creotards, then I don't think you deserve to have one.
Translation: Gotelli doesn't have the balls to debate David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer.
Hey ... I can't pick on everyone at the same time. Does this mean RBDC won't be slipping me bananas this time around?
Oh yawn, someone might accuse me of something again. I suppose I can handle it.
Translation: Another moron who doesn't understand science.
Are you going to show me where I'm wrong Stimpy, or apologise for the personal attack?
chaynes, #367: I am very relieved to learn that you scientists like evidence. Someday, perhaps, you will find some to back up you theories.
You mean like the single nested hierarchical pattern that links all known species? I realize that it's just me, but I can't think of a better single piece of evidence for evolution.
No bananas for you!
Agreed. When I've stuffed up on something I've had it pointed out to me. And, as Kel notes, the meanings of (and underlying implications of using) certain words has resulted in more than a few slanging matches between regulars who agree on other matters.
Plus, before his meltdown, we had truth machine, who didn't care who you were; if you made a mistake (in his mind) he wouldn't hesitate to let you know about it.
Fossils
Someone above wrote:
"At this point I'd like to quote George Hrab's wonderful observation:
"If you deny evolution then you're denying biology.
If you deny biology then you're denying chemistry.
If you deny chemistry then you're denying physics.
If you deny physics then you're denying mathematics.
If you deny mathematics then you're denying reality."
This sounds pretty interesting on the surface, but I don't see how denying evolution means you're denying mathematics.
Hey Bob,
Thank you for those kind words you posted on my blog
Kel said:
Kel, unless you are performing experiments you aren't applying the scientific method. And you didn't answer my question about formal training. Please explain to me the formal scientific training that you have had.
I hope this doesn't sound like a personal attack. The internet can be a cold place and you can never quite tell what tone of voice one is talking to you with. I presume your level of education is similar to mine since we do the same kind of work.
Nerd of Redhead has a PhD and he doesn't seem as smart as you. Since when does he deserve the title OM anyway.
bryce @398, I don't see how denying evolution means you're denying mathematics
That's OK. Logic isn't just for the students who didn't pay attention to their Jesuit instructors. The argument is a variation of the most exceedingly basic valid logical form known as the hypothetical syllogism.
Translation: Gotelli doesn't have the balls to debate David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer.
Translation of the translation: Berlinski and Meyer haven't anything that would pass muster in the scientific literature.
Stimpy, my training doesn't matter if what I'm saying is correct. What I learnt as a young child as being the scientific method hasn't changed one bit in the 16-18 years I've known about it, and although my understanding of the process at 6 was a simplified version of when I was 15 which again was a still simplified version of the understanding I have now, in essence the same underlying process remains. So the question remains, am I wrong? Am I hiding behind a process I misrepresent in my mind? If I am, I want to know.
Kel,
You lied about having 10 years of formal scientific training. I am just calling you on it to make you squirm a little bit. That's fair isn't it?
Gotelli wrote:
"I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars."
And there is high-fiving all around on this blog. Are these posters proud of taking a position that is, essentially, "I won't talk to you because you aren't worth talking to?"
Of course we've heard that sort of prideful dodge before. We recall Pasteur was heckled by his peers. Horrifically, Semmelweis was jeered as well by mainstream medical scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz_Semmelweis
Yes, we've heard all the scientific jeering before. One wonders why posters here congratulate one another for refusing to address a challenge to their orthodoxy.
Gotelli wrote:
"Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory ... "
Both statements are lies -- unless you twist "credible empirical support" to mean anything the editors and publishers want it to mean. The outright refusal to debate critics of evolution rather disproves the second sentence.
Let's look at some of the evidence about academic journals, peer review, etc:
Exhibit 1: Physicist Alan Sokal's hoax article,
"Transgressing the Boundaries - Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," which was accepted and published in the academic journal Social Text (1996). (The editors later claimed there wasn't any peer review. Really? But the editors are academics, aren't they?)
Exhibit 2: The well-known Piltdown Man hoax. The fossils were found in 1912 and touted as human. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took thirty years for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct. What?? The academic publishers didn't immediately embrace the correction in 1923??
Exhibit 3 (multiple articles): The "public health gun control" advocates managed to insert their "studies" into JAMA and NEJM in the 1990s -- peer reviewed, right? A basic knowledge of epidemiological methods could discredit them, but politically JAMA and NEJM opposed firearms ownership, so the bogus "studies" entered "peer review" heaven.
Exhibit 4 (books and articles): Peter Singer's work, treated as "serious" science, in which he posits animals and humans are equal, and killing newborns is quite okay if convenient. I guess academics don't mind discussing baby killing in print, but heavens, don't dare discuss criticism of evolution.
Academic publishing is highly political -- ask any struggling associate professor -- and to say otherwise is just to lie.
But then, on this blog, we don't allow dissenting viewpoints, really, do we. Rather, we congratulate our superiority, untested by contrary viewpoints.
Since December, d'uh. Sorry Stimpy, no banana for you. But maybe tomorrow, if you do well in the colour- and shape-matching tests.
What's to lie about it? I was first formally introduced to the scientific method when I was 11 (I was informally introduced and even attended lectures at a much younger age), and I stopped studying my degree when I was 22. That's a little over a decade of formal training. It's not lying, it's just not relevant to the point you were trying to make.
So, if I call you an idiot, does that mean you're the next Pasteur?
RD wrote:
Criticise it with science all you like. Criticism by comparison to magic, on the other hand, doesn't deserve to be acknowledged.
"Man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right." - Stephen Jay GouldI can think of plenty of controversies in biology off the top of my head where there is intense debate among scientists, so when it comes to evolution in general why is there so much agreement? It's because the evidence overwhelming supports evolutionary theory. Of course scientists are going to defend it with great vigour, the theory has survived 150 years of intense scrutiny. Putting up an opposing point of view doesn't mean that it has any validity, and creationism through a variety of sciences and through many evidence lines has shown nothing in the way of credible evidence.If one has definitive evidence that God's hand is not only in nature but as the creator of all that we see, show that evidence. But the ID advocates don't do that, they just want to be able to say "God did it" and think it's a legimitate scientific position. Do you honestly think if strong evidence would come through that all science journals would simply ignore it?
RD, you don't know what you're talking about.
Exhibit 1: has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Exhibit 2: the Piltdown hoax was suspected from the very start. It was forever put to rest in 1953. That's 56 years ago.
Exhibit 3: The problem with these articles is what? exactly?
Exhibit 4; Nobody, but nobody, treats Peter Singer as a scientist: nor his output as science.
Exhibit 5: You are an oblivious idiot.
RD at #405 posted:
Actually, from everything I've seen, there is plenty of dissenting viewpoint "allowed" here, and often encouraged. It's not necessarily respected, if it proves indefensible to critical scrutiny, but I'm not sure how that equates to "not allowed."
PZ has guidelines for certain behaviors, easily perused from the blog home page, not so much for quelling dissent as for minimizing factors like boredom, and damaging falsehood, and so forth. Again, not prohibition against dissent.
One thing that is celebrated here is the scientific method, which allows for all kinds of dissent, provided the dissent is defensible. One of the other great things about the scientific method is when something is shown to be indefensible, intellectually honest individuals analyze the data suggesting same, and make adjustments to things like theories, methods, and so forth, including abandoning them if the data suggests outright implausibility. Incidentally, I think a third really great thing about the scientific method is it's totally free of charge, though it can often be hard to find.
All that said, I have found this forum to be open to dissent, without being chumps for dissent that doesn't have evidence to back up its position.
Oh, and dissenting, and then not being able to defend the dissent, and then asserting that the dissent is being quelled because it's been disregarded (and disrespected, occasionally) because it's indefensible, isn't quelling dissent.
It's been said before: the science world, including its publications, would love to get its hands on testable data in support of leprechauns' existence, horses sometimes born with wings and that can take flight (density of their musculo-skeletal [spelling???] systems notwithstanding), evidence that telekinesis is verifiably extant (and how cool would that be?!), and that transcendent non-corporeal beings outside the laws of the universe regularly guide the unfolding of time and space through non-physical agency.
Just need the evidence for those to be defensible.
Until then, just because those things aren't given press, doesn't mean they're being quelled.
Smarter brains than mine can elucidate all this better, anyway, and I've probably missed some of the finer points, so sorry for any crudity in my presentation, but I hope I've hit the highlights.
No kings,
Robert
Brownian wrote:
"So, if I call you an idiot, does that mean you're the next Pasteur?"
Is this response an argument on the scientific or logical merits of my post?
Wowbagger wrote:
"Criticise it with science all you like. Criticism by comparison to magic, on the other hand, doesn't deserve to be acknowledged."
Again with the petulant "your argument doesn't deserve to be acknowledged."
Dr. Berlinski and Dr. Meyer, both insulted in this blogstream, do not cite to magic in their writings. So why must their views be excluded from discussion?
Because they have no interest in playing in the academic arena. Do you honestly think a public debate is practising science? It's nothing of the sort, it's just a platform from which to preach a position with no requirement of being accurate. Until they actually participate in science instead of publically evangelising their unscientific work, they are going to be shunned by the scientific community. Why should science give these people the hint of legitimacy when they won't go through the processes to gain that legitimacy?
Mothing. We don't give a rat's ass what you believe.
Science doesn't say anything one way or the other about a creator. That is religious stuff. The creator could well have invented abiogenesis.
I can tell you are a creationist. This is because you are ignorant and probably stupid as well.
1. Science doesn't know everything. This is good. If we did, we would have to get other jobs and our civilization would come to a halt.
2. If we did understand abiogenesis well enough to reproduce it, you creos would (dishonestly) move the goal posts again like you did when Copernicus proved the earth orbits the sun. Next you would demand that scientists demonstrate the Big Bang by producing one. A dumb move, while that might start another universe up, it would end ours.
BTW We are close to being able to create new life in the lab from scratch, the various artificial cell programs. Within a year or two maybe. Better get ready to move those goal posts.
They are proponents of 'intelligent design', which means they believe there must be a designer to have designed things. This designer has carefully removed all traces of physical evidence of his/her/its existence.
Can you provide any explanation other than magic for how this is possible?
RD, re Peter Singer.
Peter Albert David Singer (born July 6, 1946) is an Australian philosopher. He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. He specializes in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective.
Now, since when has philosophy or bioethics been regarded as 'serious' science?
"...So why must their views be excluded from discussion? "
Must we keep explaining it? Berlinski's and Meyer's viewpoints are not valid because they are not science. Period. End of story. They are religiously-tinged perspectives borne from indoctrination into a particular tribalistic ideology, none of which has any scientific data or proof for any of its claims, least of all the origin of life, and most especially that doctrine's followers' incessant decrees that anything against their group's dictums is false and a direct affront to their existence.
Meyer and Berlinski are saying exactly zero that is novel that hasn't been hashed 800 different ways over the centuries (yet always somehow arriving at exactly the same conclusion as their forebears). They have no data, no tests, no articles, no studies, no work. All they have are snarky criticisms for why everyone else is supposedly wrong. They are professional Monday morning quarterbacks who serve a political purpose that is entirely ascientific in nature.
Now whether you listen to what we've been saying is up to you, but it's the truth. I'm sorry you guys don't like to play by the rules of civil, curious society, but we here will do our darnedest to make sure you are countered everywhere because your viewpoint is simply troglodytic at best, and historically and ethically bankrupt at worst.
Kel wrote:
"Do you honestly think if strong evidence would come through that all science journals would simply ignore it?"
I am in no position to speculate about what all science journals would do. You don't know either. The posters on this blog all seem to think that insults are enough to discredit opposing evidence. Doubtless you've seen the posts. I'm left with the distinct impression that insults and personal attacks are the method of scientists, that is, if the people on here fancy themselves scientists.
Do you distance yourself from these ad hominem attackers?
As Sven, who wrote: [my responses in brackets]
RD, you don't know what you're talking about. [ad hominem]
Exhibit 1: has nothing whatsoever to do with science. [false -- the journal ran articles about science. The article pretended to be about science. The editors conceded that.]
Exhibit 2: the Piltdown hoax was suspected from the very start. It was forever put to rest in 1953. That's 56 years ago. [Confirming that it took 30 years for "science" to accept the disproof. So I was right.]
Exhibit 3: The problem with these articles is what? exactly? [They are epidemiologically faulty.]
Exhibit 4; Nobody, but nobody, treats Peter Singer as a scientist: nor his output as science. [Academic journals and book publishers take his output seriously. Check out his lengthy bibliography: http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/articles_in_professional_journ.html ]
Exhibit 5: You are an oblivious idiot. [Ad hominem, as usual. Um, did you mean "oblivious" or "obvious" ... just wondering.]
Okay, forget the peer review process. Just link to the studies that show their position has some merit. There are biologists on here after all who could assess the merits of it.
Blue Independent,
Troglodytic? Awesome - and fitting.
Good Cthulhu this is stupid. Berlinski and Singer have as much relevance and credibility in science as an auto mechanic does in the operating room.
There is a reason why scientists spend 10 years in universities just to get a license to practice. It isn't easy either. If you don't buy that, next time you need heart surgery, just check in at Ed's auto repair and towing.
Just to clarify the difference: ad hominem - I'm not going to debate with you because you're a creationistNot ad hominem - I'm not going to debate with you because creationism has no scientific validity for it has not demonstrated itself to be science.An ad hominem is a logical fallacy where one dismisses the other's argument through a personal attack. If you dismantle their argument with reason and use a personal attack, it's not an ad hominem.Now if these creationists would actually do some experiments, if they would write and submit their articles to peer reviewed magazines, then maybe there would be some legitimacy to their request. But to subvert the scientific method, to formulate a conclusion before there's any evidence, to publically evangelise an unscientific position as science, these are not how you gain legitimacy. This is subjerting the system then crying foul then being excluded on that basis.
"Would one of you scientists tell us poor creationists what you want us to accept on faith..."
First off, scientists don't tell, they ask. And around here my guess is they would ask you why you feel you must have faith in anything like a god to operate from one minute to the next. Then others might ask you why you bother with deific faith rather than taking control of your own life and not giving in to the petty whims of beings unseen.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same. Creationism requires intervention by God as creator. The intelligence of Intelligent Design could just as easily come from highly intelligent but non-supernatural beings from elsewhere in the galaxy, beings who have perhaps been using the earth as a biological laboratory. ID advocates point that out all the time.
It is also precisely the POV in Douglas Adams' Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, except in his tale we were created to answer the "ultimate question about life, the universe and everything."
Never forget that anything complex that chance can create is something that intelligence can certainly create. It is chance that has to prove itself, not intelligence. ID is always a valid scientific answer for those who are skeptical about the effectiveness of chance and natural selection.
And recall that we're already doing ID ourselves with genetically modified organisms. In perhaps a thousand years, we may know enough to be able to create an entire complex eco-system from scratch on a previously barren planet. How can someone claim that what we may be able to do in 3100 AD is something that no other beings have done in the entire history of the universe? That makes no sense.
It is Charles Darwin who illustrates that ID (by whatever means) is a legitimate scientific topic. The very point Darwin was trying to make in The Origins of Species is that natural selection can replace intelligent design (William Paley's watchmaker) to create our current biological complexity. Odd that today's Darwinians refuse to do what Darwin spent his professional life doing--debate ID.
Not being of Darwin's intellectual caliber, it's not surprising that they don't want to debate. They retreat into authoritarianism, scientific dogma, and what they think are cute little putdowns.
If Darwin were around today, he'd be weeping with shame for what science has bcome.
RD,
No, reality is what we use to discredit the 'evidence' you have provided. The insults are there for two reasons: a) because you deserve them, and b) because they amuse us.
My insults and attacks have nothing to do with science, but that's because I'm not a scientist - and have made no claims to the contrary. I do, however, understand what science is and how it works.
How is that an ad hominem? It's an observation, not a means by which he discounted your argument. You don't know what you're talking about; ergo, he is justified in pointing it out.
Sigh. mrcreosote already answered this in #417:
Articles about science ≠ science.
Kel wrote:
"Because they have no interest in playing in the academic arena. Do you honestly think a public debate is practising science? It's nothing of the sort, it's just a platform from which to preach a position with no requirement of being accurate. Until they actually participate in science instead of publically evangelising their unscientific work, they are going to be shunned by the scientific community."
Wait -- Kel -- what is this "shunning" about? That's what "religious" groups do, right? And tight-knit fraternities, you know, the sort who won't let a white boy join if he dated a black girl?
Maybe you want to retract that word; that's fine. But actually, it states what you and the posters on here mean to do. That's why Ben Stein was disinvited from speaking at Vermont. Shunning. "We don't listen to your kind here," saith UV.
Kel further wrote:
"Why should science give these people the hint of legitimacy when they won't go through the processes to gain that legitimacy?"
Doubtless these words were spoken to and about Pasteur, Semmelweis, and everyone else who challenged long standing orthodoxy. "Legitimacy" is not a term of science, it is a term of law, of rhetoric, of polemics.
Now if Sven (poster above) were responding to you, he'd call you an "idiot." I don't. Your use of shunning to punish those who are not "legitimate" according to your self-selected standards, however, just sounds a lot like an unscientific, and certainly non-logical, way to address contrary viewpoints.
Another stupid fallacy we've heard a zillion times. Who created those Intelligent Aliens.Or did they evolve? That just puts the question back another step or a thousand steps.
And they flat out know it is a fallacy by now. The DI just lies a lot because they have nothing else going on.
What opposing evidence?
Actually, it's not an ad hominem. He explains why you don't know what you're talking about.
No, your words are false. "Social Text" is no more a science journal than is a book of poetry.
Here's more of why you don't know what you're talking about:
"Academics" are not necessarily specialists in science. Postmodernists are not experts in physics. It could even be argued that postmodernists are not experts in postmodernism (which I suspect was Sokal's point).
Either way, the editors of Social Text were not peers of physicists, and the article was not peer-reviewed by physicists.
Actually, "shunning" is done by anyone with standards. Racism is a bad standard, on that we agree.
But science has the standard of evidence. You meet the standard, you're in.
You got evidence? Does anyone in the DI have evidence?
Does Ben Stein have evidence? Does Ben Stein have evidence that "science leads to killing people"?
Let me guess: the answers are "No", "No", "hell No", and "Oh, fuck No, he did not just say that".
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Try again. Can you say "cdesign proponentsists"?
What!!! The most successful endevour in human history. Which lifted us from the stone age to the space age. Do you seriously think we invented a hi tech civilization by praying a lot and burning witches?
Great Cthulhu, must be a full moon or something. Darwin predicted that the religious nuts would go ape about his theory. Why he held off publishing it for several decades until Wallace came up with the same one. About all that would surprise him would be his picture on the British 10 pound bank note and how little 10 pounds buys these days.
Dude? Douglas Adams was (a) a science-fiction writer, (b) a comic, and (c) an atheist, who wrote a funny science-fiction story which mocked, among other things, God.
"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God."
Organizations that exist for a specific purpose do indeed shun applicants who don't meet their qualifications.
Kel doesn't need to retract shit. And Ben Stein is hardly entitled to speak at an academic institution after having disparaged the worth of the entire scientific enterprise.
Well, if it's doubtless, you'll have no need to back those assertions up.
If you wish to invoke a magic sky-man as a scientific explanation, with precisely no supporting evidence, you are not doing legitimate science. Better sic the rhetoric police on me.
RD... You might want to take another look at that link on Semmelweis you posted:
Seems to me, evidence is something the ID movement lacks.
Allow me to demonstrate a bona fide ad hominem:
RD, you are a stupid poopy-head. Therefore, I discount your argument.
Raven wrote (just after launching another ad hominem attack):
"Another stupid fallacy we've heard a zillion times. Who created those Intelligent Aliens.Or did they evolve? That just puts the question back another step or a thousand steps."
Interesting. Dawkins, Sir Fred Hoyle, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, all evolutionists, have advocated or posited panspermia as a likely source of life on Earth. I guess Raven will call them all "DI morons."
==
Owlmirror's recent post suggests he didn't read the post to which mine responded, thus resulting in nonsequiturs. Oh well.
==
Owlmirror called Mike Perry a "psychoctic troll." That must be another one of those scientific terms.
==
Hang in there Mike Perry! As Wowbagger informed me, the insults, attacks and irrelevancies are just the scientists and wannabes amusing themselves. It is just harmless fun.
Later they'll shun you, as Kel suggested.
I get a kick out of these blog posts. I print them and show them to my high school students. I ask them, "which of these posters is addressing the merits of arguments, and which are just hurling insults and anger?" I let them draw their own conclusions.
G'night all.
Ah, a masochist. I'm glad we could be of use to you - you sad, sick loser.
How about you direct them here, and ask them to look at your posts and see if they can point out the merits in your arguments? Don't be surprised if they don't see any; we certainly can't.
I've already explain the insults. Anger? Please. Project much?
No doubt the conclusion that most of them reach is 'Gee, I wish my teacher wasn't such a fucking embarrassingly clueless douche.'
No. You missed the point because you are stupid. Panspermia is a legitimate scientific theory. Francis Crick also entertained it.
But if aliens seeded the earth with life, who created the aliens. Or did they evolve. No matter how far back you go in aliens seeding planets, at some point there has to be a beginning without seeding from preesisting aliens. The universe is only 13.7 billion years old.
I assume you poison minds in some flea bag xian private school. We had a teacher like you on the west coast in public school. He lasted 10 days and was fired for gross incompetence.
But I did indeed read it. I guess you didn't read my post for understanding.
Speaking of not reading posts and thus resulting in non-sequiturs...
I hope you're honest enough to show them the entire thread... including your own evasions, equivocations, and downright fallacious reasoning.
But I suppose that is too much to ask for.
Mike Perry:
OK, your IDiocy is doubly baseless, since there's no evidence of creation by a god or a race of extraterrestrial beings. Do some science and see if you find any that will withstand scrutiny.
Although it would be pretty funny if we found out that we had been designed. You know damn well you'd flip right the fuck out if it was by aliens that had evolved naturally, instead of your fictional YHWH. That would tie some Discovery Institute panties in a knot. That would be hilarious! Get to work on that evidence, OK? I can't wait to see the look on your faces when E.T. shows up to congratulate you.
Then why do most of them call themselves Christians? Freakish coincidence?
You're right, he'd be weeping for the fact that a lot of real science gets sidelined by the press for unsubstantiated drivel like ID.
I will have to respectfully disagree with this point. The Kitzmiller v. Dover trial recognizes Intelligent Design as a form of creationism.
The problem with ID proponents, based on what I've observed, is that they would rather resort of publicity and media attention to push their agenda; a literal trial by publicity. It's not that nobody wants to argue with them scientifically, it's rather that IDers actively bob and weave around any attempts at putting their arguments under the scrutiny of scientific community.
When was the last time they appeared at a proper science conference, or submitted a paper to a science journal for a proper peer review.
When was the last time they
Continuing from #443 (dang, I got cut off)
...you're right about Darwin weeping if he saw the state of science today though.
To be exact, he'd be crying about the fact that so much serious scientific study routinely gets sidelined by the press to make room for quack health supplement ads, dubious homeopathy treatment, and ID.
The paper by Crick and Orgel hypothesizing Directed Panspermia is here ( Icarus 19, 341-346 (1973) ). It is only 6 pages long, and is not too technical.
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/C/P/_/scbccp.pdf
There is nothing that suggests that it is the only possible way that life could have arisen on Earth. There is nothing that suggests that the hypothetical aliens did not arise by chemical abiogenesis and evolution; indeed, rather the contrary.
If you are going to complain about fallacies - make sure you don't make them yourself. You're making an appeal to ridicule there.Science has set procedures to make sure the process is as objective as possible, and the creationists listed above have consistently subverted those procedures when it comes to creationism. Instead of experimenting, instead of testing the current evidence to falsify it, instead of writing papers for peer review, they simply evangelise in public. Which they are welcome to do, and scientists who actually play by the rules do not have any obligation to engage those who are playing with such underhanded tactics.Remember that no-one is denying the rights of creationists, it's just that if you want scientific legitimacy you have to *gasp* do science!
Ben Stein sold out all academic credibility by participating in a propaganda film which during promotion of the film he stated "science leads to killing people." He's subverted science, he's lied to the public, put a great mistrust in the academic process and you expect academia to welcome him with open arms?!?
Do you know why now we accept Pasteur? It turns out he had the evidence to support his ideas. I refer you to the Stephen Jay Gould quote in post #410. Maybe if these creationists stopped evangelising and started to do some experiments then they would have some legitimacy. Remember that when Darwin published Origin Of Species in 1859, it caused tremendous outrage. It started a philosophical battle that has lasted 150 years, yet it was through evidence that his work came to be accepted. And it was through evidence that evolution has been updated over the past 150 years. Because that's what good science is all about - evidence! You can keep crying foul that you don't get a fair go, but the simple truth is that evolution by natural selection is overwhelmingly supported by scientists for one simple reason - the evidence for evolution is overwhelming! If you want to disprove evolution, you have to disprove the evidence of find a better fit hypothesis. Please show the evidence for ID. Show that God's hand is in nature, go on!
Posted by: RD | February 20, 2009 1:38 AM
"Doubtless these words were spoken to and about Pasteur, Semmelweis, Darwin and everyone else who challenged long standing orthodoxy."
There. Just fixed that for you.
You also unintentionally inspired a good analogy:
A person who denies the theory of evolution is equivalent to a doctor who claims that there is no need to wash hands after handling corpses. I suggest you go to the nearest hospital and start teaching the controversy. Just think of all the money unnecessarily wasted on detergent and disinfectants, and the pollution it generates!
So you are going to misrepresent what I said in order to keep up with your fantasy persecution story?Just because you seem to have something missing between your ears here it is again:Anyone can participate in the scientific process. To get a paper published is not an easy feat though, this is to weed out bad ideas. And even if a paper passes peer review, it doesn't make the concept automatically accepted. Any new idea must not only be able to explain all evidence in it's relevant field currently exists, but must be able to make falsifiable predictions in order to test the hypothesis.In a free market society, anyone has the right to exercise free speech. So anyone regardless of scientific evidence can speak their mind, you can, I can, that insane hobo can. But to talk in academia, one needs academic merit. In science, it's playing by the rules above. So for those who subvert the rules and claim to do science without doing so, there is no obligation on the part of scientists to entertain those who do not want to do science.The Discovery Institute is playing a marketing game, it's not about science and it's not about being right. It's about evangelising a message of God. That's why they are pushing for a public debate instead of fighting out the concept in academia. Now the scientists involved aren't suckers and aren't going to go along for the ride, nor should they. I repeat, science is done in the academic arena which creationists are welcome to come and try any day. But in the public arena, scientists would do nothing more than make it seem like creationism is legitimate when it has made no academic attempt to be that way.Get a fucking clue you moron! (note this is not an ad hominem as I didn't use it to refute your argument. it's purely an insult at the sheer stupidity you have displayed on here post after post.)
I suspect that RD, coward that he is, has left us. Affected pomposity was all he had; once we knocked that out of him there was nothing left.
I simply don't understand why so many people are downright determined to be ignorant of what is going on in the Intelligent Design vs. Darwinist debate. Forgive me, but this a question I must ask to understand what is going on:
Have any of you actually read information on both sides of the issue, or are you just allowing yourselves to be spoon fed information on the side you are already disposed to like because of your own personal beliefs???
What I mean is, someone who actually wished to pick a side based off of evidence and reasoning, someone who was actually seeking truth about an issue, would not name call or react in anger and childishness the way just about all have on this site. No, instead, even if they initially didn't think they believed what a side had to offer, they would do research on the topic. The person seeking truth, would spend hours reading what was actually being said by the other side instead of what their opponents were saying about them. I must say I am afraid for my generation and for those in the scientific community, because these things are not being done, which tells me that no one cares for truth.
It appears to me that the side holding the most "power" in this debate merely because they are the ones with the money and resources, are also the ones who are afraid of the possibility that there could be an ultimate being in the universe more powerful than them. Because of this, they wish to label an organization seeking truth, no matter where it leads them as religious dribble, instead of what it actually is: science.
It also appears to me that this side has weak arguments based on logical fallacies and I hate to say it, but based on ignorance of the true facts in the argument.
Truth is the issue here, and mankind should be willing to do anything to find out what truth is, but all I see is viciousness, ignorance and fearful people who are doing everything short of putting their fingers in their ears and shouting, "I can't hear you!" Shutting your eyes to an issue, and pretending it isn't there doesn't make it go away, it never has. Neither does calling it stupid.
I find it interesting as well that no one seems to notice the fact that those in intelligent design include Jews, agnostics, Muslims, Diests, etc.... Interesting that these people get no credit for being ID believers, but only the Christians. Why is that???
Logically, I hope everyone does realize that any science done to try and prove the existence of an intelligent being/creator would have Christians supporting it because Christians believe in God. I have never understood why people act like this is proof of anything. If Christians weren't supporting it, I would frankly be a little worried. If you are a Christian and believe in God, why wouldn't you want to support science that sought to prove an intelligent being's existence. It doesn't make the science the same as creationism, it just means that Christians are being Christians. I just don't understand why any of this is hard to grasp.
Please, don't react based off of your biases, look at the issue, seek the truth. Don't take anyone's word for it, study the information for yourselves. Don't be hostile, but debate in peace not hatred, that is what scientists should desire on either side of the issue. Cruelty never got anyone anything worth having.
Thank you for your concern trolling Christina. Now back in the real world we have a theory with 150 years of empirical evidence and intense attempts to discredit it that was won over over 99% of biologists including many religious scientists, and one theory without any academic backing either from evidence or from scientists in the field. The evidence points to evolution.
Christina @450:
There is no ignorance, nor is there such a debate.
... And it's "Intelligent Design"* vs. Darwinist Science.
--
* AKA Creationism.
Okay Christina, here's your chance to give the last 200 years in science according to you. Lay out the history of both ideas, where the evidence and where the science lies for both. Cite major publication that have been landmarks for both concepts and show where the struggle in evidence has been. Though from your use of the word Darwinist I'm guessing you are a creationist who knows fuck-all about where the science lies.
Christina,
I am afraid for my generation as well,because of the unrelenting attempts of bronze age mythology wooists to torpedo my kid's and every other kids education,to tell me how to live my life,to not run for public office if I dont believe in the prevalent bronze age myth and so forth.
Should there be an ultimate being ultimately powerful,I would not be afraid,but first ask her why she crashed that plane in Buffalo,followed by why she lets 26000 kids die every day,why babies are born without brains or limbs,why her representatives on Earth seem to need an awful lot of money from the believers to run her business,and many more questions...
The "Expelled" myth Im afraid doesnt fly,as anyone not brainwashed and indoctrinated by faith could easily see for themselves.
I beg to differ...Early draft Of Pandas and People (pre-supreme court ruling outlawing creationism) 1986:Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.Of Pandas And People (post-supreme court ruling 1987:Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.The copy / paste replacement of creation with intelligent design - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/forrest_chart2.png The missing link:(pre ruling) “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”(post ruling) “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.” Now what were you saying about intelligent design not being creationism?
Silly cdesign proponentsists, myths are for kids.
"I find it interesting as well that no one seems to notice the fact that those in intelligent design include Jews, agnostics, Muslims, Diests, etc.... Interesting that these people get no credit for being ID believers, but only the Christians. Why is that??? "
Because Christianity is the dominant religion in the regions where almost all of the debates take place?
And another thing, now that you mentioned it...
Would you rather be friends with
a)people from a different religion, just because they support "Intelligent Design", even though their religion most likely teaches that your concept of "Intelligent Designer" is wrong and that you will suffer for eternity because you believe in it, or
b)atheists, who are most likely to never do anything bad to you, as long as you don't try to shove your beliefs down their throats?
Think about that.
The Muslims and the Jews will tell you that you are destined for eternal suffering for worshiping Jesus, the false son of God.
The deists and agnostics will tell you that all your prayers are useless, because there's nobody listening to them, and that if you feel that God is guiding you or anybody or anything else it is nothing but delusion.
The Christians of a faction different from your own will condemn you to hell over the slightest discrepancy in the interpretation of scripture.
The most any atheist or agnostic would do is ask you uncomfortable questions about your faith. Much better than sentencing you to burn for all eternity, no?
And because it's vaguely on topic - Ricky Gervais!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA
Christina wrote:
You really didn't need to preface your blather with that; it's patently obvious that you don't understand.
First things first: it's not a debate - any more than there is a debate between oil + prayer vs. medicine for making you better when you're sick or injured; theory of flight vs. invisible lifting pixies for why aeroplanes do what they do; or parents actually bringing gifts vs. Santa Claus at Mythmas time.
Yes. One side has hundreds of thousands of research papers spread over dozens of areas within science (biology, paleontology, geology, chemistry and so forth) and the other consists of 'Because you scientists can't explain absolutely everything that's ever happened ever, it must be God; here's a list of things we don't understand that we think is evidence.'
How much have you read? Maybe you should go
here and check.
Where is this 'evidence' for ID? There is none. PZ once expressed this about as succinctly as anyone could: 'Your ignorance is not evidence.'
How does the tone affect the content? Are you so limited that you can't separate the style in which something is written from the substance?
Scorn is not anger. It is the appropriate way to dismiss willfully ignorant, disingenuous fools who continue to try and peddle their falsehoods as truth when it is nothing of the sort.
Having the facts does bring great power. Lies are for the weak.
If there was any evidence for your god then we would be fearful - because you god is an insane, murderous, hateful monster. If you believe in him and don't fear him then you haven't been paying attention.
Such as? Feel free to present some; so far you've done nothing but moan about what big meanies we are.
Because it is chiefly the Christians amongst these whackjobs who are fighting to get their lies taught as truth in schools. If Jewish creationists attempt to do likewise we will oppose them in the same way.
Really? Then why do the majority of Christians worldwide accept the fact of evolution? Why does the Catholic Church take the official position of having no problem with it?
Maybe they're sick of fighting losing battles. Or perhaps they aren't as deluded as you.
Sigh. And you end it with nauseating concern troll pablum chock full of stupid. Here's a hint: there's only one side that has scientists on it.
Sheesh.
A quick example of the differences between various brands of (Judeo-)Christianity
Which Ten Commandments?
Pay special attention to the last column.
Kel,
that was hilarious,thanks for the link mate !
My own suggestion:
Only engage in written, not spoken, debates with creationists. That gives you (and the rest of the Internet Hive Mind) plenty of time to find and call them on each specific lie they tell.
fixed
Knowledge is power and the side holding the power has all the science on their side.
There are no two ways about it, that is just how it is.
"The intelligence of Intelligent Design could just as easily come from highly intelligent but non-supernatural beings from elsewhere in the galaxy, beings who have perhaps been using the earth as a biological laboratory. ID advocates point that out all the time."
There are several problems with your statement. I hasten to point out that you are admitting exactly why atheists say ID is just another form of creationism: Any sufficiently advanced technology displayed by someone or something to humans is indistingushiable from magic. You are essentially also breaking from other creationists by opening the very possibility to non-supernatural beings. Quite a large part of the ID-sympathetic community would take issue with your view. So basically you are torpedoing your own point, and you are not making a case for ID. You are saying ID occurs because humans do it, but humans didn't ID themselves into existence, and even if we were ID'd into existence by someone else, ID explains nothing beyond who supposedly did it, and tells us nothing about how to use the process. To date we have zero answer as to who ID'd us, and no way to test or get a signature for who it may have been. Evolutionary theory however, gives us a workable explanation for how biology on this planet functions that has been benefitting society for quite some time. ID is an intellectual dead end. Why you can't see that is quite puzzling.
"...It is Charles Darwin who illustrates that ID (by whatever means) is a legitimate scientific topic..."
Ah yes, the common tactic of sympathizing with Darwin, and the attempts to show how he has been misused for so long. Unfortunately for you, you are trying to A) rewrite history, B) sympathize with a figure the wide majority of those on your side actively try to tear down for a range of reasons ahistorical, entirely political, and very illogical, and C) ascribe your points of view to someone who never shared them by twisting the reality of their work. This tends to be one of the last-refuge tactics of IDers: Try to take away the thing they think the other side is 100% crazy to have, in a lame attempt to redirect attention.
"...They retreat into authoritarianism, scientific dogma, and what they think are cute little putdowns..."
The only authoritarians on here are those that come in telling evolution supporters that an all-powerful superbeing must exist, and that we must not only acknowledge, but get down on bended knee to it. You've come to the wrong place expecting such things, and that is why you ellicit "cute little putdowns". And please do define what "scientific dogma" is for us. You betray your obvious religiously biased position by claiming it is science that is dogmatic and not religion. Yopu sir are the one not open to debate (or actual science), because you have failed at logic, and that is indeed what is required to have the other two.
You are the ignorant one. We know all about intelligent design. It is in fact, over 2,000 years old, predating xianity. In all that time, it has gone exactly nowhere and proved exactly nothing.
Most of the arguments and fallacies they use are centuries old. The fallacies are so old they have latin names like argumentium ad ignorianti because they were noted by the Romans when Latin was still a living language.
There is no debate. There are religious extremists, mostly xian Dominionists who are attempting to jam their cult beliefs down our kids throats in science classes. This is illegal and the courts have ruled that many times and pointed out the ID is a religious belief. It is merely creationism with a coat of paint, not science.
Looks like our Aussie colleagues, with some help from elsewhere, had some fun last night. Funny how asking creationists for evidence confuses the heck out of them, and sends them scurrying back under their rocks. I raise my first cup of coffee to you in salute.
Mike Perry, #425: The intelligence of Intelligent Design could just as easily come from highly intelligent but non-supernatural beings from elsewhere in the galaxy, beings who have perhaps been using the earth as a biological laboratory. ID advocates point that out all the time.
And that is not the point. The point is that there is no evidence whatsoever that anything biological was designed by any sort of intelligent being. Trying to explain ID without the religious vocabulary doesn't excuse its advocates from providing evidence for their "theory."
Gotelli's response is, simply put, ARROGANT, DEMEANING, VENOMOUS and VULGAR to an otherwise very courteous letter from a representative of an institution that HAS produced peer-reviewed papers and books. Darwinists like Gotelli always run from debates as fast as they can manage, hiding and shivering behind the excuse of not wanting to grant public recognition to doubts about Darwin -- doubts shared, of course, by most Americans (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx). Gotelli isn't a scientist. He is nothing but a cynic who does not respect anyone's ideas other than his own. I can't believe he even had the audacity to publish this letter online that only works against him. This makes him lower than a cynic. It makes him a fool.
Science is not a popularity contest.
The ID side needs to produce if they want to be considered on the same level of actual science.
How many times do you need to be told that?
And how were the aliens created -- by evolution?
"...It appears to me that the side holding the most "power" in this debate merely because they are the ones with the money and resources, are also the ones who are afraid of the possibility that there could be an ultimate being in the universe more powerful than them. Because of this, they wish to label an organization seeking truth, no matter where it leads them as religious dribble, instead of what it actually is: science.
Mmm yes, "science" that surprisingly has shown no actual work, no ability to solve real problems, no advances to its credit, no Nobel prize winners to fill its ranks, no new theories, and certainly no progress. But hey, the DI does have fancy-sounding titles like "fellow" and "senior fellow" attached to its highest members, undoubtedly to siphon off credibility from people that actually deserve the use of those terms next to their names.
But to the "power and resources" argument, why doesn't the ID community use all those church/synagogue/mosque funds available to them, and get some actual work done? Oh wait, that would color their research with the air of religion, and as we all supposedly admit, ID is separate from religion...yet somehow argues for exactly the same premise as nearly every religion the world over, without attaching a name to the all-powerful force in the hopes of getting people to buy into it.
"...It also appears to me that this side has weak arguments based on logical fallacies and I hate to say it, but based on ignorance of the true facts in the argument..."
Well, you are entitled and empowered to list which arguments of ours are logical fallacies, and enlighten us as to the "true facts" of the argument. I haven't seen anyone on your side offer those up yet, but before you post I would advise you to Google "An Index To Creationist Claims" and check your work there before posting your next item with all the things we've asked you to provide that we haven't already fulfilled argumentatively.
"...Logically, I hope everyone does realize that any science done to try and prove the existence of an intelligent being/creator would have Christians supporting it because Christians believe in God. I have never understood why people act like this is proof of anything. If Christians weren't supporting it, I would frankly be a little worried. If you are a Christian and believe in God, why wouldn't you want to support science that sought to prove an intelligent being's existence. It doesn't make the science the same as creationism, it just means that Christians are being Christians. I just don't understand why any of this is hard to grasp..."
There is no "science" that is being done to prove your god's existence. There are philosophical arguments and games of logic Christians play to try and prove their god exists, but the attempts are nothing more than that. There is no Christian lab that has found evidence of their specific god. There is in fact nothing but 2 billion people (a minority of the world's population) saying he exists, and a bunch of admittedly pretty buildings erected in "his" name, adorned with accompanying symbols amassed over a minority of millenia in the actual history of human society. Christians indeed make up a significant portion of the DI's ranks; if they truly ARE doing science there, which they are not, why would you say that Christians are not supporting such work? It is important to point out that Christians support such work, because it shows that Christians are very biased toward the answer ID supposedly sets out to prove. That's the problem. The logic problem you are citing - that evolution's supporters don't get why Christians would support ID "research" - is a strawman, it doesn't exist.
We know exactly why Christians support ID: It's the same reason they have used for millenia to keep the religion rolling. If their god/savior doesn't exist, then the whole thing is a sham everyone has been wasting time on, and well, they just can't have that. The problem is ID supporters are putting the cart before the horse, and are starting with the conclusion, and working backwards. They claim to be constructionists, but are in fact deconstructing reality to support a fairy tale. This is why ID fails. ID says there must be a creator, and going backward from there. They have no way to test for the nature of the supposed creator, they have no way to name it, ascertain how it thinks or functions, the nature of its existence, who created the creator, etc. ID can answer none of these questions, and therefore is unable to even get out of its chair to do any real work.
"...Please, don't react based off of your biases, look at the issue, seek the truth. Don't take anyone's word for it, study the information for yourselves. Don't be hostile, but debate in peace not hatred, that is what scientists should desire on either side of the issue..."
More concern trolling. You say this under the obvious assumption that we haven't done all the things you implored us to do. You come in here and tell us we need to lend an ear, to think critically and open-mindedly, and to not be hostile. Then, you assume none of us have done these things in arriving at our position, and then expect us to heed your words going forward. This is the problem with creationists, and indeed the conduct of those in religious groups: You assume people you are talking to haven't done their homework, so you start flapping your gums about how we need to kneel and be mindful, under the apparent assumption we are too stupid to have thought to think critically in the first place, and under the further assumption we have no prior experience with the subject.
Hear this now: We are not going to sit here and give listen to intellectual garbage, least of all because it harms your indoctrinated sensibilities. Creationism and ID are simply wrong, no matter what religion they come from, theistic or pantheistic. Nobody has yet proven they are not incorrect, and their supporters have as many different versions of the creation/ID story as they do denominations of their own faiths, perhaps more. Creaionists and IDers are good at only one thing: Criticizing the good work of others because the product of that work happens to tear down their perceptions of reality, perceptions that have no tangible right to exist in the first place, and if they weren't so emotionally stunted from years of psychological redirection and machination toward vespers would be able to cope with the truth.
Hear this also: You point of view is not unique, and it has been heard around here more times than there are words you could post. We know your side of the story. We know the different arguements and forms of your arguments. We have handily dealt with them all, because they do not hold up under actual scrutiny. There are resources on the internet for you to educate yourself. I directed you to but one of them. I suggest you spend this next Sunday morning reading, but not the same old sections of the book you usually do.
John, please cite 10 peer reviewed primary scientific journal articles from the last five years that prove ID is a scientitic theory. Your bluff is called.
Where are they?
John
Point me to the Peer Reviewed articles you are referencing here.
.
"Gotelli's response is, simply put, ARROGANT, DEMEANING, VENOMOUS and VULGAR to an otherwise very courteous letter from a representative of an institution that HAS produced peer-reviewed papers and books..."
Well, Gotelli's response is all of those things...if you stretch logic pretty far. But I notice your use of all caps to describe the tone of Gotelli's response. Perhaps you have some emotional issues you need to work out before posting about other peoples' emotions. I would also disagree that Gotelli was "VULGAR", since he used no R- or X-rated language. I can see how Gotelli could be taken as "ARROGANT" and "DEMEANING", but characterizing his response as such would require the reader to accept that Meyer's letter to Gotelli had to be accepted in order for the response to be a good one, and that Gotelli need recognize Meyer's obvious "peer" status with him. Unfortunately Gotelli, who has actually done real measureable work, shouldn't be required to give someone who hasn't done any, any undue credibility simply because they want to "debate". As far as "VENOMOUS" goes, well, Gotelli didn't mention anything about hoping Meyer's gets hit by a us or something, so it's not really "VENOMOUS" at all.
Gotelli's response is basically what it should have been: Rebuking those who have openly mocked and rebuked him for doing nothing more than the job he was trained and hired to do, simply because Gotelli's work makes them feel dumb. If I were to prompt Gotelli for such as Meyer did, I would think I would get a similarly terse response...or maybe a bit less so, since I didn't publicly chide him in factless, valueless rants in the public square before going to him hat in hand to try to play nice. Meyer and Berlinski need to practice what they surely preach: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. They failed on this point, and failed yet further, going to the subject of their earlier ire and expecting that person to be nice and cordial when they themselves had not been. Meyer is demanding credibility he doesn't deserve, and he got the intellectual face-smacking that is typically requisite with those that seek to hog other peoples' well-deserved spotlight.
A fairly accurate description of the mendacious propaganda of the Discovery Institute, whose members have spent years systematically misrepresenting hard-working scientists and atheists.
Sorry, I was confusing Klinghoffer and Meyer in my last.
John, you still there? We're waiting.
Gotelli doesn't have the gonads to debate Berlinski.
Suppression, Censorship and Dogmatism in Science
"Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous - especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally-by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors." -The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics
Gee that sounds familiar
subrosa7
It's very simple.
Show us the science.
Yep. The same old, tired horse-shit...
Subrosa7, please show us proof that scientific papers submitted by DI have been improperly rejected or shut up. The burden of proof is upon you, since you made the claim. Your are a liar and bullshitter until you show yourself correct. Welcome to science. The papers and editor/referees comments will be required as evidence.
Would all you putzes who are yelling "CONSPIRACY!" please send us some of your rejected manuscripts? If you've tried to publish your research but the journals keep rejecting your articles, surely you still have the pdfs floating around? Or did the Big Science men in black break into your labs and destroy all your lab notebooks and wipe your hard drives?
Oh, that's right, I forgot. You're completely full of shit, and you're conspiracy-mongering to hide your position's vapidity. My bad.
I see subrosa7 has found another lame screed floating around that, much as Ann Coulter does, tries to make itself credible by citing 60 different sources to back up what amounts to only a few pages worth of material. As usual the creationist likely expects us to debunk the entire thing by combing through it right this very second, and if we don't have an answer by the time the bell tolls midnight tonight, it means we're losers in the never-ending game of intellectual chess.
Subrosa7, that is not a scientific piece, it is a supposition piece. Big difference. It's also on a random website that appears not to be backed by anyone save the guy who paid for the web space and URL. You don't see well-known and respected organizations posting such amateurish material. Hell, even the DI has more credibility than what you just posted.
But your reply is the usual pathetic attempt to "identify" with those unseen, laboring, scorned and tortured hard-working scientists (who would apparently be a majority but are somehow suppressed systemically and systematically) who supposedly know all this stuff that is true that the rest of the scientific leadership refuses to allow to be seen. Typical conspiracy theory tripe. Do you not realize this sounds like someone coming to your door and asking you to let Jesus into your life? Do you not realize you sound like a snake oil-wielding salesman? "I know your pain and I can help you." Please. I suppose it's the Illuminati funding the suppressors, no?
Anyone who has read the works of the Darwin critics (Denton, Behe, Dembski, Wells, Meyers, Sewell, Spetner, and others) with a shred of objectivity can see that these are highly intelligent, knowledgeable scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science whose criticism is thoughtful, carefully reasoned, and based on science, not religion. The fact that Gotelli feels compelled to (falsely) characterize their ideas as Creationism and liken these works to alchemy and flat-earth thinking (along with the chorus of cheers from the comments section) I can only attribute to a desperation born of the threat to deeply held paradigms represented by arguments to which Darwinians have found no legitimate reply.
This, however, is no excuse. The petty meanness and petulant lack of common courtesy of Gotelli's letter does him little credit.
You calling yourself "ExDarwinian" shows that you never understood what evolution is.
Which does not put them in the category of unable to be incredibly wrong
That is laughable on many fronts.
Two words
cdesign proponentsists
Strange considering that the theory goes on strong continuing to be supported by mountains of evidence easily found by using this strange new technology called the search engine.
Gotelli is saying what Judge Jones did in his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. ID is creationism in a fancy dress, but even if you dress up a pig, it is still a pig. ID is creationism until shown otherwise. And any proof of that has not been shown here or in court.
@ExDarwinian:
I attended a lecture by Michael Behe before I was even remotely knowledgeable about evolution. He still seemed full of crap to me, and speaking of petty meanness most of his talk was sarcastically insulting his critics.
But, to hell with either of our anecdotes/opinions. Please show me these "thoughtful" "scientists" and "philosophers" peer-reviewed papers. If they don't have any, please show us some manuscripts that they have attempted to publish. Heck, please send us some RAW DATA that they think demonstrates intelligent design.
Anything! Send us ANYTHING they have that even remotely looks like science! Just please don't send us logical fallacies, theology, long-winded arguments, and conspiracy theories ... we've gotten enough of that from you people to last a lifetime.
FAIL
The outright dishonest bullshit peddled by Creationists is an insult to honest, hardworking, and fankly underappreciated scientists.
Why should any scientist respond with civility to the disingenuous requests of Creationists for debate, when what they are actually asking for is a platform to legitimise their distortions and lies about science (and, by extension, scientists)?
Feel free to substitute Intelligent Design Proponentist for Creationist, if it makes you feel better...
Damn, RBDC you beat me to it.
Also ExDarwinian, why not read the vicious pile of putrid shit that Klinghoffer wrote about Gotelli, before you start moralizing about civil discourse between the two?
Hey exdarwinian...
if they were so fucking brilliant why don't the do some science?
Criticism isn't science. It's a distraction.
ALL of the writings and whining of those creationists has been smacked down with reasoned science.
What the hell? Where did all the sockpuppets come from all of a sudden?
Does anyone have a piddle pad?
Like Wilford Brimley in drag.
I always liked the "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo".
Mike Perry:
How can someone claim that what we may be able to do in 3100 AD is something that no other beings have done in the entire history of the universe? That makes no sense.
Nobody is claiming that. The claim is that no beings did it here, on Earth. The claim is based on the evidence, what we actually find here on Earth, not on sweeping generalizations about the powers of extra-terrestrial beings or the history of the universe, and it makes a great deal of sense.
Christina:
If you are a Christian and believe in God, why wouldn't you want to support science that sought to prove an intelligent being's existence.
Gee... maybe because it's fucking blasphemous? You ever heard of faith, Christina? It's what most grown-up Chritians who see the sham of ID for what it is understand to be the basis of the Christian tradition. Trying to prove anything using the tools of science by definition leaves open the possibility of disproof, meaning that using science to prove god is testing god, challenging god to show herself unambiguously in creation. It's actually profoundly opposed to the tradition of liberal Protestant Christianity, which is why most mainstream Christians are embarrassed by the stupidity and arrogance of clowns like Meyer and Behe.
Science, as I see it here, in the legacy media, and in other opinion pieces, appears to be an animal of empirical studies, collaboration and consensus. A meeting of minds. Scientists they have it right when a bunch of scientists get together and agree on evidence that comes with repeatable results.
If someone comes along, or has been around, with a differing opinion based on the same evidence or not, it only seems natural that scientists would prefer to get together with these people and go over the evidence to get at the truth. I'm going to make a leap here and say that many on this blog are in agreement with that idea.
Then we have the exchange between the revered Nicholas Gotelli and the clown David Klinghoffer that is the subject of this thread. An exchange that seems to fly in the face of the whole collaborative environment thingy. If the emails posted here are accurate, one author is displaying a definite aversion to discussing the matter together. Of course, since little Nicholas' feelings were hurt by an opinion piece authored by Klinghoffer, I can see way he might be hiding from him and his people. Especially since the article raised valid points on the criteria for choosing commencement speakers that would be hard to defend (Ben Stein is not a published scholar so he is disqualified and is replaced by Howard Dean, a politician, who is qualified. And what were the titles of Dr. Dean's peer reviewed scholarly publications?).
However, some adults are able to get past their own egos for the betterment of science and the world in general. You know, like Bell & Watson, Obama & McCain, Albright & Il, Reagan & Gorbachev, Agent Kay & Serleena, Ren & Stimpy, Laverne & Shirley. The list goes on.
But I'm afraid that the general attitude displayed by Mr. Meyers, Nick Gotelli and many contributors found here is anything but collaborative. If anything it defies intellectual discussion and replaces it with personal attacks, insults and name calling ("wackaloon", "clowns", "two-faced" come to mind.)
My Atheist friend here tells me that it's OK to insult, marginalize, reject and/or shun people who may believe that evolution does not have all the answers or they are stupid and superstitious as evidenced by their believe a god. After all we already know that they have no real evidence, no evidence I can touch, count, analyze, heat up, cool down, freeze and slice or look at through a microscope. It would be a waste of time.
I can understand why some might not want some interloper casting doubt on their belief system. Especially when we already know it all and nothing new ever comes along.