Pharyngula

Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 4:21 PM

Brutal

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.

Posted by: Natalie | February 18, 2009 4:22 PM

Wow. Pwned.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 4:22 PM

Alan, Leon and any other of the creationists who have been dropping by...

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.

I hope you read that because it is exactly what we've been telling you.

Posted by: Arnaud | February 18, 2009 4:23 PM

Wow... he really hit the nail on the head. :P

Posted by: waldteufel | February 18, 2009 4:23 PM

Wonderful response to a Disco Toot intellectual transvestite.

Posted by: NoAstronomer | February 18, 2009 4:24 PM

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.

Posted by: Timothy | February 18, 2009 4:25 PM

Wow. That was pretty damn awesome.

Posted by: Jeremy | February 18, 2009 4:25 PM

hehehe

Posted by: Steve_C | February 18, 2009 4:29 PM

Wow. That's what you call a smackdown.

Posted by: Matt Heath | February 18, 2009 4:31 PM

It's nice but I still prefer Dawkins' rather terser "That would look very good on your CV: not so much on mine"

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | 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.

Posted by: kpi | February 18, 2009 4:31 PM

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...

Posted by: vhutchison | February 18, 2009 4:32 PM

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.

Posted by: Sastra | February 18, 2009 4:36 PM

""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.")

Posted by: Bob L | February 18, 2009 4:38 PM

Well that is stating your position is a clear manner. How the Discovery Institute spins this out to be fun.

Posted by: Brownian | February 18, 2009 4:44 PM

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.

Posted by: CS | February 18, 2009 4:45 PM

Obviously Dr Gotelli doesn't read ALL "peer-reviewed" journals!

(like this one)

Posted by: Scott M | February 18, 2009 4:47 PM

*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.

Posted by: Angel | February 18, 2009 4:48 PM

Beautiful; exquisite. Monment of silence in appreciation.

Posted by: HotSake | February 18, 2009 4:48 PM

Five bucks says the DI never mentions it again.

Posted by: J-Dog | February 18, 2009 4:49 PM

YES!!!! NICK GOTELLI WINS TEH INTERTUBES !!! That is indeed, going to leave a mark on Dr. Klinghoffer!

BWA Ha Ha!

Posted by: black wolf | February 18, 2009 4:52 PM

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.

Posted by: Rey Fox | February 18, 2009 4:54 PM

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.

Posted by: Dennis | February 18, 2009 4:54 PM

That made my day.

Posted by: Brownian | February 18, 2009 4:55 PM

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.

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.

Posted by: Alex | February 18, 2009 4:57 PM

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.

Posted by: Dave Wisker | February 18, 2009 5:00 PM

However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists

Frakking awesome.

Posted by: firemancarl | February 18, 2009 5:02 PM

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.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 18, 2009 5:05 PM

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

Posted by: revjimbob | February 18, 2009 5:06 PM

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.

Posted by: hal | February 18, 2009 5:07 PM

Jeremy Irons in a lab coat.

Also... Dr.(??!?) Klinghoffer

Posted by: MerkinWeaver | February 18, 2009 5:10 PM

Can you say ID Creationism FAIL???

Posted by: James F | February 18, 2009 5:12 PM

nal #57

David Klinghoffer does not have a PhD.

I was gonna say.

He has a Bachelors Degree from Brown University.

Did he and Bobby Jindal hang out or something?

Posted by: Jaycubed | February 18, 2009 5:13 PM

BRAVO!

(standing ovation)

Posted by: www.10ch.org | February 18, 2009 5:15 PM

If creationists practiced science, then they would no longer be creationists.

Posted by: fcaccin | February 18, 2009 5:16 PM

Donnie B. (#25):

Shorter Dr. Gotelli:
"Do some science, then we'll talk."

-NO!-

Posted by: Peter McKellar | February 18, 2009 5:17 PM

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

Posted by: Stephen | February 18, 2009 5:19 PM

WOW. That post script was terribly to the point! Bravo! :)

Posted by: mas528 | February 18, 2009 5:20 PM

Posted by: Rey Fox | February 18, 2009 4:54 PM 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.

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.

Posted by: Jess T | February 18, 2009 5:21 PM

"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.

Posted by: Orac | February 18, 2009 5:24 PM

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.

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.

Posted by: St.B | February 18, 2009 5:25 PM

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.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | February 18, 2009 5:25 PM

. . . and now, more from the Pretty Good News Desk:

PZ, you've had a mammoth fossil named after you!

Massive deposits of fossils — from ancient algae to a mammoth named Zed — were recently excavated in the La Brea tar pits in California.

I just heard this on NPR.

At this rate, you'll be famous someday. Congratulations.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 5:29 PM

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.

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.

Posted by: Spyderkl | February 18, 2009 5:30 PM

Wow. It managed to be classy and scathing at the same time. Nicely done!

Posted by: dean | February 18, 2009 5:34 PM

I like the touch of his p.s. - a perfect coup de grâce.

Posted by: cedgray | February 18, 2009 5:39 PM

That is some EXQUISITE pwnage.

Posted by: garth | February 18, 2009 5:45 PM

*bowing in deference*

Well said, Prof. Gotelli.

Posted by: Moses | February 18, 2009 5:51 PM

What a great letter.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 5:58 PM

Richard Dawkins wrote:

...(best spoken with an Australian accent).

Most things are :)

Posted by: Sherry | February 18, 2009 6:01 PM

My 19yo just read this story, and exclaimed:

"Gotelli's SICK!" (That's a good thing)

Posted by: Winawer | February 18, 2009 6:08 PM

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.

Posted by: Quotidian Torture | February 18, 2009 6:17 PM

FLAWLESS VICTORY!

Posted by: bob | February 18, 2009 6:19 PM

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.

Posted by: Vronvron | February 18, 2009 6:29 PM

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.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | February 18, 2009 6:33 PM

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.

Posted by: Muffin | February 18, 2009 6:37 PM

You were right, PZ, that was a real treat. "Pwned" indeed!

Posted by: Derek | February 18, 2009 6:45 PM

That is epic ownage. Well done, Mr. Gotelli.

Posted by: BaldySlaphead | February 18, 2009 6:48 PM

That was a genuinely laugh-out-loud arse kicking of epic proportions. Magnificent!

Posted by: echidna | February 18, 2009 6:55 PM

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

Posted by: Jazmin | February 18, 2009 6:56 PM

Thanks MH.

See, I'm getting smarter with every minute that I spend here.

Posted by: Lurkbot | February 18, 2009 7:05 PM

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.

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 18, 2009 7:07 PM

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!

Posted by: sciencemc | February 18, 2009 7:11 PM

Forgive me for the light-on-substance response, but:

That.
Was.
Awesome.

I will have a warm fuzzy feeling all day!

Posted by: Twin-Skies | February 18, 2009 7:14 PM

@yorktank #2

What's that the kids say? PWND?

No, no, no - that's won't do. Something more substantial's needed for this special occasion.

EPIC WIN!!! LOLZ!

Posted by: Peter McKellar | February 18, 2009 7:17 PM

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.

Posted by: frog | February 18, 2009 7:24 PM

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.

Posted by: Neoteny | February 18, 2009 7:31 PM

pwned.

Posted by: QNA | February 18, 2009 7:39 PM

CRS Quarterly?

CRS? As in Can't Remember Shit? or Crappy Reasoning Sells?

Posted by: Brad | February 18, 2009 7:45 PM

Orac:

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.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if the evidence exists, it will get top billing.

Posted by: damnedyankee | February 18, 2009 7:59 PM

Owned. Pwned. Hell, I'll even go further than that and say qwned.

Posted by: Defaithed | February 18, 2009 8:15 PM

@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.

Posted by: C. M. Baxter | February 18, 2009 8:15 PM

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.

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.

Posted by: Kevpod | February 18, 2009 8:27 PM

Any word on the response to this stirring smackdown?

Posted by: Ben | February 18, 2009 8:52 PM

PWNED!! hehe

Posted by: Ed H. | February 18, 2009 8:57 PM

Pwnd. Thanks for posting this, you made my day.

Posted by: Miguel | February 18, 2009 9:14 PM

I'M NOT WORTHY! m(_ _)m

Seriously, that was fucking awesome.

Posted by: Andrew | February 18, 2009 9:16 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.

Reading that, I wonder if Klinghoffer even realized he was being ripped a new one. :-D

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 9:19 PM

Fraidy cat.

really? That's all you got Lar?

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 9:22 PM

Any web site so bereft of civility is no doubt empty of true and thorough rationality and real intellectual honesty.

Ooooh, concern troll is concerned. Has anyone called for a whaaaaaambulance yet?

Pissant.

Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 9:32 PM

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.

Posted by: Desert Son | February 18, 2009 9:33 PM

rob (sadly) posted at #155:

And that's all I'd like to say here.

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

Posted by: Nathan | February 18, 2009 9:36 PM

that was an epic response, well played, well played indeed

Posted by: George | February 18, 2009 9:39 PM

lol for a moment i thought t he name stephenie meyer was in the letter. whew.

Posted by: Dahan | February 18, 2009 9:58 PM

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.

Posted by: LisaJ | February 18, 2009 10:12 PM

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 :))

Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 18, 2009 10:18 PM

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!

Posted by: catta | February 18, 2009 10:44 PM

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.

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. ;)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 10:50 PM

If only Texans could read Gotelli's letter and comprehend it . . .

I'm sure there are plenty that can.

Posted by: Rick R | February 18, 2009 11:12 PM

Awesomeness. Pure and unadulterated.

Posted by: Quotidian Torture | February 18, 2009 11:27 PM

If only Texans could read Gotelli's letter and comprehend it . . .

Not only do I comprehend it, but I strongly approve of it.

We're not all morons, you know.

Posted by: aarrgghh | February 18, 2009 11:46 PM

you got PWNED, baby!!!

Posted by: Leigh Williams | February 19, 2009 12:05 AM

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.

Posted by: Truckloadbear | February 19, 2009 12:54 AM

That was one great big bucketful of awesome.

**swoon**

Posted by: Eph Zero | February 19, 2009 2:55 AM

This fills me with a giddy joy that I rarely experience.

Posted by: Vidar | February 19, 2009 3:08 AM

This is beyond mere pwnd, or even brutally pwnd.
This is brØtälly PWNZORED \m/(>.

Well done, sir.

Posted by: Hugh Troy | February 19, 2009 3:56 AM

"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!

Posted by: Leah | February 19, 2009 4:26 AM

ZING!

Posted by: Christophe Thill | February 19, 2009 4:28 AM

You go, Telli !!!!

Posted by: Gordy | February 19, 2009 4:37 AM

A beautifully eloquent response without so much as a hint of punch-pulling. Highlight of my evening so far.

Posted by: David | February 19, 2009 4:44 AM

I have a new hero and his name is Nicholas Gotelli.

Posted by: Tielserrath | February 19, 2009 5:12 AM

That letter was so amazing, such needly sarcasm, such feather-irony, such cuttingly perfect sentences - it could have been written by someone...

...English.

;)

Posted by: Cactus Wren | February 19, 2009 5:26 AM

That
is
ART.

Posted by: clinteas | February 19, 2009 5:52 AM

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.

Posted by: Holbach | February 19, 2009 6:05 AM

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.

Posted by: Vaal | February 19, 2009 6:10 AM

Class!

Posted by: clinteas | February 19, 2009 6:24 AM

SEF,

It's interesting that, like creationists, many doctors do like to pretend they're scientists though. Everyone secretly knows science is the best.

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.

Posted by: Ponder | February 19, 2009 6:42 AM

"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.

Posted by: SEF | February 19, 2009 7:03 AM

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.

Posted by: SEF | February 19, 2009 7:24 AM

What title does a non-scientific medical doctor get in Germany instead then?

Posted by: Ben | February 19, 2009 7:31 AM

@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.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 7:48 AM

@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?

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?

Posted by: progressive homeschooler | February 19, 2009 8:11 AM

Standing ovation for Professor G.

Posted by: AJS | February 19, 2009 8:21 AM

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.

Posted by: Moggie | February 19, 2009 9:07 AM

#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?

Posted by: Ubi Dubium | February 19, 2009 9:25 AM

@Moggie

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?

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'"

Posted by: Jackie | February 19, 2009 9:38 AM

Dr. Klinghoffer freaking wins at life. That letter was awesome. Good for him! :D

Posted by: Miss Scarlett | February 19, 2009 9:52 AM

I want to have Dr. Gotelli's baby!

Posted by: Brian Rapp | February 19, 2009 10:09 AM

Klinghoffer actually did respond with a whole lotta whine about Gotelli being a hypocrite.

"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."

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.

Posted by: ChrisKG | February 19, 2009 10:21 AM

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!

Posted by: Paul Lundgren | February 19, 2009 10:34 AM

Epic win.

Posted by: Steve_C | February 19, 2009 10:35 AM

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.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 10:47 AM

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.

Posted by: Lord Zero | February 19, 2009 11:01 AM

Its such a great reply. Wonderful.

Posted by: Ray Ladbury | February 19, 2009 11:11 AM

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.

Posted by: 0verlord | February 19, 2009 11:20 AM

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: ChrisKG | February 19, 2009 11:23 AM

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.....

Posted by: SteveM | February 19, 2009 11:39 AM

Did the original IDer email actually use COMIC SANS?

New here?

No, of course he didn't, that is how PZ quotes idiots.

Posted by: Vlad | February 19, 2009 11:46 AM

Truly priceless. Sharp, witty, to the point and beyond any reasonable criticism. Mr Gotelli, you made my day!

Posted by: Helfrick | February 19, 2009 11:56 AM

Beautiful response.

On a related note. They will be invading my beloved state next week.

2009 marks the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th year of the publication of his book The Origin of Species. In recognition of Darwin's work and its impact on our culture, the C.S. Lewis Society is hosting this amazing exploration of Darwin's Legacy: The Hidden Story. Featured speakers will trace Darwin's imprint on the world and his scientific predictions that have come to haunt him.
http://www.bayword.com/ContentPages/846/

Posted by: Desertphile | February 19, 2009 12:09 PM

Good bloody gods. Gotelli *MURDERED* the poor dumb bastard.

Posted by: SLW13 | February 19, 2009 12:25 PM

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?

Posted by: Nicole | February 19, 2009 12:43 PM

Ha, ha, ha! That totally made my day!

Posted by: Lauren | February 19, 2009 12:55 PM

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.

Posted by: James | February 19, 2009 1:17 PM

*slow clap* Bravo good sir, bravo.

Posted by: a passerby | February 19, 2009 1:26 PM

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: Watchman | February 19, 2009 1:38 PM

Foxtrot. Tango. Whiskey.

Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | February 19, 2009 1:49 PM

...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

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 19, 2009 2:10 PM

I'd love to have a recording of Stephen Fry reading that letter. It's brilliant.

Posted by: ConcernedEducator | February 19, 2009 2:18 PM

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,Richard-Dawkins

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-Grave/Page1.html.

Would some of you fine, outstanding members of the intelligensia mind leaving some comments of your own?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 19, 2009 2:23 PM

Maybe Professor Gotelli can tell us creationists whose Origin of Life theory is correct?

Posted by: kim | February 19, 2009 2:30 PM

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-Grave/Page1.html.

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!!

Posted by: j | February 19, 2009 2:32 PM

Gotelli has failed to impress. He did not say "creationist" enough times. Pathetic. Try to do better next time.

Posted by: ConcernedEducator | February 19, 2009 2:36 PM

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.

Posted by: a passerby | February 19, 2009 2:42 PM

"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?

Posted by: Julian | February 19, 2009 3:38 PM

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 :)

Posted by: Ben | February 19, 2009 3:43 PM

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.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 19, 2009 3:49 PM

hiding behind the lack of published research in the tomes which the bishops of evolutionary dogma control

Posted by: Sastra | February 19, 2009 3:55 PM

Engineer #293 wrote:

“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?

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.

Posted by: James F | February 19, 2009 3:58 PM

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.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 19, 2009 3:59 PM

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

Posted by: Tulse | February 19, 2009 4:03 PM

scientific data that seemed to render macro evolution a complete impossibility

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?

Posted by: Shaden Freud | February 19, 2009 4:18 PM

*sigh* At this point, you just have to bust out the MC Hawking. (NSFW)

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 4:47 PM

Maybe Professor Gotelli can tell us creationists whose Origin of Life theory is correct?

Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 19, 2009 4:56 PM

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

Posted by: Steve_C | February 19, 2009 5:04 PM

Mats. It's the creationist who chicken out from science. They don't do research and they don't publish papers.

Dumbass.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 5:06 PM

One of the most widely read authors in history said “every man seems right until another comes forward to question him”

The surest way to question a scientist is to provide empirical based research refuting his position.

So where is it?

Posted by: Bobber | February 19, 2009 5:09 PM

By the way, I don't recall historians refusing to debate holocaust deniers......

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.

Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | February 19, 2009 5:13 PM

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

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 19, 2009 5:15 PM

Posted by: Mats | February 19, 2009

By the way, I don't recall historians refusing to debate holocaust deniers......

Must be something particular to darwinism!

Which is why we see the likes of Deborah Lipstadt doing debating tours with Holocaust deniers.

Dumbass.

Posted by: Intelligent Designer | February 19, 2009 5:20 PM

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.

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.

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 5:23 PM

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.

Posted by: Steve_C | February 19, 2009 5:24 PM

Yeah because publishing in science journals isn't science.

What a d-bag.

Posted by: James F | February 19, 2009 5:25 PM

#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.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 19, 2009 5:26 PM

Randy, speaking of papers, hows your entropy paper coming? No publish, no glory.

Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | February 19, 2009 5:27 PM

"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?

Posted by: CHAYNES | February 19, 2009 5:28 PM

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.

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 5:33 PM

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.

Posted by: Rey Fox | February 19, 2009 5:36 PM

"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.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 5:37 PM

Would one of you scientists tell us poor creationists what you want us to accept on faith.

Nothing.

Posted by: Steve_C | February 19, 2009 5:38 PM

Maybe my response should of been...

Yes, it's impossible we exist! We're not even here.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 5:41 PM

Sven, shit your meter is looking low. Let me add a quarter.

Posted by: Shaden Freud | February 19, 2009 5:49 PM

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

Posted by: God | February 19, 2009 5:55 PM

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!

Posted by: Satan | February 19, 2009 6:00 PM

and then My voice would boom out

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.

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 6:29 PM

Would one of you scientists tell us poor creationists what you want us to accept on faith.

Posted by: Ragutis | February 19, 2009 7:08 PM

Gee, CHAYNES, you use the word faith as if it's a bad thing...

Posted by: Doc Bill | February 19, 2009 7:21 PM

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.)

Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 19, 2009 7:46 PM

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.

Posted by: Intelligent Designer | February 19, 2009 8:14 PM

Kel said:

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.

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".

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 8:25 PM

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.

Posted by: Helfrick | February 19, 2009 8:27 PM

What makes you think people like me haven't been?

Now they hide behind the "publish a paper in Nature" bullshit.

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.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 19, 2009 8:32 PM

Have you been trained in the scientfic method? What makes you think people like me haven't been?

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.

By the way, I am now reading "Why Evolution is True".

Good. Have you learned anything?

Posted by: chaynes | February 19, 2009 8:34 PM

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.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 8:41 PM

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.

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?

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 19, 2009 8:49 PM

Perhaps you will demonstrate how life forms from methane, water and ammonia.

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?

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 9:01 PM

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.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 19, 2009 9:12 PM

It's not like PZ applies the scientific method in this so called science blog.

Randy, when you say things like this you illustrate exactly why people doubt your claim that you know anything about the scientific method.

Posted by: AnthonyK | February 19, 2009 9:19 PM

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.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 19, 2009 9:20 PM

Apparently, fossils make baby Jesus cry.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 19, 2009 9:37 PM

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.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 19, 2009 9:40 PM

Randy, leave Kel alone or we'll have to put you in the "Gimp Tank" again.

...and no food, this time.

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 9:44 PM

Kel, have you heard me correcting you? So you have been doing fine by me.

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 9:53 PM

Randy, leave Kel alone or we'll have to put you in the "Gimp Tank" again.

Posted by: Sacred Frenzy | February 19, 2009 10:00 PM

Translation: Gotelli doesn't have the balls to debate David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 19, 2009 10:04 PM

Oh yawn, someone might accuse me of something again. I suppose I can handle it.

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 10:05 PM

Are you going to show me where I'm wrong Stimpy, or apologise for the personal attack?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 10:11 PM

Hey ... I can't pick on everyone at the same time. Does this mean RBDC won't be slipping me bananas this time around?

No bananas for you!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 10:14 PM

Apparently, fossils make baby Jesus cry.

Fossils

Posted by: Intelligent Designer | February 19, 2009 11:33 PM

Hey Bob,

Thank you for those kind words you posted on my blog

Posted by: not even remotely facilis | February 19, 2009 11:49 PM

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.

Posted by: Kel | February 20, 2009 12:10 AM

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.

Posted by: RD | February 20, 2009 12:35 AM

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.

Posted by: Kel | February 20, 2009 12:38 AM

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.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 20, 2009 12:44 AM

RD wrote:

but heavens, don't dare discuss criticism of evolution.

Criticise it with science all you like. Criticism by comparison to magic, on the other hand, doesn't deserve to be acknowledged.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 20, 2009 12:49 AM

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.

Posted by: RD | February 20, 2009 12:55 AM

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?

Posted by: raven | February 20, 2009 1:03 AM

Chaynes;

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.

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.

Even though they cant show us what did happen.

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.

Posted by: mrcreosote | February 20, 2009 1:09 AM

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?

Posted by: RD | February 20, 2009 1:12 AM

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.]

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 20, 2009 1:16 AM

Blue Independent,

Troglodytic? Awesome - and fitting.

Posted by: Kel | February 20, 2009 1:23 AM

Do you distance yourself from these ad hominem attackers?

Posted by: Mike Perry | February 20, 2009 1:28 AM

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.

Posted by: RD | February 20, 2009 1:38 AM

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.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2009 1:39 AM

The posters on this blog all seem to think that insults are enough to discredit opposing evidence.

What opposing evidence?

RD, you don't know what you're talking about. [ad hominem]

Actually, it's not an ad hominem. He explains why you don't know what you're talking about.

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.]

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:

(The editors later claimed there wasn't any peer review. Really? But the editors are academics, aren't they?)

"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.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 20, 2009 1:45 AM

Posted by: Mike Perry | February 20, 2009

Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Try again. Can you say "cdesign proponentsists"?

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2009 1:52 AM

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."

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."

Posted by: Ragutis | February 20, 2009 1:57 AM

RD... You might want to take another look at that link on Semmelweis you posted:

The failure of the nineteenth-century scientific community to recognize Semmelweis's findings, and the nature of the flawed critiques outlined below, helped advance a positivist epistemology, leading to the emergence of evidence-based medicine.

Seems to me, evidence is something the ID movement lacks.

Posted by: RD | February 20, 2009 2:06 AM

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.

Posted by: raven | February 20, 2009 2:20 AM

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."

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 print them and show them to my high school students.

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.

Posted by: Ragutis | February 20, 2009 2:27 AM

Mike Perry:

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.

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.

Posted by: Twin-Skies | February 20, 2009 2:31 AM

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.

If Darwin were around today, he'd be weeping with shame for what science has bcome.

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.

Odd that today's Darwinians refuse to do what Darwin spent his professional life doing--debate ID.

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

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2009 2:43 AM

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.

Posted by: passerby | February 20, 2009 3:27 AM

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!

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 20, 2009 3:57 AM

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.

Posted by: Kel | February 20, 2009 4:08 AM

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.

Posted by: Kel | February 20, 2009 4:15 AM

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.

Posted by: Kel | February 20, 2009 4:59 AM

It doesn't make [intelligent design] the same as creationism

Posted by: passerby | February 20, 2009 5:19 AM

"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?

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 20, 2009 5:25 AM

Christina wrote:

I simply don't understand...

You really didn't need to preface your blather with that; it's patently obvious that you don't understand.

Intelligent Design vs. Darwinist debate

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.

Have any of you actually read information on both sides of the issue?

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.

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

Where is this 'evidence' for ID? There is none. PZ once expressed this about as succinctly as anyone could: 'Your ignorance is not evidence.'

...would not name call or react in anger and childishness the way just about all have on this site.

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.

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

Having the facts does bring great power. Lies are for the weak.

are also the ones who are afraid of the possibility that there could be an ultimate being in the universe more powerful than them.

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.

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.

Such as? Feel free to present some; so far you've done nothing but moan about what big meanies we are.

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 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.

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.

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?

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?

Maybe they're sick of fighting losing battles. Or perhaps they aren't as deluded as you.

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.

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.

Posted by: clinteas | February 20, 2009 5:40 AM

Kel,

that was hilarious,thanks for the link mate !

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 20, 2009 8:12 AM

. 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 science

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.

Posted by: raven | February 20, 2009 9:07 AM

christina not understanding:

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.

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.

Posted by: Chiroptera | February 20, 2009 9:50 AM

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."

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 20, 2009 9:57 AM

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).

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?

Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 20, 2009 10:02 AM

"...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.

Posted by: Helfrick | February 20, 2009 10:04 AM

an institution that HAS produced peer-reviewed papers

Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 20, 2009 10:19 AM

"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.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 20, 2009 10:23 AM

Sorry, I was confusing Klinghoffer and Meyer in my last.

Posted by: subrosa7 | February 20, 2009 12:01 PM

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

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 20, 2009 12:05 PM

...sounds familiar...

Yep. The same old, tired horse-shit...

Posted by: bob | February 20, 2009 12:09 PM

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.

Posted by: ExDarwinian | February 20, 2009 12:35 PM

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.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 20, 2009 12:44 PM

with a shred of objectivity can see that these are highly intelligent, knowledgeable scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science

Which does not put them in the category of unable to be incredibly wrong

whose criticism is thoughtful, carefully reasoned, and based on science, not religion.

That is laughable on many fronts.

The fact that Gotelli feels compelled to (falsely) characterize their ideas as Creationism and liken these works to alchemy and flat-earth thinking

Two words

cdesign proponentsists

(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.

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.

Posted by: bob | February 20, 2009 12:46 PM

@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.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 20, 2009 12:51 PM

The petty meanness and petulant lack of common courtesy of Gotelli's letter does him little credit.

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...

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 20, 2009 12:58 PM

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?

Posted by: Stu | February 20, 2009 1:02 PM

What the hell? Where did all the sockpuppets come from all of a sudden?

Does anyone have a piddle pad?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 20, 2009 1:06 PM

I always liked the "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo".

Posted by: Mover | February 20, 2009 1:19 PM

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.

Posted by: Chiroptera | February 20, 2009 1:23 PM

John, #468: 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.

subrosa, #479: 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.

Interesting. So the cdesign proponentsists are producing peer reviewed work while their work is being censored and suppressed.

Cdesign proponentistsists might be taken a tad more seriously if they would at least get their story straight before they bother the rest of us with it.

Posted by: bob | February 20, 2009 1:27 PM

@mover: Stop obfuscating.

You mentioned evidence. Please show the evidence for ID. Your "side" has had decades to provide some, and you haven't. That is why "little Nicholas" (hypocrisy alert!) doesn't want to discuss the matter, because there's nothing to discuss.

Until you provide some evidence, that is. Please do so. Once you do, we can happily "get together with these people and go over the evidence to get at the truth"

Posted by: Chiroptera | February 20, 2009 1:32 PM

MOver, #499: An exchange that seems to fly in the face of the whole collaborative environment thingy.

No, the exchange concerns an activity that has little to do with scientists getting together to discuss the evidence and try to arrive at the truth. The exchange concerns an antagonistic contest to try to sway as many members of a lay audience to their point of view regardless of the truth, and audience, by the way, which may be deliberately packed with the supporters of one view over the other.

Such an enterprise is not collaborative science. Now it may be a good way to educate the lay public on the issues and controversies of an issue, but, then again, not if one side or the other cannot be trusted to be objective or honest in the matter.

Posted by: Kevembuangga | February 20, 2009 1:35 PM

@passerby
Who needs "Ten Commandments"?
One is enough!
Still, it seems a tough one for some... :-)

Posted by: CJO | February 20, 2009 1:36 PM

But you know, it doesn't really matter what any of us think

Fine. I will continue to operate on the justified and now confirmed belief that it doesn't really matter what you think. One question, though: why is it you feel compelled to keep offering your completely worthless opinion here?

Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 20, 2009 1:39 PM

My, my. Have I struck a nerve? I regard the venom and lack of civility of your collective response as confirmation of my thesis.

Your libel of honest science, when you haven't a shred of evidence either for your pseudoscience or for your lies against your betters, calls for at least as much venom as you have received.

Until you're something other than a liar who attempts to demean those who have answered all of your lies, you're totally entitled to as much venom as we can put out.

Still, I've had enough of you vapid tards, so it'll have to come from others if you are to get what you deserve.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: Rey Fox | February 20, 2009 1:42 PM

To all the people whinging about the big bad scientists and us suppressing "views": Spill your views already. We've heard all the content-free whining before. Nobody is banned from Pharyngula for their "views". Check out the Titanoboa thread, we've let one particularly deranged creationist babble on for hundreds of comments now.

John:
"Gotelli isn't a scientist."

Speaking of arrogant...

Posted by: Stu | February 20, 2009 1:47 PM

I regard the venom and lack of civility of your collective response as confirmation of my thesis.

Good. Enjoy. Now fuck off.

Posted by: Chiroptera | February 20, 2009 1:49 PM

ExDarwinian, #502: I regard the venom and lack of civility of your collective response as confirmation of my thesis.

That's nice. Now if ID was a real science, they would use evidence as confirmation of their thesis.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 20, 2009 1:50 PM

I'm sure some people consider us uncivil since we don't accept what they say. We do the uncivil act of questioning their testimony. You want us to back up our beliefs with real evidence? LAWD o' Mercy, that is RUDE. But, welcome to science.

Posted by: Sastra | February 20, 2009 2:16 PM

Ex-Darwinian #502 wrote:

I regard the venom and lack of civility of your collective response as confirmation of my thesis.

What thesis would that be? That people who get rude and angry are never right?

That's almost certainly too broad, because it leads to contradictions. For one thing, it would allow evolutionists to point to angry creationists as showing evidence that "they must know they're wrong, or they wouldn't be so hostile." You'd end up with a situation where every side of a heated debate comes out the "winner." Not a very useful thesis.

When dealing with scientific issues, style is not as important as substance. Being kind and polite is absolutely necessary for self-esteem support groups, of course. I don't think anyone has ever accused the science community in general -- or Pharyngula in particular -- of being a self-esteem support group. It's not our area.

But you know, it doesn't really matter what any of us think--the truth will eventually prevail. (I give the neo-Darwinian synthesis about 20 more years.)

I respect the fact that you give a deadline. Of course, 20 years ago creationists were also predicting that evolution has "another 20 years" -- and 20 years before that, too. But I'm going to assume you're not planning on playing the memory-hole game, so I'll ask a question:

If, in 20 years, evolutionary theory is still supported by the majority of experts, still generating testable predictions, and still considered the underlying theory in biology -- what would you do then? I mean, what would this do to your religious beliefs?

Would you become a theistic evolutionist -- and come up with some means to reconcile your current beliefs with a God who "works through" evolution in some vague and purely background capacity?

Or would you renounce God, and become an atheist?

Exactly what is riding for you, with this "test" and "deadline" you've given for the Designer hypothesis?

Posted by: DaveL | February 20, 2009 2:33 PM

I've counted over 4500 words in this thread devoted to complaining about censorship of ID by mainstream scientists, claiming that the latter are "afraid" of debating ID, and repeating mantras about how ID has real evidence from real scientists.

So far, no evidence, though.

Think about it - the ID proponents here have been given more than enough space on this thread to publish a full-length journal article layout out newly discovered evidence for intelligent design. Instead they use it all to complain that no one will let them be heard.

Just like Nesbitt's recent Op-Ed.

Just like Expelled.

Does anyone notice a pattern?

Posted by: Mover | February 20, 2009 2:49 PM

bob@#503

You missed the point. My post did not attempt to provide evidence that is for or against evolution or ID.

I'm merely pointing out that the lack of civility that you self described "scientists" lack. And seem to be proud of it.

Posted by: Steve_C | February 20, 2009 2:51 PM

That's because your a troll.

We know all bout your favorite creationists. And we're also familiar with how they've been taken down with science. Try looking up Ken Miller or the Dover trial.

They haven't published one paper that calls into question the fact of evolution.

We are far from closed minded, unlike you, we are not ignorant.

Posted by: James F | February 20, 2009 2:54 PM

ExDarwinian #524,

Please see my post at #518.

Posted by: SomeGuy | February 20, 2009 3:03 PM

I think that it is about time to classify Atheism as a religion. I guarantee that almost every one who has posted in support of this forum takes their opinions on faith. This faith is not entirely unwarranted but it is faith since many of the cornerstones of Atheism are untestable.

I find the manner with which most Atheist evangelize to be particularly telling that it is indeed a religion.

For what it is worth the common form of pseduo hate speech against organized religion does nothing but polarize the two sides. It would help your atheism evangelism if you could control your emotions.

The "holier than though" attitude that the scholarly evolutionists/atheists maintain is as repulsive as the falsely propagated attempts to mislead the public into believing that the separation of church and state exists in the US constitution.. The church of Atheism is not objective when it comes to history, only remembering the tragedies of religion.

The church of Atheism considers only immediately quantifiable data as guidance toward truth. Should one consider the fact that our nation has given birth to one of the greatest freedoms known to man? Where did we come from as a nation? Why is the historical aspect of Judeo-Christian influence ignored or presented from a one-sided point of view?

The doctrine of religion is purpose for our lives... Is the antithesis of religion a simple purposelessness? How does one prove that we came from nothing for absolutely no reason?

People bash America but often regress, knowing that it is the best system of government. Our nation is founded upon the notion that people must rule themselves. Not a single one you can honestly say that religion hasn't shaped your moral compass. Regardless of your level of moral relativism, we could probably all find a few guiding points to agree upon. Why do we find ourselves in this place? Similar to the American system or government, the judeo-Christian system lacks perfection but may serve as the most viable system of ethics.

Posted by: Christina | February 20, 2009 3:10 PM

I must say that though the responses I received were not surprising, and indeed proved many of my points rather than discredited them, it grieves me that almost none of you wish to debate the topic in civility. I am certainly capable of distinguishing tone from argument, but know all to well the powerful blinding force behind anger, sarcasm, cynicism, mockery and bitterness, and I have seen these traits in abundance on this site as well as hundreds of others related to this topic.

Before I go further, I wish to say that one reason I wonder whether any have actually done research on this debate is because your own words tell me you have not done it very well, or simply wish to ignore certain facts.

Perhaps I should restate my concern. Have any of you looked at the Discovery Institutes website or read any of their books and articles?

This leads me to a matter that has come up numerous times on this site.
If I may please clear up the issue of peer-reviewed articles and books, which also may answer some of your other questions about what scientific (please read them, they are scientific) arguments have been brought up by Intelligent Design theorists:

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004). (PDF, 620KB)

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe's argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.

COMPLETE LIST:

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Trade Presses or University Presses

W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in The Design Inference, well-known physicist and science writer Paul Davies remarks: "Dembski's attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I'm concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves." Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149.

Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).

In this book Behe develops a critique of the mechanism of natural selection and a positive case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the presence of "irreducibly complex molecular machines" and circuits inside cells. Though this book was published by The Free Press, a trade press, the publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological scientists.

Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, 1984, Lewis & Stanley, 4th ed., 1992).

In this book Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen develop a seminal critique of origin of life studies and develop a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and "low-configurational entropy" of living systems.

John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003)

This is a collection of interdisciplinary essays that addresses the scientific and educational controversy concerning the theory of intelligent design. Accordingly, it was peer-reviewed by a philosopher of science, a rhetorician of science, and a professor in the biological sciences from an Ivy League university. The book contains five scientific articles advancing the case for the theory of intelligent design, the contents of which are summarized below.

Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Prominent Trade Presses

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004).

Gonzalez and Richards develop a novel case for the theory of intelligent design based on developments in astronomy and planetary science. They show that the conditions necessary to produce a habitable planet are extremely rare and improbable. In addition, they show that the one planet we are aware of that possesses these characteristics is also a planet that has characteristics uniquely adapted to scientific exploration, thus suggesting not simply that the earth is the recipient of the fortunate conditions necessary for life, but that it appears to be uniquely designed for scientific discovery.

William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002).

Dembski refines his scientific method of design detection, responds to critics of his previous book (The Design Inference) and shows how his method of design detection applies to the kind of molecular machines analyzed by Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box.

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985).

Denton, an Australian molecular biologist, provides a comprehensive critique of neo- Darwinian evolutionary theory. In a penultimate chapter, entitled "The Molecular Labyrinth," he also develops a strong positive case for the design hypothesis based on the integrated complexity of molecular biological systems. As a religiously agnostic scientist, Denton emphasizes that this case for design is based upon scientific evidence and the application of standard forms of scientific reasoning. As Denton explains, while the case for design may have religious implications, "it does not depend upon religious premises."

Peer-Reviewed Philosophical Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Academic University Presses

Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science (State University of New York Press, 2001).

Michael C. Rea, World without Design : The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

In this article, Norwegian scientist Øyvind Albert Voie examines an implication of Gödel's incompleteness theorem for theories about the origin of life. Gödel's first incompleteness theorem states that certain true statements within a formal system are unprovable from the axioms of the formal system. Voie then argues that the information processing system in the cell constitutes a kind of formal system because it "expresses both function and sign systems." As such, by Gödel's theorem it possesses many properties that are not deducible from the axioms which underlie the formal system, in this case, the laws of nature. He cites Michael Polanyi's seminal essay, Life's Irreducible Structure, in support of this claim. As Polanyi put it, "the structure of life is a set of boundary conditions that harness the laws of physics and chemistry their (the boundary condition's) structure cannot be defined in terms of the laws that they harness." As he further explained, "As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule." Like Polanyi, Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source that transcends physics and chemistry. In particular, since as Voie argues, "chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals," and since "mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations," it is "therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans."

John A. Davison, "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

Otto Schindewolf once wrote that evolution postulates "a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated in that way." In this peer-reviewed article from a prestigious Italian biology journal, John A. Davison agrees with Schindewolf. Since "[o]ne can hardly expect to demonstrate a mechanism that simply does not and did not exist," Davison attempts to find new explanations for the origin of convergence among biological forms. Davison contends that "[t]he so-called phenomenon of convergent evolution may not be that at all, but simply the expression of the same preformed 'blueprints' by unrelated organisms." While discussing many remarkable examples of "convergent evolution," particularly the marsupial and placental saber-toothed cats, Davison's meaning is unmistakable: This evidence "bears, not only on the questions raised here, but also, on the whole issue of Intelligent Design." Davison clearly implies that this evidence is expected under an intelligent design model, but not under a Neo-Darwinian one.

S.C. Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

This article argues for intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of the Cambrian fauna. Not surprisingly, it created an international firestorm within the scientific community when it was published. (See Klinghoffer, The Branding of a Heretic, WALL STREET JOURNAL, Jan. 28, 2005, as well as the following website by the editor who oversaw the article's peer-review process: http://www.rsternberg.net.) The treatment of the editor who sent Meyer's article out for peer-review is a striking illustration of the sociological obstacles that proponents of intelligent design encounter in publishing articles that explicitly defend the theory of intelligent design.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, "Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues," Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

In this article, Behe and Snoke show how difficult it is for unguided evolutionary processes to take existing protein structures and add novel proteins whose interface compatibility is such that they could combine functionally with the original proteins. By demonstrating inherent limitations to unguided evolutionary processes, this work gives indirect scientific support to intelligent design and bolsters Behe's case for intelligent design in answer to some of his critics.

D. A. Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315.

This experimental study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, finding that, "roughly one in 1064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain" and that the "overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077." Axe concludes that "functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." Since Darwinian evolution only preserves biological structures which confer a functional advantage, this indicates it would be very difficult for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. This research also shows that there are high levels of specified complexity in enzymes, a hallmark indicator of intelligent design. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: "In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design." See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design".

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, "Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements," Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of a partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors' approach is non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably the work of design theorists Michael Behe and William Dembski.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, "Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis," International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

The opening paragraph of this article reads: Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) "The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law," Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

This research is thoroughly non-Darwinian and teleological. It looks to laws of form embedded in nature to bring about biological structures. The intelligent design research program is broad, and design like this that's programmed into nature falls within its ambit.

D. A. Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

This study published by molecular biologist Douglas Axe, now at the Biologic Institute, challenges the widespread idea that high species-to-species variation in the amino-acid sequence of an enzyme implies modest functional constraints. Darwinists commonly assume that such variation indicates low selection pressure at the variable amino acid sites, allowing many mutations with little effect. Axe's research shows that even when mutations are restricted to these sites, they are severely disruptive, implying that proteins are highly specified even at variable sites. According to this work, sequences diverge not because substantial regions are free from functional constraints, but because selection filters most mutations, leaving only the harmless minority. By showing functional constraints to be the rule rather than the exception, it raises the question of whether chance can ever produce sequences that meet these constraints in the first place. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: "I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails 'severe sequence constraints'. The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design." See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design".

Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Anthologies

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. In Dynamical Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds.,(Research Signpost, 2004)

Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis.

Granville Sewell, Postscript, in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (Springer Verlag, 1985). (HTML)

In this article appearing in a 1985 technical reference book, mathematician Granville Sewell compares the complexity found in the genetic code of life to that of a computer program. He recognizes that the fundamental problem for evolution is the "problem of novelties" which raises the question "How can natural selection cause new organs to arise and guide their development through the initial stages during which they present no selective advantage"? Sewell then explains how a Darwinist will try to bridge both functional and fossil gaps between biological structures through "a long chain of tiny improvements in his imagination," but notes that "the analogy with software puts his ideas into perspective." Major changes to a species require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Natural selection, a process which is "unable to plan beyond the next tiny mutation" could never produce the complexity of life.

Five science articles from Darwinism, Design, & Public Education, edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (Michigan State University Press, 2003) (hereinafter DDPE):

Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, DDPE Pp. 223-285. (PDF, 1.13MB)

Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.

Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines. DDPE Pp. 287-302

Behe sets forth a central concept of the contemporary design argument, the notion of "irreducible complexity." Behe argues that the phenomena of his field include systems and mechanisms that display complex, interdependent, and coordinated functions. Such intricacy, Behe argues, defies the causal power of natural selection acting on random variation, the "no end in view" mechanism of neo-Darwinism. Yet he notes that irreducible complexity is a feature of systems that are known to be designed by intelligent agents. He thus concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation for the presence of irreducible complexity in the molecular machines of the cell.

Nelson, P. & J. Wells, Homology in biology: Problem for naturalistic science and prospect for intelligent design, DDPE, Pp. 303-322.

Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells reexamine the phenomenon of homology, the structural identity of parts in distinct species such as the pentadactyl plan of the human hand, the wing of a bird, and the flipper of a seal, on which Darwin was willing to rest his entire argument. Nelson and Wells contend that natural selection explains some of the facts of homology but leaves important anomalies (including many so-called molecular sequence homologies) unexplained. They argue that intelligent design explains the origin of homology better than the mechanisms cited by advocates of neo-Darwinism.

Meyer, S. C., Ross, M., Nelson, P. & P. Chien, The Cambrian explosion: biology's big bang, DDPE, Pp. 323-402. (PDF, 2.33MB)

Meyer, Ross, Nelson, and Chien show that the pattern of fossil appearance in the Cambrian period contradicts the predictions or empirical expectations of neo-Darwinian (and punctuationalist) evolutionary theory. They argue that the fossil record displays several features--a hierarchical top-down pattern of appearance, the morphological isolation of disparate body plans, and a discontinuous increase in information content--that are strongly reminiscent of the pattern of evidence found in the history of human technology. Thus, they conclude that intelligent design provides a better, more causally adequate, explanation of the origin of the novel animal forms present in the Cambrian explosion.

Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, DDPE, Pp. 403-418.

Dembski argues that advances in the information sciences have provided a theoretical basis for detecting the prior action of an intelligent agent. Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation. He gives a rational reconstruction of a method by which rational agents decide between competing types of explanation, those based on chance, physical-chemical necessity, or intelligent design. Since he asserts we can detect design by reference to objective criteria, Dembski also argues for the scientific legitimacy of inferences to intelligent design.

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that, if corroborated by experiment, could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.

Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician's View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)

Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.

The list continues....but I think, or at least hope, this gets the point across sufficiently.

I am willing to read what you have to say, but again I do plead with all to leave ridicule and hatred behind. It is a disgrace to all involved. History has proved that such violent outbursts through words leads to violent actions later; so yes it is an important matter to address despite the labels you wish to put on it. Thank you.

Posted by: bob | February 20, 2009 3:16 PM

@SomeGuy: Thanks for the non sequitur. Back to what the rest of us are talking about ...

@ExDarwinian: Pretend I'm ignorant of this abundance of evidence you mentioned. Please give me just a single link to a reputable peer-reviewed scientific article that supports ID. Note however that "criticism of Darwinism" is not the same as "support for ID," lest you invoke a false dichotomy.

@Mover: Indeed I did miss your point. I thought you had something of consequence to say. Before you criticize people for being rude, perhaps you shouldn't be rude yourself. Why the scare-quotes around and the modifier before the word scientist? You're accusing me of not being a scientist (or at least not a "real" one), and perhaps making scientist out to be something bad.

@All: Still waiting for ID evidence ...

Posted by: Steve_C | February 20, 2009 3:17 PM

Hey Christina, we're familiar with the DI webiste... you don't need to repost a whole damn page from it. just a link.

And with in all that there's not one shred of data that puts evolution on shaky ground.

NONE.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 20, 2009 3:21 PM

Now Christina, all books are removed from your list. They aren't peer reviewed. Also removed are all papers that have been refuted. For example, Behe's irreproducible complexity has been refuted. His paper all all supporting papers are dead. And once refuted, the article disappears from the literature. We will look at the remainder and see if anything is present that also can't be explained by evolution.

Posted by: FPM | February 20, 2009 3:24 PM

I used to respond to creationists back when I was a homeless rodeo clown but not any more. Now I am a world class magician !

Posted by: SomeGuy | February 20, 2009 3:32 PM

[]"Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 20, 2009 3:17 PM
Some Guy,
Atheists
deity - none
Church - none
Preachers - none
Regular meetings - none
Tithes - none
Not a religion. What an asshole."[]

Deity - the endless pursuit of science solely for the sake of science. (The giant sign in the sky that will prove that God doesn't exist.)

Followers - All of the trolls on this board including you. DO you have any peer reviewed articles?
Preachers -- Author of this blog.
Church -- Anywhere where members like you choose to be at any given moment. A church is not defined by its building but by its people.
Regular meetings -- Why wait when you can post now
Tithes -- Commercialism

Religion - A religion usually encompasses a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to an ultimate power or reality."--Wikipedia.

Your faith in natural selection and the interpretation thereof is the founding principle for your decision to join the church. You feel reasonably confident but in no way can post the giant sign in the sky to prove absolutely that God does not exist. Consequently your ultimate reality is based upon a premise that stands only to prove that there is no premise. Life is ultimately an act of random chance.

Posted by: bob | February 20, 2009 3:38 PM

SomeGuy: I doubt it's worth responding to you, but can you provide an example of a worldview that you wouldn't classify as a religion? If not, doesn't the word lose any relevant meaning? More importantly, what does this have to do with debating creationists?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 20, 2009 3:41 PM

SomeGuy, still the fool. Atheists have no holy book, no theology (how can one have theology without a god), and no dogma. They have nothing in common except disbelief in all gods.

Not all atheists are scientists.
Not all regulars at Pharyngula are atheists.
Not all scientists are atheists.
Atheists moral essential come from application of the "golden rule", which Xians appear to have lost use of.
Still, there is no atheist religion except between your ears, where your god exists.

Posted by: Griz | February 20, 2009 3:44 PM

One thing that IDers and Creationists can't seem to understand is that Evolutionists are not saying that there is no God. Yes, there are a multitude who have taken the atheist position, but Evolution does not say there is no God. There may well be. However, belief in a higher power is not a SCIENTIFIC issue, it is a philosophical one. A higher power may very well have created the earth and all things on it, but there is nothing to say that Evolution is not a tool used by it. But there is also no evidence that a Higher Power exists. That is a matter of faith. Believing in God (in whatever form it takes) is not antithetical to Evolution or vice versa. The problem IDer's have is they have no real evidence to present or even a theory. They have an anti-thory (if Evolution is wrong then ID is correct) That is to say that if 2+2 does not equal 5 thn it must equal 3.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2009 3:50 PM

One thing that IDers and Creationists can't seem to understand is that Evolutionists are not saying that there is no God.

Exactly. What the theory of evolution does is that it shows that the hypothesis that the diversity of life is due to creation is unnecessary. That's all.

A higher power may very well have created the earth and all things on it, but there is nothing to say that Evolution is not a tool used by it.

Except Ockham's Razor of course.

Posted by: Steve_C | February 20, 2009 3:54 PM

you're... I know. I know!

Posted by: Stu | February 20, 2009 3:56 PM

Must have used a spellchecker.

Never! Spell-checkers are produced by the Cult of Science!

Posted by: Sastra | February 20, 2009 4:17 PM

Some Guy #532 wrote:

I think that it is about time to classify Atheism as a religion.

"Atheism" is too broad a category; it can't be a religion for the same reason 'theism' can't be a religion. I think you would do better trying to classify the more specific science-oriented "secular humanism" as a religion. Unfortunately, if you do that, then you'll end up redefining religion as "a life philosophy," since you'd have to cut 'belief in God or the supernatural' out of the definition.

You're not going to find any argument over saying secular humanism is a life philosophy.

Should one consider the fact that our nation has given birth to one of the greatest freedoms known to man? Where did we come from as a nation? Why is the historical aspect of Judeo-Christian influence ignored or presented from a one-sided point of view?

The ideas which underlie Constitutional Democracy came from the rational ideals of the Enlightenment, which can be shared by Christian and non-Christian alike, since they rest on reason and common consent. I don't think there's anything about self-governance, human rights, and god-given liberty in the Bible. It's ideal model of government is that of King(God) and Subjects who Submit to His Authority. Christian theology didn't directly influence Enlightenment principles.

The doctrine of religion is purpose for our lives... Is the antithesis of religion a simple purposelessness?

No, answering "what purpose in life should we pursue?" -- like "how ought we to live?" -- falls under the mantle of Philosophy. Religion asks the question "what purpose did God make us for?" (or something similar)

The antithesis of religion, then, would be seeking to answer the first question. That's not "purposelessness."

Posted by: Paul | February 20, 2009 4:58 PM

Sastra... Do you think that the morale law of the land was strongly influenced by Judaism? It seems that much of the world follows a large portion of the 10 commandments.

I'm still waiting for the cdesign proponentsists to read far enough to get to the one regarding bearing false witness.

Are you trying to say that the Judeo-Christian god is real because different people have cribbed off some of their values? You do realize that the concept of the Judeo-Christian god was strongly influenced by all the other regions at the beginning of the first century BCE, right? Are those ancient religions more correct? If so, which ones?

Posted by: Sastra | February 20, 2009 5:08 PM

Some Guy #558 wrote:

Sastra... Do you think that the morale law of the land was strongly influenced by Judaism? It seems that much of the world follows a large portion of the 10 commandments.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "morale law of the land." If you mean Constitutional Democracy then no. Only 3 of the commandments -- against murder, theft, and perjury -- are actually against the law, and those are not crimes that are unique to Judaism. The Commandments which have to do with worshipping God are clearly unconstitutional, and those that have to do with honoring one's parents, adultery, and not "coveting" may or may not be good ideas, but aren't illegal.

If you mean to ask whether the 10 Commandments reflect basic principles that everyone shares -- some do, some don't. I think that you've got a problem when you try to use the Bible to show a non-Christian (or non-Jew) that this is where their morality "comes from."

If the moral precept makes good sense to them, then there are probably good reasons why it makes sense to them even though they're not Christian. In which case, you wouldn't need a book (or a special revelation from God) to come up with something so workable and reasonable. If it is fair, kind, and just, a rule or precept will stand on its own value.

But if the moral precept doesn't make good sense to an outsider, then you're not able to use it to show them that this is where their morality comes from. Obviously, it doesn't.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 20, 2009 5:12 PM

Sastra... Do you think that the morale law of the land was strongly influenced by Judaism? It seems that much of the world follows a large portion of the 10 commandments.

Oh your god. You have got to be kidding, right? So, before they were exposed to Judaism, no other society had ever had laws against killing and stealing? It must have been an atheist's paradise, all the lack of moral responsibility. Just like we see in secular countries today.

I mean, I know I'd be spending a whole lot more time coveting things and bowing to false gods if it weren't for the ten commandments.

Posted by: SAWells | February 20, 2009 5:19 PM

SomeGuy, "not playing sports" is not a sport. Not believing in gods is not a religion. And no, nobody has to prove that gods don't exist. Ho hum.

Posted by: SAWells | February 20, 2009 5:24 PM

@566: wuh?

Posted by: Steve_C | February 20, 2009 5:30 PM

Evolution is a fact. So is gravity.

Are you really walking down the "Evolution is only a theory path?"

Thanks, I'm very opened minded and friendly. "The ladies love me, the girls adore me."
I'm a great guy. I just have a low tolerance for ignorance. And I've heard the "atheism is a religion and evolution is your scripture" so many times that I don't really feel the need to "debate" the idea because it it so completely lacking in thought.

http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/RobBase/It-Takes-Two--2139200

Posted by: CJO | February 20, 2009 5:38 PM

Stu, that's hilarious. I had not seen "let me Google that for you"

Will the snarky wonders of the Web never cease?

Posted by: Peter | February 20, 2009 5:46 PM

This was a great response. But I don't think this will affect any of the thumpers. They just don't get it. I was speaking to a friend who was telling me which churches her children were attending and asked with a smile, "What? No atheists?" She laughed when I pointed to myself. But a couple passing by, two little gnomes about 4'high, turned and told me they'd seen miracles. I asked which ones and the man said, "Me. I'm a living miracle." He gave me a smile which I believe was some moral superiority and walked on. See? You go on smacking them in the head with reality, but they only see rainbows. What morons. Maybe stupidity is bliss.

Posted by: astrounit | February 20, 2009 5:49 PM

Christina #450 SAID: "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."

Well, Christina, it isn't surprising you "just don't understand why any of this is so hard to grasp."

So, when did you acquire the odd notion that science is all about TRYING to prove something, that scientists are people who SEEK to prove something?

Where did you get that idea from? It's completely wrong, you know.

Science does in fact manage to demonstrate the viability of a great many conceptual models of the world, to very high degree of confidence, the vast majority of which had absolutely no coaching from preconceived belief.

Believe it or not, as you wish.

If you want "proof", go and consult competent mathematicians. They'll introduce you to the concept by going over a little Euclidean geometry.

Logically? Okay. Let me point out how "logical" YOU are: you make statements equating the scientific method as consisting of ATTEMPTS to prove something: "TRYING" to prove anything. "SEEKING" (="sought") to prove anything.

Then you say, "I have never understood why people act like this is proof of anything."

Are you kidding? What is it you don't understand? That people should "act" as if seeking or trying isn't, in point of actual fact, a "PROOF"?

Is THAT what you think is so hard for us to "grasp"? That we can't grasp that you seem incapable of grasping elemtary logic? Are we to presume that your incapacity in this regard is a valid justification for accepting what you say elsewhere? Just because you can't grasp why anybody should think that "trying" isn't what science DOES? That science isn't at all like religion, which always TRIES to find proof?

As the illustrious little wrinkled bat-eared foam-rubber Jedi sage Yoda once so profoundly intoned on a great big screen somewhere: "Do or do not. There is no try."

If you really want us to "grasp" whatever conviction you hold? Fine! Good! We'll make it easy for you. You don't have to supply any "proofs" at all. Just show us one little tiny scrap of actual and potentially verifiable evidence to support your convictions. I promise it will get our attention.

It shouldn't be too hard for even you to understand - graced as you are with the "logic" you have so abundantly exhibited - that's all it would take.

Posted by: Natalie | February 20, 2009 5:52 PM

Jeff, why don't you start with yourself?

Posted by: Jesse | February 20, 2009 5:59 PM

I'm just trying to offer a point of view that brings both sides of the coin to the same side.
Do I believe "God" is an alien being from another dimension that created physical laws that govern this universe and thereby influenced the evolution of life as we know it? No, but as a scientist, I leave room in my mind for it.

Religious people don't know what "God" is nor are they interested in learning for fear they would be disappointed. Atheists, apparently, know what "God" is and are already disappointed and are trying to share. Neither side truly wants to understand "God." What if "God" is an alien? Ask the question! Generate ideas! Leave room for the unexplained. Be at peace with the unknown.

(Again, I'm not a Raelian.)

My passion is to get people past the debate and back to fertilizing and expanding their minds with my own special brand of BS.

Posted by: subrosa7 | February 20, 2009 6:07 PM

It is interesting how Darwinists are keep saying this is the way it is and so and stop asking any questions – JUST BELIEVE. Hmmm, who is the one preaching faith? Let’s take Mendel for example. Pick up college biology textbooks read a passage on Mendel and his contributions to genetics and you will come away say, he was just like us man - lived and breathed Darwinism. Well, that is really not so. In Mendel's Pisum paper, published in 1866 (and yes that was peer reviewed), and of the time and circumstances in which it appeared suggests not only that it is antievolutlonary in content, but also that it was specifically written in contradiction of Darwin's book The Origin of Species, published in 1859. I just find it curious how authors of textbooks skew science to one way of thinking, even though Mendel’s work specifically refuted Darwin. I guess they don’t want any students to ask any questions? Thou shall not think different from the collective. I guess they will hold on to everything like the Haeckel's drawings in text books until we have every last student brainwashed.

Posted by: Rey Fox | February 20, 2009 6:10 PM

Psst. Subrosa. Check your watch, it's the 21st century now.

Posted by: CJO | February 20, 2009 6:15 PM

Be at peace with the unknown.

Personally I can deal with doubt, uncertainty, not knowing. But the problem, as you may be aware, is that the creationists are not at peace with the unknown; they keep trying to stuff their god in everywhere they find it, and they like to pretend that the unknown is a bigger cubby-hole than it is.

So, in principle, great. You're an open-minded guy. But there is a point at which the craven tactics, shady motivations, and outright dishonest arguments of the opposition need to be fought, not capitulated to with the rhetoric of even-handedness. In the realm of facts, there is simply no contest. In the realm of public perception, well, let's just say nobody ever went broke overestimating people's appetite for magical thinking.

Posted by: Sastra | February 20, 2009 6:18 PM

Jesse #579 wrote:

Do I believe "God" is an alien being from another dimension that created physical laws that govern this universe and thereby influenced the evolution of life as we know it? No, but as a scientist, I leave room in my mind for it.

Sure. So does Richard Dawkins, Creationist Arch-Enemy and Militant Atheist.

Apparently, in the movie Expelled, creationists asked him if life on earth "could" have been created by an alien being. His response was yes, it 'could' have. There's no evidence for it, but, as a scientist, he couldn't rule it out and it was fine to speculate about it. He then went on to make the point that it was still likely that this alien being would have had to evolve from simpler forms.

Creationists were not pleased to see that Dawkins "left room in his mind" for the possibility that there was an "alien being" from this or any other dimension which was responsible for life on earth. Oh no. They professed to be shocked and horrified -- and gleeful -- that Dawkins had "let slip" that he was willing to consider the space alien hypothesis -- but not God!!!! Look at how the atheist gropes for straws! See! The space alien idea is STUPID -- and yet Dawkins will "entertain" it as an idea before he accepts the Bible! We win! We win! We win!

So I think your point that scientists should "leave room in their minds" for implausible but possible scenarios involving aliens and beings in other dimensions is already non-controversial among scientists, including atheist scientists. But the fine issues involved here may be a bit beyond some of the creationists.

Posted by: Christina | February 20, 2009 6:20 PM

I truly weep for my generation. Since when did science or scientific debate mean calling another person a git. I'm sorry, yes, science is hard and should be, but it should never be about beating down opposition on an impulse produced by anger. If you really believe me to be misinformed or ignorant, don't call me names as this is childish, but seek to inform me of what you believe in a civil, adult manner. I enjoy nothing better than a good discussion and debate with others as long as we can all be respectful. (yes, I will continue to mention this until it is heeded, thank you to those who are showing respect)
As to the list I previously posted of peer-reviewed articles and books, sorry , but it doesn't really make a difference if you like them or not. You asked if there were any, and I gave them to you. The fact is they were articles written by scientists, about scientific research, reviewed by scientists, and published in science journals, or published as scientific books. Why ask about them, if you've already made your decision about them? IDers can't help if you don't like their peer-reviewed materials, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
As to throwing out all the books, this is frankly very illogical. Forgive me, but that would also mean we must throw out every scientific book ever written throughout the history of the world including Darwin's "Origin of Species".
This entire concept of peer-reviewed seems somewhat of a game to me anyhow, considering it hasn't meant much when looking at the bigger picture of the entire course of scientific history. For my part, it doesn't mean a thing to me whether something has been peer-reviewed or not. It is not as though it is impossible for someone to write something perfectly legitimate and scientific without getting it peer-reviewed.
On a much lower level, it would be the same as saying that a person cannot actually write real poetry unless it is published. With that logic, all of you who draw, or write poetry or prose, or play music, you aren't an artist if your things have not been published, displayed or recorded, and especially if they have not been reviewed by others and liked. This would mean the term artist is reserved only for the rich and famous. It is also the same as saying a language is not a real language until an accredited well-liked linguist has done linguistic research on it and approved it.

With that said, I would like to hear what people have to say about some of the scientific and mathematical studies done.
It is my understanding that it is a mathematical improbability for the first protein to have been constructed the way evolutionists say it must have been. What say you?
What about the major gaps of the fossil records, which Darwin himself said was the major flaw of his own theory?
What about stasis in the fossil records?
What about the fact that much of the research done on natural selection and mutations has shown that minor changes in species do exist but none studied have shown how those mutations actually produce a new species?
What about the statistical research done on the ability of earth to sustain life?
What about irreducible complexity? Don't just call it dumb, why don't you believe it makes sense? Many believe it makes perfect logical and scientific sense, just as many of you believe evolution makes perfect logical and scientific sense.
Perhaps if we shifted to these topics it would make a difference. Here's hoping anyway.

Posted by: Kel | February 20, 2009 6:28 PM

What I don't get about the ID movement is that they trumpet Darwin's Black Box and the contents within as a triumph that has passed peer review. Firstly the book was sent to 4 people before publishing, the majority told him not to publish and one told him that he found it wrong but he should publish anyway. In 13 years following, Behe hasn't submitted any of the ideas contained within the book for peer review in an academic journal.

The funniest thing is how much they cling to irreducible complexity. A scientist worked out how such systems would evolve and predicted they would evolved all the way back in 1918. Only back then it was called interlocking complexity. And the icons of ID have now been consistently shown to have gradually evolved. Going on about the flagellum is quite pathetic really. Did God make the flagellum in his own image?

One more thing that ID is lacking is a mechanism. Just what did the designer do? Did the designer cause mutations? If so, how do we test that? Where are the tests that show a designer's hand in our nature? Better yet, where is the designer? This is what ID rests on, showing that there's a designer and the designer is tinkering with our DNA at some stage along the way. So for all those preaching ID, 2 questions: Just what exactly did the designer do, and how can we test for that? Answer both of those and put it in a scientific paper and you might have something.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 20, 2009 6:31 PM

Christina, flaws in the fossil record. Depends on what you mean by flaws. If you mean gaps, these are slowly being filled as people look in the proper strata and find the expected mingling of characteristics. For example Neil Shubin discovered Tiktaalik roseae, a fish/tetrapod gap filler by looking in the proper sediments in far northern Canada. So the gaps are being filled, and so far nothing anomalous like a Cambrian rabbit has been found. Science moves forward. Religious thought stands still.

Posted by: Lowell | February 20, 2009 6:37 PM

Christina,

Some commenters here have already directed you to good sources for the basics of evolutionary biology. Please read them before you post any more of these worn-out ID/Creationist inanities.

It's your job to educate yourself. Not anyone else's.

Posted by: CJO | February 20, 2009 6:47 PM

It is my understanding that it is a mathematical improbability for the first protein to have been constructed the way evolutionists say it must have been. What say you?

Improbability doesn't equal impossibility, so I say so what? Also, that's an awfully vague question. Characterize, in your own words, "the way evolutionists say it must have been."

What about the major gaps of the fossil records, which Darwin himself said was the major flaw of his own theory?

Vague, again. Pick a "gap." And do you figure there's been some paleontology done since the 1870's? Perhaps you'd like to discuss some of it? Like Tiktaalik, for instance.

What about stasis in the fossil records?

What about it? That successful, widespread species remain largely morphologically unchanged for long periods of time does not contradict evolutionary theory in the least.

What about the fact that much of the research done on natural selection and mutations has shown that minor changes in species do exist but none studied have shown how those mutations actually produce a new species?

Speciation has been observed, and no magic appeared to be involved. Your "fact" is not.

What about the statistical research done on the ability of earth to sustain life?

I'm not aware of this "statistical research." Are you alluding to a 'fine-tuning' argument? I need only refer you to the vastness of the universe and the anthropic principle.

What about irreducible complexity? Don't just call it dumb, why don't you believe it makes sense?

What's dumb is not to recognize that such structures are a prediction of evolutionary theory. It's nothing new; Behe likes to pretend he invented the concept and that it makes the case for ID. Neither is true.

Anything else?

Posted by: Kel | February 20, 2009 6:54 PM

With that said, I would like to hear what people have to say about some of the scientific and mathematical studies done.

Posted by: raven | February 20, 2009 6:57 PM

christian being stupid:

I truly weep for my generation. Since when did science or scientific debate mean calling another person a git.

Save your histrionics for yourself. Polls show that the majority of the US population is sick and tired of fundies and their hate, lies, violence, destruction, and general kookiness.

Looks like there is a backlash against the Death Cults. These are nihilists who have only brought death and destruction during their time in power. Their latest victim is the US economy, the largest in the world at one time. Palin is one, a hardcore religious kook.

There is a fact for you. We in the reality based community use them a lot. Towards creos it works sort of like a cross towards a vampire. Except 5 minutes later, they arise without any memory of having seen a fact.

As to your standard talking points, they are just standard creationist babble and out of date by years or centuries. "What about the major gaps of the fossil records, which Darwin himself said was the major flaw of his own theory?" Darwin wrote his book 150 years ago. Things have moved on. There are hundreds of people at least searching for fossils. There are some sitting on my deck for Cthulhu's sake. Those gaps got smaller and smaller and now the god of the gaps has been pushed beyond the Big Bang with the physicists in hot pursuit.

And you really don't care. God himself could show up, laugh and say, c'mon, I'm a smart being and have better things to do than micromanage my own planet. Besides which as an omniscient being, I already knew how the Big Bang was going to turn out." Wouldn't make a dent. You don't worship a god, truth, or reality, you worship a book and your own Death Cult. There was something in the bible about setting up and worshipping idols. I'm sure you've never even read that book.

Posted by: raven | February 20, 2009 7:07 PM

christina clueless:

I truly weep for my generation. Since when did science or scientific debate mean calling another person a git.

Why weep? Science has increased our lifespans 30 years in a century while banishing horrible diseases like smallpox and polio. Ever seen a polio victim? There are a few around. They are invariably late 50's and older and have had a harder life than they wanted.

We feed 6.7 billion people, travel in space, and are surrounded by technology that St Paul would consider miraculous.

What have the Death Cultists done lately? Other than wreck the US ecnomy, shoot some catholics in N. Ireland, bomb some family planning clinics, and beat up the odd evolutionary biologist.

Posted by: James F | February 20, 2009 7:12 PM

Christina #589,

As to the list I previously posted of peer-reviewed articles and books, sorry , but it doesn't really make a difference if you like them or not. You asked if there were any, and I gave them to you. The fact is they were articles written by scientists, about scientific research, reviewed by scientists, and published in science journals, or published as scientific books. Why ask about them, if you've already made your decision about them? IDers can't help if you don't like their peer-reviewed materials, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

It's not a matter of whether we "like them or not." These materials provide no data supporting ID or refuting evolution (see #518).

As I said above, this is why it's important to ask for data in peer-reviewed scientific research papers when asking ID supporters for evidence. The lack of data leads to one of three conclusions: ID is not science, ID supporters are inept at doing research, or there is a decades-long global conspiracy suppressing ID - and some people in the comments seem to be seriously suggesting the third option.

Posted by: Stu | February 20, 2009 7:27 PM

Christina:

I truly weep for my generation. Since when did science or scientific debate mean calling another person a git.

If someone is wrong, if it has been pointed out where and how said person is wrong and that person still asserts their position repeatedly, that person has been scientifically proven to be a git and should be addressed as such.

Git.

I'm sorry, yes, science is hard and should be, but it should never be about beating down opposition on an impulse produced by anger.

Flagrant, arrogant provable stupidity makes us angry, sorry.

If you really believe me to be misinformed or ignorant

Believing has nothing to do with it, moron.

don't call me names as this is childish

I would call it cathartic, you pig-headed fool. Besides, ignoring refutations of your pathetic points is the online equivalent of clapping your hands to your ears and screaming "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU", which, I think we can all agree on, is pretty damned childish.

but seek to inform me of what you believe in a civil, adult manner.

Firstly, you don't fucking get to tell anyone what to do. Secondly, you will be treated civilly if you stop acting like a child.

I enjoy nothing better than a good discussion

Liar. You haven't listened to a word that has been said. You like to talk, and that is not a discussion.

as long as we can all be respectful.

Again, who the fuck are you to tell anyone what to do? Furthermore, not listening is disrespectful. Demanding respect without showing it is arrogant, stupid and childish.

yes, I will continue to mention this until it is heeded

Better have it ready to copy and paste then, airhead.

As to the list I previously posted of peer-reviewed articles and books

You don't know what peer-reviewed means.

about scientific research

You don't know what scientific research means.

published in science journals

You don't know what science journal means.

or published as scientific books

You don't know what scientific means.

Why ask about them, if you've already made your decision about them?

To illustrate your ignorance.

IDers can't help if you don't like their peer-reviewed materials, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

See above. Repeatedly asserting something doesn't make it true. It helps to be right.

This entire concept of peer-reviewed seems somewhat of a game to me anyhow

Only because you have no fucking clue how it works, why it works and why it is a prerequisite. You wouldn't know peer review if it hit you in your useless head.

For my part, it doesn't mean a thing to me whether something has been peer-reviewed or not.

Okay, thank you for that concession. Let's move on. Small question though: why were you harping on IDs dreck being peer reviewed IN THE SAME FUCKING POST?

Moron.

It is not as though it is impossible for someone to write something perfectly legitimate and scientific without getting it peer-reviewed.

Sure. But without review, how do you propose we verify it IS legitimate?

With that said, I would like to hear what people have to say about some of the scientific and mathematical studies done.

Sure, provide some. Peer-reviewed by non-creationists.

It is my understanding that it is a mathematical improbability for the first protein to have been constructed the way evolutionists say it must have been. What say you?

I say your understanding is wrong, I say I know where this statement comes from, I know it is bunkum. TalkOrigins is your friend.

What about the major gaps of the fossil records

Oh shut up. Go read TalkOrigins before you open your mouth again, tool. Do you think you are the first drone to try that lame, old canard?

What about stasis in the fossil records?

What about it?

What about the fact that much of the research done on natural selection and mutations has shown that minor changes in species do exist but none studied have shown how those mutations actually produce a new species?

Liar. Liar, liar, liar. Stupid Goddamned liar.

What about the statistical research done on the ability of earth to sustain life?

Adams. Puddle. Google. Idiot.

What about irreducible complexity? Don't just call it dumb, why don't you believe it makes sense?

Because it has been proven to be wrong, maybe?

TalkOrigins is your friend.

Many believe it makes perfect logical and scientific sense

Only the willfully ignorant ones. Five minutes on Google can educate you. Go do so, or shut the hell up.

just as many of you believe evolution makes perfect logical and scientific sense.

Theory proven to explain reality for 150 years, reinforced through multiple scientific disciplines

DOES NOT EQUAL

Random, incorrect, unsupported supposition that does nothing but vainly attempt to attack said theory without any alternative explanation beyond "I don't understand how the world works, ergo God did it."

Perhaps if we shifted to these topics it would make a difference.

Back your idiotic assumptions up first, you arrogant, ignorant douchenozzle.

(Yes, I'm grumpy. Good thing the weekend's here!)

Posted by: Sacred Frenzy | February 20, 2009 7:40 PM

Since when did science or scientific debate mean calling another person a git.

This is an excellent point. People resort to name-calling when they are cornered. Simply put, most of the people on this blog appear to be deeply insecure about their outdated belief system, and they have don't have any direct evidence that the variation/selection mechanism produced the complex systems necessary for life. So they attack people who make the attempt to engage them in debate, they call them names, they ridicule the opposing view rather than respond to the main points of their arguments, etc. They preach the need for scientific thinking yet engage in oppressive practices that would make the Church that persecuted Galileo pale in comparison (Galileo didn't have any peer-reviewed articles either). For a science blog, the behavior practiced here is about as far away from scientific thinking as possible.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 20, 2009 7:46 PM

Sacred Frenzy, yawn, methinks thou dost protest too much. Yawn.

Posted by: Chiroptera | February 20, 2009 7:53 PM

Sacred Frenzy, #609: They preach the need for scientific thinking yet engage in oppressive practices that would make the Church that persecuted Galileo pale in comparison....

What? Behe was forced to publicly recant and then place under house arrest for the rest of his life? I think you are joking.

Posted by: bob | February 20, 2009 7:57 PM

Christina, your tears are delicious. Books aren't peer-reviewed. That you don't put stock in peer-review demonstrates nicely that we ought to ignore your opinions. Without critical analysis and free inquiry, there's no way to separate bullshit from reality. Apparently you prefer to just believe in a reality that makes you feel special. Good for you.

Sacred Frenzy, I call Poe. You're saying the scientific worldview is outdated? Really? Coming from someone who (presumably) believes in a static two-millennium-old book, it's the height of hypocrisy to claim that dynamic ever-changing science is outdated. And, Galileo didn't have peer-reviewed papers? THERE WASNT ANY PEER REVIEW AT THE TIME YOU DOLT!

Jesse, you've been spending too much time thinking conspiratorially. Don't call us sheeple. You say you're a pot-stirrer ... well, you argue like a pot-smoker. Only a small fraction of your writing makes any damn sense whatsoever.

Posted by: SC, OM | February 20, 2009 8:01 PM

(Galileo didn't have any peer-reviewed articles either)

Bwahaha can't convey my hearty yet lovely lilting laugh. I actually hurt my fingers hitting them on a table when I flung them up laughing at this. My weekend is made. Hilarious.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | February 20, 2009 8:05 PM

People resort to name-calling when they are cornered.

People also resort to name-calling when fucking idiots keep bleating the same lies over and over again. Here's a prime example of a fucking idiot telling a lie:

Simply put, most of the people on this blog appear to be deeply insecure about their outdated belief system, and they have don't have any direct evidence that the variation/selection mechanism produced the complex systems necessary for life.

This fucking idiot spews several lies and I bet he'll whine that I call him a fucking idiot. It's not my fault that a fucking idiot is a fucking idiot, it's the fucking idiot's fault.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 20, 2009 8:13 PM

Sacred Frenzy, proving my point. Yawn, what a lying bore.

Posted by: romanov99 | February 20, 2009 8:15 PM

I don't disagree with anything in the response of Dr Gotelli to the invitation, either in detail or substance. I have to say though, that the initial email from the Discovery Institute was quite polite and it would have been completely possible to make the exact same points without being rude or insulting. If the entire debate on evolution could be conducted in the tone of the initial letter, wouldn't it be at least slightly less irritating for everyone involved?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 20, 2009 8:20 PM

Romanov99, the tone is one of science with facts on its side, versus creationism/ID, which pretends to be scientific, but fails to be scientific. So we mock them for the stupidity. If they don't want to be mocked, they can cease being stupid. That is to acknowledge creationism/ID are religious ideas, and should only be taught in religious courses. Until then, Mock, Mock, Mock.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | February 20, 2009 8:22 PM

I find a glass of 18 year old Scotch whisky works just as well.

Posted by: Bobber | February 20, 2009 8:26 PM

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | February 20, 2009 8:22 PM

I find a glass of 18 year old Scotch whisky works just as well.

After you've downed the whiskey, you can at least break the bottles over the heads of the willfully ignorant. Not that I would ever advocate violence against ID/Creationist types. Not when sober, anyway.

Posted by: Kel | February 20, 2009 8:32 PM

I have to say though, that the initial email from the Discovery Institute was quite polite and it would have been completely possible to make the exact same points without being rude or insulting.

Posted by: Lulls | February 20, 2009 8:44 PM

Bookmarked, and this blog will be followed from now on.

Damn, you guys are good.

Posted by: Dave Godfrey | February 20, 2009 8:53 PM

subrosa7 #581

In Mendel's Pisum paper, [it is] not only that it is antievolutlonary in content, but also that it was specifically written in contradiction of Darwin's book The Origin of Species, published in 1859.

If you had bothered to read Darwin's book you would know that Mendel was specifically criticising chapter five where Darwin discusses the "Laws of Variation" and sadly gets everything wrong because he didn't know how hereditary worked.

Mendel did not oppose Darwinian evolution, he hoped to add to it by showing where everyone was wrong.

Unfortunately Mendel worked it out and was the completely ignored for forty years. It took another 20 years after that to finally marry genetics and natural selection.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2009 9:02 PM

From Christina's naïve reposting of the DI publication page:

S.C. Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

This article argues for intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of the Cambrian fauna. Not surprisingly, it created an international firestorm within the scientific community when it was published.

Did it? I can't remember any such event, and I'm a paleontologist. Proceedings of the Biological What?

BTW, note the logical fallacy right in the title. The ranks of traditional biological nomenclature (like phylum) don't exist in nature, they are just conventions, and misleading ones at that. Stephen J. Gould fell victim to the same fallacy, believing that evolution must have been somehow different in the Cambrian than now; Dawkins trounced that by saying this is like someone being utterly amazed at the fact that all the thick limbs of a big oak are at least 100 years old -- what lamentable degeneration that only puny branches have grown since!

"I find the complete lack of evidence in any god to be enough. No need to prove a negative." -- Rey Fox.

Such a scientific approach, don't you think?

Uh... yes.

Duh.

The scientific method consists of 1) falsification and 2) parsimony. When two ideas explain the same evidence, and neither has been falsified yet, the one that requires more ad hoc assumptions loses.

Atheists, apparently, know what "God" is and are already disappointed and are trying to share.

Atheists think that God is not. That no such thing exists. I mean, please!

Mendel’s work specifically refuted Darwin.

That's what Mendel apparently believed his work was doing. But guess what, Mendel was wrong about that.

Mendel's work did disprove Darwin's (today practically unknown) theory of heredity. But that's not what we're talking about here. Here we're talking about his theory of evolution -- which in fact, and ironically, is much more easily compatible with Mendel's theory of heredity than with Darwin's! All you have to tweak is to allow for mutations, which are amply observed.

Do learn to separate people, ideas, and data.

published in 1866 (and yes that was peer reviewed)

Not that it matters, but peer-review hadn't even been invented back then.

Concerning Haeckel's drawings and textbooks, just plug Haeckel into the search engine of this blog. Top left corner of the page. You'll learn something.

If you really believe me to be misinformed or ignorant, don't call me names as this is childish, but seek to inform me of what you believe in a civil, adult manner.

Inform yourself first -- this is the Internet, after all; everything is just two clicks away, and maybe a few keystrokes in a search engine --, and stop pretending to yourself that you understand what you're talking about. Then we can talk. :-)

It is my understanding that it is a mathematical improbability for the first protein to have been constructed the way evolutionists say it must have been. What say you?

The calculations that cdesign proponentsists make on this matter always assume that amino acids had to assemble themselves spontaneously to produce a full-length functional protein. Of course this is extremely improbable. But try imagining an RNA world instead, and then add tiny little peptides to it...

What about the major gaps of the fossil records, which Darwin himself said was the major flaw of his own theory?

(He didn't say "flaw", obviously. He said this was one of the biggest potential problems.)

They've been shrinking ever since 1859. In 1861, Archaeopteryx was discovered. Immediately, the creationists asked for intermediate forms between this intermediate form and its ancestors and descendants. The discoveries kept rolling in at an ever-increasing pace, and just this year Anchiornis was described... google for it.

And that's just the birds! I can tell you the same story for limbed vertebrates (Tiktaalik is just the latest addition to a long series -- wasn't Archegosaurus the temnospondyl discovered in 1847?), for whales, for mammals, half of it for bats and for pterosaurs... Really, I could go on for days if I didn't have to sleep once in a while.

Even for rhynchosaurs. You probably don't even know what a rhynchosaur is, because they died out so long ago, but we have a nice little series of intermediates between them and their closest known relatives...

What about stasis in the fossil records?

Like many people you've misunderstood Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium. Both the stasis and the punctuation are only visible on an extremely small scale -- single species over millennia, not large groups over tens of millions of years. To see that in the fossil record, you need to look at diatoms that form the floor of vast stretches of the Pacific Ocean, for example; things like dinosaurs aren't preserved in sufficient amounts.

What about the fact that much of the research done on natural selection and mutations has shown that minor changes in species do exist but none studied have shown how those mutations actually produce a new species?

Define "species".

No, really. I'm completely serious. There are at least 25 different definitions in the (mainstream, peer-reviewed, "orthodox") literature out there, and depending on the definition there are between 101 and 249 endemic bird species in Mexico!

Under some of these definitions, speciation has been witnessed. Even in the lab. Talkorigins.org will supply details.

What about the statistical research done on the ability of earth to sustain life?

What?

What about irreducible complexity? Don't just call it dumb, why don't you believe it makes sense?

Because it overlooks the phenomenon termed exaptation: function follows form, not just the other way around. Yes, a mousetrap that lacks a part isn't capable of working as a mousetrap, but its parts are still useful as a paper clip, a cutting board, a spring and so on. Yes, a flagellum that lacks too many parts (more than Behe believed, but that doesn't matter) can't work as a flagellum, but it's damn similar to the Type III secretion system... a sort of syringe. Again, I could go on for days.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2009 9:15 PM

Gah. 29 comments are posted while I write mine.

I have to say though, that the initial email from the Discovery Institute was quite polite and it would have been completely possible to make the exact same points without being rude or insulting.

Polite, yes, but hypocritical.

I refer you to the very beginning of Gotelli's letter:

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.

Any more questions?

Posted by: Stu | February 20, 2009 9:24 PM

That is the funniest thing I have read in a very long time!

We aim to please. Dillweed.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 20, 2009 9:31 PM

Sorry DM, OM, but we are roused and must post our ridicule. Not to say your barb wasn't honed like a piece of obsidian used to remove the hide from a stone-age kill. :-)

Posted by: Stu | February 20, 2009 9:41 PM

Jebus doesn't like it when you lie.

Unless it's for a Good Christian Cause, of course. Just like murder.

Posted by: ConcernedEducator | February 20, 2009 10:11 PM

Concerning the old adage "Debating a Creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon; the pigeon knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock proclaiming victory."

Do what I did to Karl Priest of the Discovery Institute...to follow the analogy, when he started to crap on the board I closed it on him!

Our entire exchange can be found here; I'm the duck!
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins,page1#343559

Posted by: clinteas | February 20, 2009 10:17 PM

Ah,how nice to start the day with a well-done pwning by David M....

As to NPR,we get tidbits from that here in Australia on News Radio,and when I listen to them occasionally the comments often seem to have a right-wing or conservative bias,to say the least.SO Im not surprised that they would have a liar for jesus on.

Posted by: theReader | February 20, 2009 10:26 PM

Just like a kine to the cheese. What a befitting reply. I liked this most:
[b] 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.[\b]

Posted by: Sastra | February 20, 2009 10:31 PM

Sacred Frenzy #650 wrote:

But seriously, you guys would be taken seriously if you were able to engage in dialogue (you know, the way most adults do) rather than resort to vitriolic name-calling when people question your "Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it" screeds.

I suspect our creationist visitors would be taken more seriously if they ignored the 'vitriolic name-calling' and attended more to those portions which do engage on the issues. When people focus more on style than on substance, it doesn't look like they're interested in dialogue.

Darwin didn't "settle" anything. He set off a chain reaction of research and hypothesis and prediction and experiment and more research again that hasn't stopped yet, in 150 years.

Posted by: Brandon St. Germaine | February 20, 2009 10:47 PM

While I agree with the return letter, I disagree with the philosophy that scientists should be "above" debating creationists. It is the staunch superiority complex that makes it so easy for billions of people to disregard scientific proof of evolution. Because the nation's parents believe in God, science classrooms are under attack. The opinion of the masses is paramount in the furthering of technology and science itself. How long was the flat earth believed until it was finally taken as evidence? We have to prove science to people, not just write proofs. This is why Bill Nye and Dawkins are very helpful to our cause, and this particular Atheist is only making it easier for religion to keep doing its thing.

Posted by: Kel | February 20, 2009 10:54 PM

It is the staunch superiority complex that makes it so easy for billions of people to disregard scientific proof of evolution.

Posted by: Ragutis | February 20, 2009 11:06 PM

Posted by: Sacred Frenzy | February 20, 2009 10:24 PM

But seriously, you guys would be taken seriously if you were able to engage in dialogue (you know, the way most adults do) rather than resort to vitriolic name-calling when people question your "Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it" screeds. What a sad bunch of Fundies!

As has been explained to you and many many others, you wouldn't get the vitriol, mocking, or insults if you ditched the see-through concern trolling and instead showed up with a jigger of humility, a dram of honest curiosity and dollop of understanding of science and the subject of evolution. Hell, even without those, if you just showed a willingness to learn when things are explained to you, or read when you're pointed to a pertinent resource.

Act like a troll or a smarmy prat, you're gonna get called one.

Posted by: fred | February 20, 2009 11:10 PM

It appears Gotelli cannot handle differing opinions without blowing a gasket. The truth is that for all that we have learned through science, and have yet to discover through science, the odds of certain conditions 'just happening' are mindbogglingly remote.

Professor Gotelli's response above is completely rude and disrespectful. He is obviously feeling threatened by not really being able to answer the intelligent design arguments. Instead, Gotelli resorts to name calling and insults, which diminishes his position.

On the other hand, David Klinghoffer's request was polite and respectful of different opinions. Hopefully he'll find a more confident scientist who is willing to debate on the merits of what science has not been able to explain.

Posted by: Shaden Freud | February 20, 2009 11:25 PM

The truth is that for all that we have learned through science, and have yet to discover through science, the odds of certain conditions 'just happening' are mindbogglingly remote

I agree! It didn't just happen.

Posted by: Jack | February 20, 2009 11:28 PM

Dr Gotelli doesn't want to discuss flat-earth either.

He clearly is afraid of the things that science can't explain...

(my god ID people are stupid)

Posted by: Sastra | February 20, 2009 11:31 PM

Brandon St. Germain #655 wrote:

We have to prove science to people, not just write proofs. This is why Bill Nye and Dawkins are very helpful to our cause, and this particular Atheist is only making it easier for religion to keep doing its thing.

Dawkins does not debate creationists either -- he's been quite clear about that, and his reasons are similar to those of Prof. Gotelli. As for Bill Nye, I've never heard that he's debated any creationists.

There are other ways to promote science -- and evolution -- than through public debates which appear to make it appear that there is a scientific debate.

Posted by: ConcernedEducator | February 20, 2009 11:42 PM

Posted by: Christina:
Have any of you looked at the Discovery Institutes website or read any of their books and articles?
-----------------------
Why did you COPY AND PASTE THE ENTIRE DIATRIBE???
Sheesh! Is this one of the "debating skills" you learned in school?

Anyway, I recently debated (and crushed) a member of the Discovery Institute, Karl Priest - check out the entire transcript of it here:http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins,page1#343559

Karl claimed all of his evidence for ID was in his website:http://ednews.org/articles/33215/1/DARWIN-IS-DEAD-Leave-Him-in-the-Grave/Page1.html.

I've stared at that page until my eyes hurt...can anybody else find any evidence on this page?

Posted by: ConcernedEducator | February 20, 2009 11:47 PM

See comment #280 for clickable links to those sites.

How coincidental(?) that 2 days after I crushed Karl Priest, and he fled from the NPR forums, NPR goes and gives implied credibility to one of Karl's "peers" at the Discovery Institute:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/storyComments.php?storyId=100867217

Posted by: Ragutis | February 21, 2009 12:15 AM

Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 20, 2009 11:43 PM

You can't polish a turd.

I hate to nitpick, but actually it appears that one can polish a turd. Well, a non-metaphorical one. Naturally, it's the Mythbusters that did it.

Posted by: Ragutisr | February 21, 2009 12:53 AM

Posted by: Stu Author Profile Page | February 21, 2009 12:21 AM

Ragutis: that was my entire point with:

Puddle. Adams. Google. Idiot.

Whoopsie. Missed that, sorry. Great minds, eh? ;)

Anyways, it could be repeated another 100 times and they still wouldn't get it.

Posted by: Ragutis | February 21, 2009 12:57 AM

I typo'd my own nick! Beat that, suckers!

*headdesk*

Posted by: Stu | February 21, 2009 1:15 AM

Ragutis: for the record, I didn't even notice until you corrected yourself.

But when you did... spit-take of the day.

Anyhoo... where did all our dedicated ID minions go?

Posted by: Kelly | February 21, 2009 2:00 AM

"lies are for the weak"

My friend, I am the lone individual in my educational institution (and in my circle of acquaintances) who articulates a belief in the Triune God. I am also the lone individual to speak up in defense of His Word, to speak out against the abhorrent practice of abortion, and to support the defense of the defenseless around the word (regardless of how unpopular doing so may be). And no, I do not have a circle of like-minded friends to whom I turn after these things happen.

Am I weak?

These convictions, dear to me as anything in this world, are dismissed as lies.

But I have given up many advances in my career rather than betray them. I have been shamed and laughed at more than you with your (currently) popular beliefs will ever know.

To call religion (particularly Christianity, with its current bull's-eye status) an opiate is an exercise in absurdity. Few things in this life have caused me as much pain as my confessions of my Lord and Savior.

Here I stand. In the face of all human "wisdom and knowledge". In the face of such contempt and rejection. Why?

Not because I am so strong in faith. (Hardly! I am daily ashamed at my weaknesses and shortcomings!) No- because of what He did for me on the cross at Calvary. Knowing of such abiding, perfect love and sacrifice, how can I do otherwise?

We'll all answer to Him someday. That is Truth.

Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 21, 2009 2:12 AM

Here I stand. In the face of all human "wisdom and knowledge". In the face of such contempt and rejection. Why?

Judging by your post here, it's because you're a pretentious egotistical twit who enjoys drive-by grandstanding on someone else's blog. Do you have any serious questions, or just more empty bloviations?

Posted by: Ragutis | February 21, 2009 2:28 AM

Kelly, do you live in the U.S.A.?

Posted by: clinteas | February 21, 2009 3:07 AM

Gee,that Kelly is the real deal...
The lunacy,it is amazing.Got to love the human brain.

Posted by: ConcernedEducator | February 21, 2009 3:57 AM

Posted by: Kelly
I have been shamed and laughed at more than you with your (currently) popular beliefs will ever know.
--------------------------
And what beliefs would those be? If you have some meaningful insight, great! But if you are attempting to label evolutionary biology as a "belief", then you have just called yourself weak: "lies are for the weak"

Posted by: Walton | February 21, 2009 4:08 AM

Kelly, I don't think you're weak. I was a Christian for a long time myself. But I do think you're wrong, and I'd like, respectfully, to explain why. I doubt I'll change your mind, but I think constructive dialogue is valuable nonetheless.

The reason I left Christianity is, ultimately, the fact that it makes extraordinary claims without supporting them with any evidence. Christians, of course, believe that Jesus of Nazareth - a named figure living in historical times - was a divine being who performed many miracles and was physically resurrected from the dead. But all the evidence which it provides for this is a small number of anonymous texts of uncertain date and provenance, which contradict one another in places. There is no external corroboration (except Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum, which is generally thought to have been interpolated by later Christian scribes).

Of course, faith is all about believing things without evidence; that, in itself, is fair enough. But this raises a fundamental epistemic difficulty: where do we draw the line? How do we know which religious claims are right and which are wrong, if none of them are supported by evidence? How do we know that Jesus was the Son of God, but Mohammed was not a prophet? Or that Joseph Smith did not receive the Book of Mormon on gold plates from the Angel Moroni? Or that the Native American spirit gods are not real? Many of these beliefs are supported by purported eyewitness accounts, just like Christianity. So, if one abandons the need for evidence, how does one distinguish between what is true and what is false?

I also think the Epicurean dilemma raises a problem for all those who believe in a creator God, and who ascribe to Him the attributes of omnipotence and benevolence. Fundamentally, the physical and natural world is a harsh place. Tennyson had it right when he talked of "nature red in tooth and claw"; most animals either starve to death, die of disease, or are eaten alive. Not to mention the many who die in natural disasters. Centuries ago, before the advent of modern civilisation, the same was true for human beings, and in parts of the world it still is: most women died in childbirth, many people died in infancy, horrific infectious diseases were widespread, and most people lived in grinding poverty just above the subsistence level. It is human technology and innovation, not divine intervention, that has lifted us out of this miserable condition.

If, then, God is both omnipotent and benevolent, why did He create a natural world in which there was so much inevitable suffering? When you sing "All things bright and beautiful", you must also contemplate the fact that if you give God credit for all that is beautiful and good, you must also give Him credit for all that is putrid and foul, from tapeworm to the influenza virus. So if God is the creator, and He deliberately created all this suffering, how can we call Him benevolent? Conversely, if God was powerless to prevent all this suffering, how can we call Him omnipotent?

Liberal Christians will often assert that God "works through" evolution and other natural processes. They will also contend that "our hands are God's hands", so it is for us to "do the work of God" by making our Earth a better place. Such ideas are, of course, very difficult to disprove; but they beg the obvious question - what, then, is the difference between a world with a God who does not intervene and leaves us to our own devices, and a world with no God? And how can we know that we live in the former and not the latter?

Finally, I also take issue with the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and in particular with the Protestant tradition in which I was brought up. Why did Jesus need to "die for our sins"? If God is both omnipotent and merciful, He could have forgiven us without the need for a human sacrifice. If, conversely, God is bound by some sort of "fundamental law" requiring a blood sacrifice for sin, then surely He is not omnipotent? Christian teaching is simply not internally logically consistent.

I'm not trying to belittle or attack your religion, merely to explain (as concisely as possible) why I left the faith. Apologies for this long, rambling post.

Posted by: clinteas | February 21, 2009 4:15 AM

Walton,

you DO surprise me sometimes !

Posted by: clinteas | February 21, 2009 4:28 AM

Brent,

you point being?

Posted by: Brent | February 21, 2009 4:34 AM

Walton:

The Bible is internally logically consistent. If you leave out one or two ingredients, however, then it would appear not to be so.