Pharyngula

Posted by: Tully | March 5, 2009 7:57 PM

...what? WHAT?

Posted by: Kaddath | March 5, 2009 8:00 PM

Doesn't the second paragraph contradict the first one?
Wouldn't expect less from uneducated morons.
I guess he doesn't trust he useless omnipotent and omnipresent sky fairy.

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | March 5, 2009 8:02 PM

Oklahoma, Louisiana, Turkey, Tehran, Pyongyang, ... same thing, all containing some intolerant fuckwads.

Posted by: Siamang | March 5, 2009 8:03 PM

PLEASE let them pass this.

Remember when the word "Okie" was a slur that meant uneducated, ignorant idiot?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 5, 2009 8:05 PM

meh

I'm confident that if anything happens in OK, ERV will kick 'em in their communion wafers.

Posted by: DaveL | March 5, 2009 8:07 PM

Hold on, Hold on...

So they oppose the University of Oklahoma inviting Dawkins to speak because he holds opinions at odds with the majority, but they encourage the University to engage in open and fair discussion on the theory of evolution?

Did they redact the clause that said "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength"?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 5, 2009 8:10 PM

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution

If this is true, then they'd want Dawkins to speak. Thomsen is talking out of both sides of his mouth and out of his ass simultaneously.

Posted by: skyotter | March 5, 2009 8:12 PM

he's being Expelled?!

*hugs irony*

Posted by: costanza | March 5, 2009 8:14 PM

There's the problem...no matter what the intelligentsia (or illuminati or whatever you want to call 'em) have to say about matters evolution, the "average" American will say "no thank you". You would think that tenured teachers would be in a position to teacher proper biology in any case, but it isn't so. The social pressure of the community on a biology teacher can be immense, often leading to the quitting of the teacher, or possibly their removal, despite tenure (the teacher in this being unwilling to fight back).

Posted by: Qwerty | March 5, 2009 8:17 PM

Kaddath @ 3: I noticed the same thing that the second paragraph contradicts the first. I guess this is okay when you don't like evolution and want "academic freedom" to teach "the controversy" which is code for getting prayer back into public schools.

Posted by: Slaughter | March 5, 2009 8:18 PM

"... to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution."

As if Richard Dawkins couldn't do that. I agree with 'Tis Himself (#13) that they should *want* him in that debate. But what do I know? I'm a Zonie, not an Okie.

Posted by: mikespeir | March 5, 2009 8:22 PM

Dawkins must be doing something right.

Posted by: Qwerty | March 5, 2009 8:23 PM

One more thought: Maybe if Michelle Bachman were still in Minnesota's legisature, we would have had a similar resolution here! Fuckwads - they're everywhere.

Posted by: cyan | March 5, 2009 8:23 PM

The legislator authorizing this bill:
"Making no response to this person speaking endorses academic freedom"

"I respond that I oppose his speaking"

"Therefore, I do not endorse academic freedom"

"But I endorse academic freedom"

So: "I endorse academic freedom except in the cases in which I oppose the conclusions."

Is this legislator proposing this legislation due to his
(a) personal beliefs
(b) perception of the beliefs of the majority of his constituents
(c) disregard of physical evidence
(d) combination of the above
(e) physical evidence

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | March 5, 2009 8:27 PM

You know PZ, the only way to trump Professor Dawkins on this is to get yourself kicked out of the UN or something.

Posted by: Treppenwitz | March 5, 2009 8:30 PM

I see the condemnation, but I don't see anything about actually taking any sort of action against Dawkins. It's silly, yes, but hardly an attempt to ban him from the state.

Posted by: Joshua BA | March 5, 2009 8:32 PM

What I found most interesting is that he wants to keep him out because *gasp*: he holds views that the majority of OK citizens do not hold!!!

Posted by: Ray Ladbury | March 5, 2009 8:36 PM

Well, since intelligent desigh/creationism is demonstrably NOT a scientific theory, methinks this doofus could be hoisting his little fundie tuckus on his own crucifix.

Posted by: Aaron | March 5, 2009 8:37 PM

How long are people going to put up with this rubbish? If anyone can herd cats, Dick Dawkins can.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2009 8:41 PM

Richard Dawkins: banned in Oklahoma?

...

BWAHAHHAAAAHHAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

*wipes tear away*

*takes deep breath*

perfect.

I had to post this reaction before reading the comments, which are probably filled with essentially the same reaction.

However, for those considering anything different... this is a GOOD thing, not a bad one.

the more these fucktards expose publicly just how ridiculous they are, the more they do our work for us.

fucking. awesome.

Posted by: Crocoduck | March 5, 2009 8:45 PM

looks like a certain representative named "Thomsen" needs to be voted out of office.

Posted by: Atticus | March 5, 2009 8:47 PM

Am I the only one who thinks the second para is logically inconsistent with the first?

Posted by: TigerHunter | March 5, 2009 8:48 PM

Academic Freedom, my ass.

Posted by: www.10ch.org | March 5, 2009 8:50 PM

"THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma."

Fair discussion would exclude those who just push for their views without scientific backing, which would, of course, exclude all creationists. Perhaps they have not thought of that. Of course, condemning Richard Dawkins would fit into the category of "pushing their views."

"Doesn't the second paragraph contradict the first one?"

Nothing could be more obvious.

Posted by: prl | March 5, 2009 8:57 PM

In 1940, Bertrand Russell had his appointment to City College of New York annulled by court order because he was "morally unfit".

Posted by: Kristine | March 5, 2009 9:01 PM

There's no way that the Oklahoma Legislature can present anyone from speaking on campus, even if they shut down Richard's venue (which I don't think is likely). Since it is public property, Richard can stand outside and address anyone within earshot, if it comes to that. But I doubt that it will.

This is just a bone-headed move that is sure to give the creationists more bad publicity that they don't really need right now.

If I were worried, I wouldn't be laughing!

Posted by: Calladus | March 5, 2009 9:03 PM

Wow, PZ! You only get kicked out of a movie, Dawkins gets kicked out of an entire STATE!

Tentacles be damned... it's as if you're merely an "Old One" to the "Elder God" that is Dawkins.

Posted by: Space Bacteria | March 5, 2009 9:07 PM

My state absolutely confuses me.
But then, I actually haven't heard his arrival being advertised at all. I don't know if that was just because I don't pay attention or if it was kept fairly hushed...

http://www.oudaily.com/news/2008/nov/13/god-delusion-author-visit-ou/
Here's something from the school's newspaper back in November.

Posted by: xeric | March 5, 2009 9:11 PM

To: todd.thomsen@okhouse.gov
Subject:HR1015

Dear Okie nutjob,
In these dark and difficult times it's good to know that at least someone is continuing the tradition of hayseed redneck boobery that has made Oklahoma the laughing stock that it has been known for for so long. Rather than try to get your state out of the sinkhole of ignorance, bigotry and poverty that it has perennially been in since God knows when, you've elected and been elected to propose idiotic bills pandering to the ignoranti that believe that science is just a liberal conspiracy to make conservative Christians look stupid. Congrats. I'm not sure why an intelligent man like Richard Dawkins would even bother to try to educate you and your fellow Cro-Mags about the facts of science since it's inevitable that demagogues like you would lead your fellow Luddites in holy battle against reality with pitchforks at the ready. Most sane folks avoid your dismal state like the plague. And folks like you are one of the chief reasons. But keep on truckin'. It's comic gold.

Posted by: mrcreosote | March 5, 2009 9:14 PM

...not in Kansas anymore....

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 5, 2009 9:16 PM

I assume that in reality this resolution has no chance of being passed, and would have no effect even if were.
Is this anything other than a senator stridently grandstanding for his religious voters?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 5, 2009 9:18 PM

xeric #57 for the win!

Posted by: castletonsnob | March 5, 2009 9:19 PM

(With apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein)

*Ahem*

OOOOOOOOOO0-klahoma,
where the fundies 're pretty near insane!
And these fools for Jesus
do what they pleasus--
half an eye's not half as bad as half a brain!

TAKE IT!

Posted by: raven | March 5, 2009 9:22 PM

Remember when the word "Okie" was a slur that meant uneducated, ignorant idiot?

Still does. Where I used to live on the WC, out in the boonies many areas were settled by refugees from that part of the USA during the Dust Bowl.

Two generations later,
1. They still speak with a hick accent that can be hard to understand and makes them sound stupid.

2. Many of them are illiterate and cash their paychecks with an X when they have one.

3. They are very religious and their economically depressed communities have high rates of social problems such as domestic violence, crime, drugs, and alcoholism. Just like the old home.

Posted by: Rick Schauer | March 5, 2009 9:24 PM

Ichthyic said,

..."However, for those considering anything different... this is a GOOD thing, not a bad one.

the more these fucktards expose publicly just how ridiculous they are, the more they do our work for us.

fucking.(sic) awesome."

Right-on, man! Spot on.

Posted by: Michael | March 5, 2009 9:25 PM

Damn, what an embarrassment to be living in Oklahoma. I am jealous that I won't be seeing Dawkins at his sold out appearance in the state.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 5, 2009 9:29 PM

Don't these legislators have better things to do with their time?

Posted by: ESPness | March 5, 2009 9:35 PM

Obviously this person does't believe his all powerful god can strike down RD.

"I've prayed and pray for RD to be shown the light and it hasn't happened. Next step is to legislate against him!"

Come on god, get your act together!

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 5, 2009 9:51 PM

Sometimes, just sometimes, I wish atheism were a religion. Then we'd show 'em.

Posted by: David | March 5, 2009 9:56 PM

Following public outcry, Ben Stein was disinvited from the University of Vermont, where he was to give a commencement address on economics, becuase of his anti-evolution views. He wasn't even going to speak about evolution or ID related topics. I'm strictly on the pro-science, evolution, anti-creation side of the debate. However I see more than a little hypocrisy from both left and right. A curse on both their houses.

Posted by: Adam C. | March 5, 2009 10:07 PM

There's only one thing to do: Call up the University of Oklahoma, help them organise a year-long Darwin festival of speakers and events.

Posted by: Jesse | March 5, 2009 10:28 PM

Just FYI,

The Darwin celebrations, talks, and programs at the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History and University of Oklahoma have been OVERWHELMINGLY positive.

There are so many people coming to these lectures that the museum and university usually run out of room. There are many pro-science people surrounding the University of Oklahoma, and many great scientists as well.

Posted by: Monimonika | March 5, 2009 10:31 PM

*reads title*
*reads 3/4's of the post*
*follows link thinking, "This is definitely something from The Onion. PZ's satire choices are getting lame."*
... O_o!!

*genuinely surprised at the utter stupidity that exists in reality*

Posted by: badrescher | March 5, 2009 10:42 PM

OMG. I though OUR legislators (California's) were boneheads...

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 5, 2009 10:52 PM

rouble is, it's not really as insulting as they take it. To academics (especially British academics), the term "ignorant" often applies to specific cases. One is ignorant of such and such a fact. It means they don't know it. It's meant to be fairly neutral.

But, in many parts of America, calling someone "ignorant" is serious: it's a blanket label saying they know nothing about anything, are low class, uncouth. It's even worse than being "stupid."

So that means there is no option in there for those who are merely misinformed. I suspect Dawkins would agree that that's probably the largest category.

Just being called ignorant is not an insult as long as you chose to not remain that way.

Unfortunately, many creationists do.

Even the idea of learning about anything that might alter their established view is terrifying, so they don't.

Willfully.

Being called willfully ignorant is an insult.

Posted by: Kel | March 5, 2009 11:02 PM

To that trilemma of Dawkins, there really only needs to be two: ignorance and stupidity. And it's not an either / or situation, for the most part they go hand in hand. I have not come across one creationist yet who is either ignorant of: a) how evolution works, or b) what evidence there is for that. I wonder if there really is a creationist out there who can explain both (a) and (b), Behe would be the closest but as Coyne says "[Behe] has bought all but the tail of the Darwinian hog."

Posted by: hje | March 5, 2009 11:07 PM

Oklahoma, where the wingnut comes sweepin' down the plain ...

Posted by: tony | March 5, 2009 11:16 PM

Another step in the acedemic retardation of the USA, can only be a good thing for the rest of the world.

Unfortunately - as the economic meltdown has amply demonstrated - the world is somewhat closely interconnected with the US these days. The time when one could sit back, safe in the knowledge that one's borders were inviolate, has long gone.

As a self-selected resident of the US, I'm doing everything in my power to reduce and attack the wingnuttery*. It's incumbent on every 'free thinker' globally to do the same.

* I live in North Georgia - the wingnuts grow on trees round here, and the entire state is a freakin' orchard!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 5, 2009 11:19 PM

Another step in the acedemic retardation of the USA, can only be a good thing for the rest of the world.

I missed this but that's frankly a pretty ignorant view on the world. I'm not claiming any superiority in any way but currently, as the US goes, the world goes.

As better more educated US is only good for the world.

Posted by: Pohranicni Straze | March 5, 2009 11:25 PM

As a native of Louisiana, with some family roots in Arkansas and Mississippi, who is an alum of universities in Alabama and Tennessee and currently residing in Texas, I just have to say:

Go Oklahoma! You make every other state look good by comparison!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 5, 2009 11:28 PM

As a native of Louisiana, with some family roots in Arkansas and Mississippi, who is an alum of universities in Alabama and Tennessee and currently residing in Texas, I just have to say:

Go Oklahoma! You make every other state look good by comparison!

damn

As a resident of SC and born in NC you almost had the full Risk board of stereotypical southern redneck states going there.

Posted by: Trillian | March 5, 2009 11:31 PM

If Dawkins is banned from their university then I want the "God Hates Fags" guy banished from mine!

Posted by: Parker | March 5, 2009 11:37 PM

WHAT THE FUCK.
I just found out he was going to be in Norman today, and now found out our dumbass rep's don't want him. I was gonna make the trip from Tulsa and all. Every day I find something new to loathe about this state. Yesterday, in the editorials of the tulsa world, some jack off went off about the evolution 'myth' and cited 'expelled' as our atheistic attempt to stifle freedom of discussion.
This state's a fucking joke. Anyone need a rommate in more sensible part of the country?

Posted by: Pareidolius | March 5, 2009 11:38 PM

PICKING IT UP FROM @65!

Oooooooklahoma, Ev'ry night my honey lamb and I
Sit alone and pray
to turn a gay
into a god fearin' het'ro kind of guy!

Well we know that we're dumb and we're bland,
In the land where all science is banned!
And when we saaaaaaay!
Dawkins you better stay awaaaayyyyy!
We're only sayin'
Don't diss our god in Oklahoma!
Oklahoma O.K.
L - A - H - O - M - A
OKLAHOMA!

Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | March 5, 2009 11:43 PM

To be clear, when I said I hoped it passed, it was NOT for the purposes of making America a dumber place, but simply for the ammunition and ability to further promote Richard that it affords us.

Posted by: bobxxxx | March 5, 2009 11:46 PM

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.

Wow. It's impossible to buy that kind of excellent publicity. Congratulations Richard Dawkins.

Posted by: mary z. ryan | March 6, 2009 12:07 AM

This is to let you all know that not all of Oklahomans are ignorant, biased, religon-dominated, closed minded, bigots. We are open-minded, willing to listen to and engage in discussions, etc. But there are few of us here. I've been a resident of this state for over 50 years and I am, for the first time, ashamed to say I'm an Okie. It might have been a slur once, but then we were proud to be Okies. But no more. We, who are few, do our best.

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | March 6, 2009 12:17 AM

"I just found out he was going to be in Norman today, and now found out our dumbass rep's don't want him. I was gonna make the trip from Tulsa and all."

I don't think that this resolution, even if it passes, is going to prevent Dawkins from speaking. It appears to be one of those "sense of the house" resolutions that is no more meaningful than when the legislature passes a resolution praising the local sports team. (The resolution "asks" the university to reconsider, but I can't imagine the university will comply.)

Posted by: Barb | March 6, 2009 12:28 AM

Kaddath #3 --the opposition to DAwkins is his disrespect for people who disagree with him on science AND faith --his almost militant atheism and scorn (like the scorn on this blog) for persons of faith who ALSO point out that science does not PROVE Darwin's origin of species anymore than science proves God. In fact, to me, the facts of observeable science speak more in favor of design and designer than in favor of Darwin's theory. Tax payers are tired of paying for liberals to come on to our tax-supported campuses with their scornful views (not their scientific or religious views) while conservatives are denied the same forums --not always, but more often than not. Let him talk about his atheism or his evolution belief without scorning the opposition. He can't do it--but it could be done.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | March 6, 2009 12:31 AM

"In fact, to me, the facts of observeable science speak more in favor of design and designer than in favor of Darwin's theory."

Oh... TO YOU. Well, then, we should just shut up then seeing as evey individual, even the least educated and most deluded, gets his or her own personal reality.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 12:34 AM

Barb can't even explain how the basics of evolution work, her opinion on the topic is worthless.

Posted by: bobxxxx | March 6, 2009 12:38 AM

Let him talk about his atheism or his evolution belief without scorning the opposition.

Barb, evolution belief? You think scientific facts require faith? I find it impossible to not laugh at you religious hicks.

In fact, to me, the facts of observeable science speak more in favor of design and designer than in favor of Darwin's theory.

Translation: There's scientific evidence for magic and magic fairies.

Barb, thanks for providing more evidence for Christian stupidity.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 12:40 AM

You would like people to think that atheism is as capable of producing humane values as Christianity.

Posted by: bastion of sass | March 6, 2009 12:46 AM

ATTENTION! ATTENTION!

ATHEIST ALERT!!

ATHEIST ALERT!!!

This is not a test!!

I repeat.

This is not a test!!

An atheist is on his way to Oklahoma!

I repeat.

An atheist is on his way to Oklahoma!

All our attempts to protect against any possible atheist infiltration apparently have failed!

Our best hope at this time is the passage of an anti-atheist legislative resolution which may contain the atheist contamination!

It is too late to evacuate the State!

Shelter in place!

Use your emergency food and water supplies! Duct tape openings to your safe-from-atheists room! Use your emergency Bibles!!

Do not, I repeat, DO NOT leave your safe room until the "all clear" signal is given.

May Gawd have mercy on us all!

ATTENTION! ATTENTION!

ATHEIST ALERT!

ATHEIST ALERT!

This is not a drill!

Posted by: bobxxxx | March 6, 2009 12:47 AM

Barb wrote "My point is that mutual respect is a good foundation for dialogue on any issue. You assume that people are stupid and ignorant and uneducated in the sciences if they don't believe in evolution, common ancestors, transitions between kinds somewhere billions of years ago."

Barb, you have shown beyond any doubt you're stupid, ignorant, and uneducated. Why should anyone respect that?

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 12:53 AM

My point is that mutual respect is a good foundation for dialogue on any issue.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 6, 2009 12:57 AM

Barb:

Eat me.

that is all.

Posted by: pdferguson | March 6, 2009 12:59 AM

Barb wrote:

My point is that mutual respect is a good foundation for dialogue on any issue. You assume that people are stupid and ignorant and uneducated in the sciences if they don't believe in evolution, common ancestors, transitions between kinds somewhere billions of years ago.

Yes, that's exactly what we assume. People who deny evolution are stupid and ignorant and uneducated in the sciences. It really is that simple.

Stupidity and ignorance are not worthy of respect in any dialog, so there's really no grounds for mutual respect, now is there?

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 6, 2009 1:06 AM

crap.

Project Steve?

Posted by: Rey Fox | March 6, 2009 1:19 AM

"Scorn and mocking". Does anyone else think that Barb has come to us through a time warp from the 1800s? It would certainly explain her reference to lynching, that time-honored activity of God-fearing Christians.

Posted by: toddahhhh | March 6, 2009 1:28 AM

I find all the gold and crap at the Vatican offensive, so I'm off to convince the Illinois legislators to ban the pope from Illinois, wish me luck!

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | March 6, 2009 1:41 AM

You assume that people are stupid and ignorant and uneducated in the sciences if they don't believe in evolution, common ancestors, transitions between kinds somewhere billions of years ago.

Yep, pretty much.

But there ARE many REAL scientists who do not believe evolution is observeable today or that there is evidence that it ever occured.

No, there aren't.

It's a tragedy that people like you are allowed to reproduce - a crime against the human genome. You and your ilk are a waste of precious natural resources that could be used to foster the existence of people who are capable of actually making a contribution to civilization, instead of taking up space while waiting for Jesus to return.

Posted by: Barb | March 6, 2009 1:53 AM

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science

Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)
600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).

150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.

My husband would qualify for membership in the ICR, but is not a member. There are many like him who just haven't "joined" a group, but nevertheless share the ideology of creationists and/or ID theorists.

Proving my point --science educators should stop making evolution their new litmus test for who is a "real" scientist --because "real" scientists in science related careers ARE creationists. In fact, some atheists don't believe in Darwin's theory. To me, a layman, it's preposterous.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 1:59 AM

lol, most the people on that list were dead by the time the theory of evolution came out. Prominent scientists these days who reject evolution: *crickets*

Posted by: Hideki | March 6, 2009 2:01 AM

Barb

Most of the dead scientists you list were likely atheists but due to the political climate at the time couldn't say so openly.

I'm pretty sure you're fully aware of this though -.-

The simple fact is (as you've doubtless been told many times) that there is vast evidence for evolution and none whatsoever for your favourite imaginary friend creating all forms of life as is 6000 years ago.

Posted by: Escuerd | March 6, 2009 2:04 AM

pdferguson @ 135:

Yes, that's exactly what we assume. People who deny evolution are stupid and ignorant and uneducated in the sciences. It really is that simple.

It should really be "or" instead of "and", though not an exclusive "or". Either can suffice to keep one from understanding something. Of course, where there's stupidity, there's often ignorance.

Also, I think the list leaves out the possibility of intellectual dishonesty (which seems like the biggest culprit for some of the high profile creationists). One needn't be stupid or ignorant to fool oneself (though it sure helps).

Though I think I'm being fairer, I'm sure it'd be no less offensive to the creotards to hear that they are either stupid, ignorant or intellectually dishonest. A great many are all three.

And it's not surprising that the really dumb ones think that there's some actual science behind creationism. I was amazed the first time I talked to someone who thought Kent Hovind was making strong scientific arguments. Lots of people just can't tell the difference.

Carlin said it well: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 2:11 AM

Barb, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. So any scientist who claims otherwise is going to have a battle on their hands. But the place for that battle is not among the ignorant masses, it's among scientists. Ken Miller was telling the story of a scientist who felt that AIDS was not caused by HIV. Now all evidence points to the contrary, but this scientists still fought for his idea in the scientific arena and even had articles published on the matter.

Yet what are the creationists doing? They aren't playing in the realm of science, they are preaching to the public and are acting as a political front to subvert evolution. They aren't showing any respect to science or it's progress, they espouse concepts that were either invalid to begin with or have since been refuted, and they are lying to the general public in order to garner support.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 2:15 AM

Posted by: Barb | March 6, 2009

My point is that mutual respect is a good foundation for dialogue on any issue.

Bullshit. You have repeated stated the people like me (Homosexual) are evil. You are not showing me any respect. And I find it hard to respect someone who condemns people like me. Also, I have seen too many people who were kicked out of their homes by parents who believe like you.

As for your list, you have a lot of dead people there. Quite a few who died before the theory of evolution became as well supported as it is now. It is oh so easy to force words into the mouths of dead people. But for those who are alive, here is a little task for you. Ask them if they think that a heart beats for a lifetime without an external power source.

Stop talking about real science, you know shit about how it works. But here are two clues. First, the results are not open to a vote. Second, the results are not determined by what the taxpayers say.

And Barb, do you know the background of Wernher von Braun?

Once the rockets go up
Who cares where they come down
That's not my department
Says Wernher von Braun

Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 6, 2009 2:16 AM

@ Barb 145:

Do you take us for a bunch of idiots Barb? Your list include Sir Isaac Newton. Are you kidding me? This is exactly why you creobots/IDiots engender so much scorn: You have to reach back into history beyond the point the concept of evolution even started, in order to make your point. You list Newton's name, as if he was even familiar with Darwin's theory 150 years before Darwin formulated it. You're freaking pathetic, and this only displays your disingenuous tactics. And this is on top of the wild ignorance of the fact that Newton tried many things the church deemed heretical and off limits for research. You try to misappropriate his work first of all, and then try to assign to him modern understanding and critical analysis of concepts POST his death by two centuries. Do you seriously not see how you are in the wrong here? Leonardo Da Vinci and Gish on the same list as supporting the same thing?

This list is a horrific malediction on good scientists mixed with intellectual charlatans, all for the purpose of advancing stone age mythology. You are a shameless hack, end of story, and highly gullible. Lemme guess: The US is a Christian nation, the only one ever truly bless by your god, right? You're done. Your point of view deserves zero credibility or respect. Those you've chosen to align yourself with on this issue are thieves of dead persons' thoughts and positions and works. By the standards represented by this list, nearly anyone pre-Darwin is a sympathetic figure to your vain cause. Nice way to rig the numbers Barb. Sounds more to me like you and your group are trying to have your cake and eat it too, rather than facing the reality that real hard-working scientists, under constant threat from religion since time memoriam, are tearing down your precious little pipe dream with each passing day.

Your list is duly dismissed for the crap that it is. Next time try limiting the included individuals to those not dead yet.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 2:18 AM

Barb, here's a challenge for you. Read the book "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne and then come back to us.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 6, 2009 2:20 AM

Sounds like Hitler to me.

Funny you should mention Hitler. I'm pretty sure that Hitler did not believe in evolution either.

Posted by: Barb | March 6, 2009 2:24 AM

Communism is atheistic and no. korea is communist --even if Little Kim demands worship of himself. Yes, The Czars were cruel --the proletariat crueler in numbers killed by Stalin.

AS for ignorance of Russia --I know as much as you expressed --you may know more than I but you didn't show it here --you only bragged. I know Chrsitianity has a dark era --before availability of scriptures to the masses -- Any religion can be used wrongly for power --but the real teachings of Christ give no permission to the abuses of some cults and the Catholic Church. Governmental systems don't change overnight --the landed gentry and royals weren't eager to give democracy to all the people in the name of Jesus. But the Bible tells us every person is of value in Christ's eyes if he chooses to follow Christ --and even if he doesn't, we are obligated to serve the least of these in His name. The Golden Rule imples equality of persons --and thus, equal voice for all. The extension of grace to the whole world implies equality and thus equal voice.

Atheism implies that values are whatever we people want them to be --and we see where that has led in every country promoting Marxism.

OH the SHAME ( a blogger) --go read some works of those famous scientists. They were men of faith who managed to do science well. This list may have been a list of those with faith and those who didn't believe in evolution--but I thought it was the latter and not the former.

follow this address to a better list of modern creation scientists --and some others "since Darwin" who did great science

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Posted by: Barb | March 6, 2009 2:27 AM

gee whiz, kel, don't you know a phony when you hear one? Namely Adolph --trying to justify his social darwinism with religion? I guess not.

Posted by: Conor H. | March 6, 2009 2:28 AM

Aaron at 128, I love that fried pie shop! It's one of my favorite little bits of roadside America. Nothing like a fried pie and a Pearl Lite on a hot day.

And Barb's crazy list... ridiculous. Francis Bacon? That cat lived 400 years ago. How successful do you think anyone was in any sphere of life in London, in 1600 as a professed atheist? How much atheist philosophical literature was there? We didn't have synthesis of organic molecules, shit, we didn't even know about oxygen. How reasonable was it for ANYONE to be an atheist or even believe in a materialistic worldview? I would say not very.

But you have no excuse. You have organic synthesis, DNA, Mendel, Darwin, Sagan, Russell, potassium-argon dating, the Hubble telescope, I could go on... you really have no leg to stand on.

To reiterate:

Creationist in 1605 CE: Makes sense.

Creationist in 1800: Even Madison and Jefferson think something is fishy, but what's the alternative?

Creationist in 2009: Willfully ignorant toolbag or well-meaning slowpoke.

Posted by: Barb | March 6, 2009 2:30 AM

And you don't convert me either, Pareidolius. Nor impress me with all this knowledge you claim has been demonstrated here. I mostly noticed the ability to be disrespectful, scornful, arrogant, rude, --and religious in your beliefs. you are all monolithic in your beliefs and your approach. Be proud.

I didn't bring up Hitler --Kel did.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 2:33 AM

gee whiz, kel, don't you know a phony when you hear one? Namely Adolph --trying to justify his social darwinism with religion? I guess not.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 2:35 AM

I didn't bring up Hitler --Kel did.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 2:37 AM

Barb, you did not check your fucking list. Google the name of Wernher von Braun. And read the fucking things you cut and paste.

Also, you never answered me when I asked you about parents kicking out their gay children. Parents who believe as you do.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 6, 2009 2:41 AM

"...you are all monolithic in your beliefs and your approach..."

Spoken like a Grade A projectionist. Why don't you try truly being different for a few seconds by taking off your religious glasses and having a look around. You expect us to break our mold, but refuse to do in kind. Do as I say not as I do, no Barb?

Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 6, 2009 2:48 AM

"correction: I did bring up hitler --in response to someone who said I ought not exist because of my alleged ignorance --carbon footprint and all that. the blogger sounded like adolph in his disdain for someone he considered too uneducated to deserve to live.

you guys are dangerous."

I just searched this entire thread for "carbon footprint". You're the only one that ever mentioned it. Nice job making up personal threats of violence on your person BTW. When exactly will you be coming down off your meds to engage us logically? You seem entirely incapable of doing anything other than concocting grand schemes and stories, and stroking that martyr gland you developed in church.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | March 6, 2009 2:51 AM

I'm still waiting for barb to provide a list of (living) biologists that reject evolution.
I've got a feeling I'm going to be waiting forever.

Posted by: bastion of sass | March 6, 2009 2:56 AM

BlueIndepedent @ #177 wrote:

Do as I say not as I do, no Barb?

Well, she's probably using God as her role model.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 3:08 AM

Twin-Skies, it was a combination of eugenics and the worst excesses of antisemitic christian thought. The Nazi systems basically worked like this, Hitler desired some result and let his underlings fight over how to achieve this goal. So some Nazis killed because the Jews were the traditional enemies of Christ. And some Nazis killed because they though Jews were subhumans.

Just keep in mind, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS and responsible for running what became the final solution, came from a agricultural background. He was trying to set up up a warped viewed of the Roman warrior-farmer in Eastern Europe. And his ideas about eugenics was an equally warped view of animal husbandry.

Posted by: FlameDuck | March 6, 2009 3:12 AM

Unfortunately - as the economic meltdown has amply demonstrated - the world is somewhat closely interconnected with the US these days.

I missed this but that's frankly a pretty ignorant view on the world. I'm not claiming any superiority in any way but currently, as the US goes, the world goes.

I hope you all realize there are good, intelligent people in Oklahoma.

Proving my point --science educators should stop making evolution their new litmus test for who is a "real" scientist

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 3:24 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the Nazi's notion of an aryan superman fall under Eugenics, a concept that I recall even Darwin was strongly opposed to?

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | March 6, 2009 3:27 AM

@Blue Independent: I just searched this entire thread for "carbon footprint". You're the only one that ever mentioned it.

Actually, she's referring to my comment that she and her kind are a waste of natural resources. I stand by it. This civilization is going down the tubes, and I hold the Christian fundies primarily responsible. For nearly thirty years, they've been voting into office, at all levels, the conservative ideologues who've gotten us into this mess. America is unsalvageable, and we're taking the rest of the world down with us.

But it isn't your fault, is it, Barb? It's because of abortion, paganism, the "gay agenda", Obama the antichrist - but mainly because we liberals stopped spanking our kids.

And I love the bit about Africa needing more Christian missionaries - because it isn't as though Western colonialism, fueled by the Christian concept of divine mandate, has done that sorry continent enough damage already.

As far as the comparison with Hitler is concerned - I'm a Jew, but, in this context, I don't find it offensive. Coming from someone like you, it's a compliment.

Don't worry, Barb - Jesus is coming back real soon. You and your friends will get to stand around on a mezzanine in heaven, watching while your god roasts us alive for all of eternity. That will afford you all a great deal of pleasure, no doubt.

Posted by: Robert Thille | March 6, 2009 3:37 AM

Doesn't that bill call "most" Oklahomans morons? And how can published statements be offensive to 'views and opinions'? I didn't realize that views or opinions could be offended.

Posted by: raven | March 6, 2009 3:42 AM

barb the idiot troll:

In fact, some atheists don't believe in Darwin's theory. To me, a layman, it's preposterous

Very few atheists don't accept evolution. The only one I'm aware of is Berlinksi, an agnostic Jew, who also describes himself as a crackpot.

More to the point, the majority of xians worldwide don't have a problem with evolution.40% of US biologists describe themselves as religious, including some prominent evolutionary biologists. Evolution is taught as most xian universities including BYU, Notre Dame, most Lutheran, some Baptist, some Nazarene, and most mainstream protestant ones.

You don't speak for xianity in any way shape or form. Just your toxic trailer trash Death Cults.

Posted by: Oh, the Shame | March 6, 2009 3:57 AM

@Jeff Eyges:

Yeah, that was after the debate at St. Andrews with Lawrence Krauss and 2 others, at which Krauss reportedly demolished the ID "arguments" (I love that guy), and despite claiming beforehand they'd be selling DVDs of the debate, it is mysteriously nowhere to be found.

I've been aching to see it, too. :(

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 4:08 AM

Krauss is great. he needs to have more airtime.

Posted by: Logical | March 6, 2009 4:34 AM

Barb, you would not know what respect is even if it bit you on your arse. In fact, it is biting you on your arse at this blog. We respect your humanity so much that we are spending our valuable time confronting your blinkered and very dangerous ignorance. Your silly notion of respect is nothing than a ploy to sell your intellectually dishonest agenda. And we can see straight through it to your complete lack of respect for the people who post at this blog.

In short, you are a scary, immoral, hypocritical, and confused creep. Please do not worry about me presenting any danger to you, because if I met you I would run away in the opposite direction in abject fear, putting as much physical distance as I possibly could as fast as I could (perhaps the wind ensuing from my frantic, hasty retreat would cause you some discomfort, but that's about it).

Happily, I live in a secular community, and at times, when I have a chance to see the 'respectful' barbarity of Barb, I realize how difficult it must be for the American posters here to live with the pathetic, religious nut jobs represented by Barbaric Barb. Keep being disrespectful to these idiots, they have earned your disrespect over and over again.

Posted by: Strangebrew | March 6, 2009 4:51 AM

Some politicos love being pompous arse wipes!

Is this pond scum up for re-election or something?

Go! Richard Go!...give them hell...err!..actually on second thoughts ...give them rationality!

Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | March 6, 2009 5:48 AM

Barb writes:

"My point is that mutual respect is a good foundation for dialogue on any issue."

That is an opinion I do not share. Respecting relentlessly ignorant idiots is a waste of precious time, and wasting precious time is most decidedly not a good foundation for dialogue. That said, may I respectfully suggest you stop posting links and droppings from idiotic creationist sources and instead take the time to actually educate yourself about evolution? Your posts show that your "knowledge" of the subject consists entirely of hoary old bullshit, misrepresentations and lies peddled by the aforementioned creationist sources in the face of repeated debunkings.

Unless and until you do that you will neither deserve, nor receive, respect. Respect has to be earned. Deal with it.

Posted by: Bob Russell | March 6, 2009 6:18 AM

Perhaps we can all send Rep. Thomsen an email congratulating him on making Oklahoma look like it is populated by a bunch of moronic hicks....of course we should do this in a polite way.

mailto:todd.thomsen@okhouse.gov

Posted by: llewelly | March 6, 2009 6:55 AM

prl | March 5, 2009 8:57 PM

In 1940, Bertrand Russell had his appointment to City College of New York annulled by court order because he was "morally unfit".

The court case against Russell also included 'moral' arguments, accusing his books of being "lecherous, salacious, libidinous, lustful, venerous, erotomaniac, aphrodisiac, atheistic, irreverent, narrow-minded, untruthful, and bereft of moral fiber" (cited in Dykhuizen 1973:20). A month later, in spite of the fact that great philosophers like Whitehead, Montague, Ducasse, and Dewey defended the appointment and praised Russell's academic and moral qualifications, the judge favored the plaintiff, and rescinded Russell's contract on the ground that his writings menaced the public health, safety, and morals of the community. The court ruling went even further, stating that the appointment constituted a "chair of indecency, " and that it was "an insult to the people of New York." The court's order was unsuccessfully appealed, and Russell was not allowed to teach.

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | March 6, 2009 7:12 AM

The court case against Russell also included 'moral' arguments, accusing his books of being "lecherous, salacious, libidinous, lustful, venerous, erotomaniac, aphrodisiac, atheistic, irreverent, narrow-minded, untruthful, and bereft of moral fiber"

"I take umbrage, Your Honor! I'm not narrow-minded!"

Erotomaniacs - weren't they the little Looney Tunes characters?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 7:22 AM

Pete "total fool" Rooke, in case you haven't heard, freedom to travel within the US is not restricted by states, but the federal government. Also, given your limited mental faculties, you couldn't debate a muppet and win.

Posted by: JOrdo | March 6, 2009 7:26 AM

I wonder if Barb, while ranting about respect, ever read the parts of the bible where women were given up for rape instead of a male house guest...or entire cities and peoples were wiped out through gods will...i also see that she hasnt posted in a while, thats understandable i suppose.

Posted by: maureen | March 6, 2009 7:27 AM

OK, Petey, all you have to do is propose someone whose education and skill would make him competent to argue the opposite case with Dr Dawkins.

Of course, she or he will have to agree to do it without lying, without obfuscating, without claiming that the visual aids used show something which they definitely don't.

A fairly massive vocabulary, style and a degree of wit would also help.

I'm sure that if you can nominate such a person Richard Dawkins would consider the proposition with his usual courtesy.

Posted by: Allen N | March 6, 2009 7:38 AM

Petey:

As Nerd @213 pointed out, travel within this country is not controlled by states. This little piece of offal is just a sop to the godbots who vote these dolts into office.

"Why should Dawkins be allowed to experience hatred towards the religious at a public university?" Experience? Wrong word, lad. Editing for you, Dawkins has the perfect right to express his views so long as he does not incite violence. Most of the violence and hatred seems to come from the christers.

As for debating Dawkins - you might find yourself a bit out of your depth. Stick with trolling here.

Posted by: Carlie | March 6, 2009 7:38 AM

Hey, Barb's here! Hey Barb, you still haven't answered my question from last week or so. Which is more worth saving in an emergency, a two year old child or a petri dish full of a hundred embryos? I'm feeling rather hurt and slighted that you won't answer my question.

Posted by: TigerRepellingRock | March 6, 2009 7:41 AM

Thomsen is probably just mad because The Flaming Lips' "Do You Realize??" has just been made the state's official rock song. I guess he has trouble with a couple of the lines:

"You realize the sun doesn't go down
It's just an illusion caused by the world spinning round"

Posted by: JOrdo | March 6, 2009 7:43 AM

Barb has left...she's gone the way of the Dodo...she couldn't compete with intelligent humans.

Posted by: maureen | March 6, 2009 7:44 AM

So? I was at Leeds in the 1960s and am a trained and experienced public speaker but I wouldn't take on Dawkins!

To rout someone in a debate you first have to understand his case, with all its subtleties. You show little sign of that, Pete, unless you are hiding your light under a bushel - which I was taught was A Bad Thing.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | March 6, 2009 7:46 AM

Why not comment? Hence this!

fromBrian Coughlan
totodd.thomsen@okhouse.gov

dateFri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:44 PM
subjectRegarding HR1015
mailed-bygmail.com

Dear Todd!

Here I was thinking that the American public was finally shambling reluctantly into the 21st century by electing an articulate, intelligent president. My bad. Thanks for setting the record straight, and doing your part to ensure that the US (or at least Oklahoma) remains the laughing stock of the developed world.

Keep the hilarity coming! In these tough economic times we need something laugh at, and your effort to ban an academic from speaking at a University on the grounds that their "... published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.", will leave me chuckling for days.

At least you've got your priorities straight, eh?!!

*Guffaw, Guffaw*:-)

Regards,

Brian Coughlan
Ireland

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 7:50 AM

AN argument often levelled against people like Dawkins and Peter Singer is that they lack an intelligence of the heart.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 7:51 AM

It is not I that have forsaken subtlety, it is Dawkins. His reductive arguments fail to account for all manner of things!

Posted by: Allen N | March 6, 2009 7:59 AM

Petey:

I thought that you were suggesting a debate in your previous post.

Now - I have not read all of your debates on this blog - I have to go dive with my eels and sharks, open my observatory, and take the dogs for long walks - the days are just packed. So - would you please specify what, exactly, is the reason evolution is wrong? 25 words or less, no metaphysical crapola please.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 8:01 AM

Maureen

While you eat your fish and your chips think about what I have said. Perhaps, when you are in a better mood (your blood sugar levels lifted) you will be more inclined to accept the arguments I put forth. I have sometimes changed my mind somewhat on similar occasions.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 8:05 AM

Allen N,

At now point have I asserted that Evolution is definitely wrong. It has merit. There are other theories that have merit as well (ID etc.) an many great scientists believe these as well. Futhermore, it is dishonest of Dawkins to pretend there is no controversy about some of his conclusions. It is perfectly possible to believe in God and accept that evolution is true. Perhaps this view would entail God providing a helping hand or seeding life. It is not cut and dried however, and there is a controversy.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 8:06 AM

Pete "total fool" Rooke. You have nothing to say that anybody here is interested in. You know that. Take your faux concern elsewhere. Your god doesn't exist. Deal with it elsewhere.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 8:07 AM

At now point have I asserted that Evolution is definitely wrong. It has merit. There are other theories that have merit as well (ID etc.) an many great scientists believe these as well. Futhermore, it is dishonest of Dawkins to pretend there is no controversy about some of his conclusions. It is perfectly possible to believe in God and accept that evolution is true. Perhaps this view would entail God providing a helping hand or seeding life. It is not cut and dried however, and there is a controversy.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | March 6, 2009 8:09 AM

Pete Rook re: intelligence of the heart.

Well that explains a lot, next time, assuming you have any of course, try using your brains instead of your heart. It might, only might I say, stop you appearing quite so stupid.

Posted by: Allen N | March 6, 2009 8:13 AM

Petey:

Not talking belief - as Gil Grissom would say - "It's all about the evidence." Now - in 25 words or less (you ran over last time) what is one piece of evidence you find debatable which ID gives a better, testable explanation that evolution does not?

No appeals to authority, such as "many great scientists" either.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 8:15 AM

Petey, do you have any physical evidence for your imaginary deity yet? If you don't you have nothing but delusions. Follow the physical evidence to the truth.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 8:19 AM

I find it laughable that Pete Rooke thinks he has what it takes to match wits with Dawkins - especially over evolutionary theory.

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 6, 2009 8:24 AM

I for one would happily debate Professor Dawkins here in the UK. - Pete Rooke

That would look great on your CV - not so good on his!
(hat-tip: Robert May)

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 8:28 AM

I'm afraid I would have to put lots of work into such a speech and would have to take advice from experts. Besides the parameters have yet to be sketched.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 8:30 AM

Poor Pete the Fool seems to confuse evolution with atheism. Not all atheists believe in evolution. And it is not required to be an atheist to believe in evolution. Anyone can personally tack "goddidit", like Collins and Miller. But science cannot use god as an explanation or result of an experiment. So science is really adeistic. And will remain so, because "science works bitches".

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 6, 2009 8:34 AM

Remember people, Pete "If my brains were methane I would not have enough for a fart" Rooke is likely to busy making excuses for his Church insisting that a nine year old girl who was raped and pregnant with twins must carry them to term, despite the fact doing could kill her.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 8:35 AM

That is libellous. Such people speak only for themselves.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 8:41 AM

Yes ID happened because a few followers of a cult leader attest to the cult leader's divinity... Bring out what you would say to Dawkins. You mentioned that his position has holes, so demonstrate your ability to argue them.

Posted by: Not that Louis | March 6, 2009 8:45 AM

Point of information, Mr. Chairman. The resolution was proposed. Does anyone know if it actually passed?

Posted by: KatjaE | March 6, 2009 8:53 AM

It's hardly even true that the University of Oklahoma is a state-funded institution. The State of Oklahoma provides less than 20% of the university's funding. If Dawkins is being funded out of the other 80+% of the university's funds, it's pretty rich for the legislature to think it should have a say at all.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 8:55 AM

Well you won't know how coherent the arguments are until you have read them. I will be working on it.

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 6, 2009 8:58 AM

I have to get back to my studies. - Pete Rooke

Oh yes, Pete has lots of studying to do. He has to study the role of miniskirts in rape, bookbinding with a special emphasis on unusual binding materials, the importance of dental hygiene among milk delivery staff...

Posted by: Mr Z | March 6, 2009 9:00 AM

Having been to Oklahoma I'd have to say that Mr Dawkins should feel quite privileged. Clearly the state has spent considerable resources to prevent Richard from wasting time or money going anywhere near that shithole. The people that live there might like it, but I highly recommend giving it a miss.

While we're at it, the state legislature might be able to determine what and how public funds should be spent but by telling the school system what should or should not be discussed in such terms is clearly an effort to establish morality police. Doing so publicly like this clearly shows that Oklahoma has at least a few complete idiot who have managed to get elected. This does not speak well for the citizenry who vote.

I'm reasonably certain that if he were alive, Will Rogers would be packing his things and moving elsewhere in the wake of this action.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 9:11 AM

Well you won't know how coherent the arguments are until you have read them. I will be working on it.

True. However, we do have a pretty good history of how you argue here in this blog and if that is any indication, well, let's just say it's not very promising.

Posted by: Ompompanoosuc | March 6, 2009 9:15 AM

Just one fucking time.

They show up with the same nonsense we have all heard a thousand times and demand a civil dialog. They have no idea how they sound to us. They think they are being persuasive. Instead of researching anything, anywhere except "answers in genesis" they come here and want everyone to read their awesome arguments and debate them IN A NICE WAY. They lie to us and themselves about that making a difference.

Just one fucking time I want to witness one of these people recognize that they need to re-think their position, to see that they might be wrong, to see a fucking light bulb come on in their heads.

Someone tell me a story about this happening.

A couple of weeks ago, I thought I made an Episcopalian think, but I was mistaken.

Ok, on topic. This is chest beating to impress the ignorant constituents. That doesn't make me feel any better though. I think I have five minutes to email the dipshit and point out the contradiction in his own resolution.

Posted by: woody | March 6, 2009 9:24 AM

I spent 30 years in Oklahoma, between 1994 and 2000.

Oklahoma is a feculent, festering hole. If it weren't for I-40, I'd never set foot or tire in the place again...

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 9:46 AM

Thank you, Nita.

Some of the language (specifically analogies) I've used may have been somewhat OTT but all has been written in good faith.

Posted by: S. Fisher | March 6, 2009 9:55 AM

Nita... The topic is teaching science in our educational system and the intrusion of creationists trying to define the Bible as a book on science. Like you say...everyone is entitled to their own beliefs as long as they don't force them on others. Trying to sneak religion into science education by calling it "academic freedom" is the issue. Read the post. Read the previous posts.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 9:59 AM

Somewhat over the top? They were the stuff of horror movies. And you were so proud of them, you kept reposting it and you made it the centerpiece of your short lived blog.

And now you seek the shelter of a person who is not familiar with your history. If anything, my estimation went even lower. Thank you, I did not know it was possible.

Posted by: Allen N | March 6, 2009 10:02 AM

Petey:

You must be an insufferable grind if you are spending Friday afternoon at your studies. Get a life, man. Get a pint or two, chase a few lasses (you might get lucky) then you can do your homework. I might suggest vestigial organs as an interesting place to start.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 10:16 AM

Very funny...I might tun across someone like Janine, the self-styled "Insulting Sinner" though.

Posted by: Elwood | March 6, 2009 10:21 AM

Wow. This makes me want to travel the 1500+ miles to see Dawkins. I proably would, if there were tickets and I knew I could get in. No way I'm coming without a guarentee, though.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 10:22 AM

Rookie, the titles I have used are not self styled. The titles are from insults that religious posters have lobbed at me. But here is an insult I will gladly lob at you, bloody stupid git.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 10:24 AM

Behold, from the Rookie, the no true Catholic defense. Bloody stupid git.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 10:26 AM

Some of the language (specifically analogies) I've used may have been somewhat OTT but all has been written in good faith.

Ugh. I almost forgot about the analogies.

Those were not just OTT, they were horrible.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 10:34 AM

Those were not just OTT, they were horrible.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 10:36 AM

Rookie, I am not complaining, I am laughing. As for being vulgar, you should fucking talk. I do not know which I find more vulgar, your book bound in a loved one's skin or your rape fantasy based on mini-skirts. Bloody stupid git.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | March 6, 2009 10:37 AM

Rev. BigDumbChimp, they were not just horrible but symptomatic of a very sick misogynistic mind, and that is being kind about Pete Crack.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 10:42 AM

Maureen,

I thought you needed more time to mull it over. Obviously not.

Janine,

1. It wasn't a rape fantasy, in that I desired it to happen, although it was fantasy in the sense that it was a fictional imagining.

2. I don't have any such book. It was an analogy. I had read about such books existing in ancient times.

Posted by: Bishop | March 6, 2009 10:50 AM

More evidence for the theory that when the beliefs of a group are threatened, that they feel this threat because they don't really have faith. I mean if they absolutely accepted the truth of revealed religion, it wouldn't matter to them who was coming to speak, since the word of God is true, right?

I mean, I am certain that 2+2=4, so any one would would debate it with me is welcome, since I know they'll ultimately fail. So if these Oklahomians are so certain of the truth of 'revealed' religion, then shouldn't they also be certain that any debate with them would also fail?

Posted by: *.* | March 6, 2009 10:56 AM

And the reason he got pulled was because people spoke out against his speaking--including graduating students who would have been subjected to this fucktard. Graduating science students among them.

This fucker in OK is from the fucking government.

If you don't understand why that's unconscionable, then there's no hope for you.

Go back to school and take a fucking Civics lesson, you moron.

I take it then that if Fred Phelps was booked to speak at a public university and a state legislator introduced a resolution condemning him, you would have the same reaction. Or does that happen only when you agree with the speaker in question?

Posted by: AJ | March 6, 2009 11:02 AM

Again with the compulsory "Oh, I'm so offended" statement. I didn't know the American heartland was filled with such pussies.

Posted by: *.* | March 6, 2009 11:06 AM

What part of that are you having trouble with?

None. I just want to make sure that when the shoe is on the other foot; i.e., the speaker is someone with whom certain individuals disagree that the condemnation of said legislators will be just as loud. Somehow I doubt it.

Posted by: E.V. | March 6, 2009 11:08 AM

*.*:

I take it then that if Fred Phelps was booked to speak at a public university and a state legislator introduced a resolution condemning him, you would have the same reaction

Democracy means we give people reasonable rights to free speech and freedom to assemble. If you're a conservative fascist control freak, try China or any Banana Republic, you'd fit right in.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 11:12 AM

That's quite reasonable. Surely though the effect of such speech might have such consequences whereby it would be prudent to exercise censorship? For an extreme example consider British propaganda and controls during the war.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | March 6, 2009 11:14 AM

Ben Stein was not removed as an act of the Vermont House Of Representative. He was removed because having Ben Stein; using his right to free speech to condemn scientists as murderers; was an insult to the students who study science.

Also, it is not likely that Fred Phelps will be invited to address any public university.

Posted by: Chris | March 6, 2009 11:19 AM

I am totally against the State resolution but to those Oklahoma bashers (most of whom have never stepped foot in the state:
Just remember when the Okies left and went to California that it raised the average IQ of both states!

Posted by: Gavin Greenwalt | March 6, 2009 11:19 AM

If it hasn' been made clear over the last 50 years. "Open and Fair Debate about Evolution." means "Creationism gets a chance to speak."

Posted by: PA | March 6, 2009 11:21 AM

@309 -- a (negative) right of free speech obligates others to refrain from prohibiting you from speaking; it does not obligate others to provide you with a forum. The actions of the Oklahoma legislator are designed to prevent Dawkins from speaking and so would count as a violation of his (negative) rights. The decision to cancel Stein's address by the University of Vermont simply involved denying him a forum, to which he had no entitlement, and so Stein's rights were not violated. Re. Phelps: although I am not entirely comfortable with hate speech codes, Phelps' hypothetical speech could arguably be banned without violating his rights on the grounds that, unlike Dawkins, Phelp's speech would be designed to incite hatred.

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | March 6, 2009 11:24 AM

If it hasn' been made clear over the last 50 years. "Open and Fair Debate about Evolution." means "Creationism gets a chance to speak."

It actually means, "You immoral atheists get to hear why we're right and you're wrong - before you go to hell."

Fundies have absolutely NO concept of dialogue.

Posted by: Allen N | March 6, 2009 11:28 AM

Gavin:

ID folks can speak all they want, just not in science classes since what they do is not science. You do understand the difference, right? ID believers are free to submit thier exhaustive research findings to Nature, Science, or other peer reviewed journals. If they pass muster then those ideas belong as part of the science discussion. Saying "goddidit" is not science - it's religion.

Posted by: E.V. | March 6, 2009 11:30 AM

The only danger Phelps provides is the danger to himself. One day his "God Hates Fags" demonstrations at a military burial is going to result in a blood bath when some gung-ho Dad, brother or friend goes ballistic - literally.

Posted by: Cyd | March 6, 2009 11:34 AM

Not everyone in Oklahoma feels this way. Don't condemn the entire state for the psychotic, unconstitutional rantings of one idiot who doesn't represent most of us.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 11:36 AM

I'll give it a go.

"It's not repeatable" so it can be ignored.

People in societies since the dawn of civilization have reported similar experiences. One has to assume that humans have an underlying psychological disposition to experience these moments. Either it's inspired by God or it is an evolutionary bi product. Now even the people on here must admit that sociobiology is on extremely shaky ground. Any number of factors could account for these and the ultimate answer may be unknowable. For this reason, holding that, as people crudely say, God "done it" is every bit as tenable as other a priori reasoning concerning this issue. Their can be no reason stemming from empiricism in this matter because science cannot go that far. In this respect, I follow Newton in that it is not possible for science to say why gravitational force acts as it does. We can merely describe. Eventually the underlying cause become unknowable for science and religion provide An answer that I accept.

Posted by: Will | March 6, 2009 11:39 AM

So does Oklahoma actually do their legislative business in comic sans? because that would be fucking hilarious

Posted by: ollie | March 6, 2009 11:41 AM

"Which god? "

His Noodleness, of course!

Note: I posted a link to this article at the "Poe" blog "Republican Faith Chat".

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 11:41 AM

The God of the religious experience. This gets circular very quickly.

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | March 6, 2009 11:46 AM

One day his "God Hates Fags" demonstrations at a military burial is going to result in a blood bath when some gung-ho Dad, brother or friend goes ballistic - literally.

That's pretty much what I meant.

Also, as he ages and becomes more shrill, and as people react to him and his followers with increasing disgust, I'm not sure but that one of his young family members may become violent one of these days.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | March 6, 2009 11:48 AM

Pete On Crack: But one day, and possibly not too far in the future, we will likely know why gravity works as it does. In fact, the LHC when it finally spins up to its full potential, if successful, could well put us on the way to finally working it out. Again, another bad analogy on two counts. Firstly, gravity actually exists, and secondly, we can actually describe it in some detail now, even if we don't fully understand it yet, neither of which applies to your god.

Posted by: Rob | March 6, 2009 11:49 AM

The God of the religious experience. This gets circular very quickly.

Therefore you agree with the divinely revealed fact that the universe was masturbated in existence, as revealed to the Egyptian Priests?

It's no more asinine than Genesis and is supported by religious experience.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 11:51 AM

You miss the point. One will always be able to enquire as to the causes of the causes. All we can do is render them as general as possible.

Posted by: Me | March 6, 2009 11:52 AM

Since many of you obviously care about scientific accuracy, perhaps I should point out a bit of hype in the summary:

1. Resolutions are not binding

2. He's being "strongly opposed", not "condemned" or "kicked out".

3. The area in question is NOT the entire state of Oklahoma, but a specific event at a university.

This means that the passing of this resolution will have no legal effect whatsoever; he is still able to go and speak at that university if he desires. (They may decide to bow to state government pressure, but that is their decision to make)

That said, yes, I agree that paragraphs 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive (and pretty hilarious to read), and it's a ridiculous issue for the legislature to insert itself into. I highly oppose any government regulating who gets to speak at an institution.

Posted by: Dave Godfrey | March 6, 2009 11:53 AM

Pete clearly hasn't heard of String theory, Curved spacetime, or Loop Quantum Gravity, just three theories that attempt to explain gravity, and make testable predictions that we should eventually resolve- many hinging on the existence or non-existence of the graviton.

Newton lived at a time when they'd only just invented the vacuum pump- didn't know about atoms, and were still puzzling out magnetism. Its not suprising he didn't know why gravity worked.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | March 6, 2009 11:56 AM

Me: it is fairly safe to say that most of us get that. We are simply having a bit of fun with it as we did when PZ got expelled from expelled and RD didn't.

Posted by: Nita | March 6, 2009 11:57 AM

Pete Rooke wrote: Any number of factors could account for these and the ultimate answer may be unknowable. For this reason, holding that, as people crudely say, God "done it" is every bit as tenable as other a priori reasoning concerning this issue.

This one I'd like to make an argument on; there are literally thousands of cases where the Church, some religious headman or similar has claimed that a certain event is done by God (or Gods), but they've all later on been proved to have been caused by something else. Even fire was once thought to be supernatural.

On such a base one can't consider religious hypothesis on a similar scale as a hypothesis created by functional trials. If there is no such working hypothesis then religious hypothesises still can't be accepted as any kind of actual scientific hypothesis because of literally billions of differing ways one can interpret the hypothesis depending on one's mood, beliefs, place of origin..

Posted by: Rob | March 6, 2009 11:58 AM

Now if you refuse to accept God as a "first cause" then why are you willing to accept a naturalistic cause. It is not clear why it is more parsimonious to postulate a naturalistic explanation.

God is not needed by the theories. It is a complication, what problem does the complication solve? If it doesn't solve any, why are you adding it? How do you resolve any additional complications without resorting to special pleading?

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 12:00 PM

Posted by: Jeff Eyges| March 6, 2009

Also, as he ages and becomes more shrill, and as people react to him and his followers with increasing disgust, I'm not sure but that one of his young family members may become violent one of these days.

Phelps has not gotten more shrill over the years, he is the same loather of humanity that the GLBT community has dealt with for decades. And please forgive my bitterness but most of the mainstream ignored his incestuous caravan until he started picketing at the funeral of military personal. He did the same for victims of AIDS and gay bashings for many years without much notice.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | March 6, 2009 12:03 PM

It is not clear why it is more parsimonious to postulate a naturalistic explanation.

The natural explanation is that; the brain exists and religious experiences are a product of the brain.

The supernatural explanation is that; a supernatural being created the brain and religious experiences are a product of the supernatural being communicating via the brain.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 12:04 PM

*Than unexplained relations of naturalistic explanations.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 12:08 PM

NoR,

My point is that if we adopt naturalistic explanations we can never get further than the next explanation. Perhaps this is the case though, some scientists accept this I believe.

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | March 6, 2009 12:10 PM

Phelps has not gotten more shrill over the years, he is the same loather of humanity that the GLBT community has dealt with for decades. And please forgive my bitterness but most of the mainstream ignored his incestuous caravan until he started picketing at the funeral of military personal. He did the same for victims of AIDS and gay bashings for many years without much notice.

It does seem as though he's been getting more coverage. I thought it was because he was making more of an attempt to be omnipresent.

OK, then - can I change my reason to "Because he's a carbuncle on the bum of humanity"?

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 12:12 PM

But how can you even postulate that it is possible to end one level lower, as you put it, with naturalistic explanations. It is difficult to grasp even theoretically.

Posted by: Rob | March 6, 2009 12:14 PM

You are another trying to hide your god in the gaps which only keep getting smaller and smaller as science does its thing.

Let's assume for the moment that the god of the gaps exists.

What the heck is the point of worshiping such a being? I just don't see it.

Posted by: vhutchison | March 6, 2009 12:15 PM

SOME NEW NEWS FROM NORMAN,OK:

I had breakfast this morning with Dawkins, Nick Matzke (who is here to give a talk at a Zoology Seminar)and Dawkins staff I gave them copies of the resolutions (which Dawkins had not seen, but knew about). His assistant is making thousands of copies to hand out as folks attend his talk so that they will know what he is addressing when he talks about the resolutions.

Dawkins will also announce at the end of his talk that his foundation is giving Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE, http//oklascience.org) $1000 and will urge others to donate as well. The OESE web site address will be shown on a sldie. Thus, some good comes from this stupid stuff!

Part of the attacks from the religious right legislators is likely due to their disappointment that the 'Academic Freedom Act' failed in a senate committee. Three of us (OESE Board members) worked hard to get the one Republican Senator to vote against the freedom bill; it failed by one vote. We lobbied as members of OESE, NOT as representatives of the University and our handout only mentioned OESE as the author. However, two of us are from OU Zoology and they must have known that. One Senator called he University Administration to complain and try to intimidate. Nothing came from the call. OESE has been very active for the past 10 years in opposing these creationist bills and, so far, none have passed, although last year it took a Governor's veto to kill the 'Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act' that is now law in Texas. The bill is back again, however.

Now that the Republicans control both houses of the Lege for the first time in history, they think they can start giving hard payback for all of the years they were without total power. The hypocrisy of these klegislators is almost unbelievable - and they want to push academic freedom?

Posted by: Scy | March 6, 2009 12:16 PM

Religion is terrified because it knows it is wrong and morally bankrupt. For those people to face that is more than they can bear. If you knew you had the "truth", there would be no fear of opposing opinions. How sad for the ignorance that is faith and religion.

Posted by: Steve_C | March 6, 2009 12:18 PM

How hard is it to understand that there's no evidence for another level.

It's just wishful thinking and mythology.

There is no level above this one. Other dimensions? Possibly.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 12:18 PM

Patricia, how very insightful of you. You, NoR, and Janine are what I think of as the gruesome trio, spewing hate whenever you catch sight of my name.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 12:21 PM

Pete, if you ever quit spewing woo, in the form of your imaginary god, people will not respond to you with invective. Keep your god to yourself. And keep yourself to your blog. That is the safest way.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | March 6, 2009 12:26 PM

Rob, very true. Additionally, we are almost at the point where the only gaps left that are small enough for this god to hide in means that he would have to be below the plank length in size. Or perhaps he is hiding in a string somewhere. Either way, that is one titchy god. :)

Posted by: vhutchison | March 6, 2009 12:27 PM

#375. Please forgive the typos. I am madly trying to respond to a flood of e-mails on these resolutions.

I need to emphasize that there are two resolutions - one against Dawkins, the other primarily against the OU Zoology Department for their statement on evolution, etc. For the record, Zoology is not a sponsor of Dawkins talk, but is a co-sponsor of several other Darwin Year events. The ignorant legislator author of these resolutions does not realize that many biology departments (maybe most) in the U.S. have similar statements supporting evolution, including Oklahoma State University.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 6, 2009 12:32 PM

spewing hate whenever you catch sight of my name.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | March 6, 2009 12:32 PM

DUH! Planck not plank, bloody spellchecker :)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 12:36 PM

Pete, until you show physical evidence for your metaphysical ramblings, you have nothing. We know that, as we have been through this many times before with other people. Keep your god to yourself, unless you are willing to show physical evidence for god. This is science blog. Put up or shut up until you can put up. Welcome to science.

Posted by: Allen N | March 6, 2009 12:38 PM

Petey:

Clearly, you have nothing by way of evidence to support your views, just opinions and another version of the regression question. You appear to be flumoxed by the idea that we cannot know everything, so you need a big sky daddy to be the ultimate explanation. Having seen you god get repeatedly demoted, you fall back on the "what came before that?" routine. In science, the answer is "We may not know right now, but we are looking into it."

Grissom - Google CSI - it's a reference understood over here in the colonies.

Since you appear to be just another artful dodger, perhaps you should return to your studies. Let me suggest vertebrate embryology and comparative anatomy classes if you have not taken them already.

Posted by: Patricia the Vulgar, OM | March 6, 2009 12:41 PM

Ditto. If you weren't such an idiot Pete we wouldn't rub your nose in it.

Show us your god and we'll quit. Until then I'm going to laugh at you every time your sick, sorry ass shows up here.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 12:45 PM

Rookie, you did not answer my question. Did I ever comment on it?

Posted by: Louis | March 6, 2009 12:47 PM

Pete,

You sense that you've reached an impasse in this discussion?

Excuse me whilst I roll around on the floor laughing at you and you arrogant presumption.

What people have been trying to tell you, with varying degrees of "nice" is that you had reached that impasse BEFORE you engaged in any discussion here or elsewhere. Your errors of thought are YOURS to correct. People will help but, to varying degrees, will come to a point where your obvious willingness to lie and weasel for your faith becomes odious to them. They will deal with that odiousness in different ways.

People here have recommended various biological topics for you to study. I'd say don't waste your time, study some basic philosophy instead. You appear to be as yet unequipped to deal with science in any meaningful fashion.

Louis (That one!)

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 12:49 PM

"Show us your God"

I'm hiding him from you...

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 12:53 PM

Louis,

I too can recommend plenty of texts for you to study. Start with a book that's found in every hotel room in America: the Bible.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 12:56 PM

I will answer the question, asshole. No, I did not. I do not go out of my way to go into blogs with beliefs different from mine and create a shit storm. You, on the other hand, are here to provoke. You learn nothing. You have no respect for other people's experience and knowledge.

To you do not use bad words. You argue in bad faith. You preach to us. And you cannot bother to get your facts straight. You are a bloody stupid git.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 1:00 PM

Like I said, an impasse.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 1:02 PM

What precipitated your change of heart?

Posted by: anti-supernaturalist | March 6, 2009 1:02 PM

. . . Dawkins you lucky sod. Turned away from wading into one of our major cesspools -- some god or other must be working the juju for y'all.

** Sanitize the State, stop all government support of religious institutions **

Mr. Obama just doesn’t get it.

Xians are oppressors in the US. They are not the oppressed. They make jihad against women and their rights not to be dominated by male throwbacks to 19th century hypocritical puritanism. (The pro-birth idiots, male and female.)

Persecute fundies? Sure. Get rid of their unconstitutional special status: tax their property, tax their income, de-fund their so-called faith-based initiatives. Then we’ll see how long their pernicious special interest groups last.

Where's our just restitution for 225 years of xians enforcing prig morality and unlawful control, especially at the state, county, and local levels.

A secular state ought to stop forcing us to support xian con men, liars, pedophiles, politicos . . . who cram their non-existent god and perverted values down our throats.

“Crush the infamy.” -- Voltaire

anti-supernaturalist

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | March 6, 2009 1:05 PM

Actually reading the wholly babble as well as the so called holy books of the other major religions and thinking for myself.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 1:08 PM

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009

Like I said, an impasse.

The only impasse is the fucking boulder in your head, blocking any possibility of learning and thought. I mean, just what kind of knowledge and training do you have that allows you to question what paleontologist are doing?

It still seems to me that it might have painted a false picture, as it were. Perhaps they don't sit like that, perhaps it was formed after collapsing ill in a heap, after digging, scrounging, fighting, jumping, anything, giving birth... They apparently recognize the tracks but how can they know what it was doing?

Were you raising any questions that they have not considered many times over? Stupid bloody git.

Posted by: Liberal Atheist | March 6, 2009 1:13 PM

Why is deep ignorance and religious delusions something that you don't have to be ashamed of anymore? When did that happen? Who decided it's ok to be an unlettered fool? Why is it ok to say that certain scientists shouldn't be welcomed in their state just because according to that bill, most people are ignorant? Shouldn't that be a reason to invite more scientists to hold lectures and talks? How come they don't realise they look like fools in the eyes of sane people?

Posted by: eddie | March 6, 2009 1:15 PM

Rooke:

Yet another disgusting coward that's complicit with the rape of children. Where were you last night when you were called upon to speak out agains the evil?

Complicity with a philosophy that punishes rape victims and those who help them is equally evil as rape itself.

Which part of 'go fuck yourself you stinking pervert maggot' don't you understand?

Posted by: Patricia the Vulgar, OM | March 6, 2009 1:16 PM

You should stop digging Pete. You're into the stoopid over your head.
I hope you live in Oklahoma.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 1:17 PM

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009

You must not take comfort in the consensus of the masses. They have been wrong many times before.

I take as much comfort in the consensus of the masses and I do from self deluded individuals.

If it were other wise, I would be a christian who believed that god directed evolution.

Stupid bloody git.

Posted by: Louis | March 6, 2009 1:17 PM

Pete,

I've read the bible several times. Interesting book. Not much more interesting than the torah, talmud, qu'ran, bhagavad gita, guru granth sahib...... Do you get my point?

Are you perhaps unaware that people can, and have, read your holy book and seen it for what it is? Do you realise that the philosophical naivety and poor argumentation you demonstrate HERE is evidence that you have either not read any philosophy or not understood any? If you had you'd be making better arguments, not trivially easy to refute pseudo-profundities. Take a course on epistemology, you'll be amazed how enlightening it is.

Louis

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | March 6, 2009 1:22 PM

@Patricia the Vulgar, OM: Sadly, he is from my part of the world, the UK. See, even we are not free of the stoopid, though admittedly, it is nowhere near as bad as the US.

Posted by: Sam | March 6, 2009 1:22 PM

"all other scientific theories"
Is that implying that intelligent design is a scientific theory?

Posted by: Allen N | March 6, 2009 1:24 PM

Petey:

I don't see the need for an impasse. There have been a number of questions posed you could respond to yet you remain silent. Don't tell me you don't have the knowledge background to discuss science topics on a science blog. You can get real debate here, but first get your poop in a group. You're like the poor sod who brings a knife to a gun fight.

As for restricting access to your blog, why not just do Facebook and then you can "friend" only those who agree with you.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 1:25 PM

No, and I don't believe that it is necessarily a bad thing (that democratisation).

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 1:27 PM

You must not take comfort in the consensus of the masses. They have been wrong many times before.

Physician, heal thyself.

Apply that to Religion Pete.

Pete, once again, you are not getting how science works.

Numbers in science agreeing is a matter of the numbers in science being able to replicate the findings. To see the data and evidence and come to the same conclusions themselves via replication of the research. Or at the least agreeing with the methods that brought the scientist to the conclusion.

The difference is it is checkable. If one scientist wants to check another, they can take the same evidence and see where it leads them. That's how it works Pete.

You continue to have a hard time with this notion despite the fact we've had to tell you this ad nauseum.

Posted by: Josh | March 6, 2009 1:27 PM

Peer review, but also complex mathematics which are at the foundation of many technologies/sciences.

Pete, could you restate this? I haven't got a clue where you were headed with this.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 1:28 PM

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009

Dogma can be very dangerous, especially if adopted in an unquestioning manner.

Witness the people who attacked Webster Cook and tried to get him expelled. Bloody stupid git.

Posted by: Patricia the Vulgar, OM | March 6, 2009 1:28 PM

John, Really? I would never have guessed Retard Rooke was from the UK.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 1:33 PM

Josh, I don't really remember.

Patricia, I had forgotten the tendency of people in the US to accuse people they don't understand of mental incapability.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | March 6, 2009 1:34 PM

Well looky here, the hateful trio posted all in a row. Proof that this is an evil place.

Louis, I would be even lower than that. I would never have a man as a head of my household, I could not graciously submit. It is not my orientation.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 1:36 PM

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009

Patricia, I had forgotten the tendency of people in the US to accuse people they don't understand of mental incapability.

But you make that accusation so easy to do. Bloody stupid git.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 1:37 PM

Rev., it's more brains on the same problem acting as verification.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 1:41 PM

Pete, take some science classes. You have no real idea how science works. And I speak as a 30+ year practitioner of science. Science has things like peer review built in to help ensure the integrity of the enterprise. Any mistakes are acknowledged and corrected. Science divorced god a while back, and there will not be a reconciliation. Religion will either have to adjust to science or it will wither away.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 1:42 PM

Louis,

Where are you located?

Posted by: Louis | March 6, 2009 1:43 PM

Janine,

I don't mind being allowed to share the headship of my household with a woman, that IS my orientation! ;-)

As for graciously submitting: only on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and alternate Sundays.

Tee hee hee.

Louis

P.S. Aside re your comment regarding Phelps' current fame: I've been a long time campaigner for equal rights for gay people. My whole adult life in fact. Nothing virtuous on my part, it's pure self interest. It doesn't matter that I'm not gay, I know full well that after the fundies/prudes are done with regulating YOUR sex life they're going to come after MINE (not that they don't try already). I'd rather stop them a little bit earlier than that! ;-)

Posted by: RLWemm | March 6, 2009 1:44 PM

The proposed legislation refers to the "theory of evolution". Isn't it the "theory of natural selection" which explains how the "fact of evolution" results in new species which is offensive to some of the State's residents? If so, would this inaccurate language invalidate the legislation, if passed? Could we mount a formal challenge on these grounds?

Posted by: E.V. | March 6, 2009 1:45 PM

"Come out foul demons of Homoseculars and Lesbiterians! Of Bi curiousities and Transneutered genders! Can I have an Amen? Hallelujah! Now who ever wants to meet me in the Baptistry just come on in! Get on your knees, open your mouths and let Jebus into your hearts! Oh Lordy Lord Lord! Hep me Jebus! Hep me!!!!"

Hmmmm, why are so many preachers on the DL?

Posted by: Louis | March 6, 2009 1:47 PM

Pete,

I'm located in London-ish. Why? Are you going to come and picket my godless abode and workplace with prim little banners?

I presume from your comments re: King's (IIRC) that you live in London. If so, they have (IIRC again) a decent philosophy dept. Get over there and gain some basic perspective and knowledge. It'll do you the power of good.

Louis

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 1:48 PM

Rev., it's more brains on the same problem acting as verification.

Ok that's a pretty thin description of the process. But we'll go there.

And how do they verify?

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 1:49 PM

You recall correctly, and I was merely interested. The UK is for some reason far more Godless than the US.

Posted by: tony | March 6, 2009 1:50 PM

Dogma can be very dangerous, especially if adopted in an unquestioning manner

WTF?

The whole point of [b]Dogma*[/b]is that is may not be, and is not, questioned!

That's why we call people like you, who refuse to budge based on presented contrary evidence, dogmatic.

Idiot.

* Dogma: [n] a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof; a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 1:54 PM

Rev, Despite what you may think I have a full understanding of peer review as a process. It is probably the best method devised for determining what can be called knowledge and what cannot. Theologians also engage in peer review in a sense.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 1:57 PM

Dogma,

You will find very few theologians who readily accept dogma. Yes it's important but in many case it is impossible to ascertain why said dogma should be held as infalliable. I am fully aware of this.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 1:57 PM

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009

NoR,

I will content myself with philosophy/

In the interest of all that is truthful, would that not be theology. Bloody stupid git.

Louis, your snark fu is mighty. I would not want to cross paths with you. But I will say it is a good thing that London is vast. Would not want the Rookie finding you. The Rookie is oblivious to snark fu.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 2:02 PM

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009

Dogma,

You will find very few theologians who readily accept dogma. Yes it's important but in many case it is impossible to ascertain why said dogma should be held as infalliable. I am fully aware of this.

Yet you have nothing to say about Webster Cook and you dismiss the case of the raped nine year old girl as a case of "No True Catholic". Bloody stupid git.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 2:04 PM

Rev, Despite what you may think I have a full understanding of peer review as a process. It is probably the best method devised for determining what can be called knowledge and what cannot. Theologians also engage in peer review in a sense.

Pete I just wanted to verify because you seem to have such an issue understanding the process that science is supported and verified.

How does a Theologian verify what they are "peer reviewing"?

Posted by: Louis | March 6, 2009 2:05 PM

@ Tony #472:

Sorry I should have clarified. Test matches test the civility, manners and politeness of any team OPPOSING England. We can, of course, do anything we like.* Honestly, didn't you all get the memo?

*Except, it would appear, in the presence of a South African referee. Ooooh I didn't go there did I? Yes I did and dammit....actually it's a joke, the reffing was fine! We've just got a pack of over ambitious donkeys atm. Johnson needs to sit on them. Hard! Anyway, enough rugby derailerisation.

@ Janine # 475:

You have my thanks, it is always nice to have one's meagre talents recognised by a GrandMistress of the Snark.

{bows}

Anyway, I'd feel sorry for Pete encountering me. I take far less prisoners in real life. Real life is far too short for moron-tolerance. On line I can even be......nice.....well, sort of.

Louis

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 2:09 PM

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009

Whether they're Catholic or not is irrelevant. The Cook incident was an act of incitement and hatred.

Yeah, that Bill Donahue is a hate filled blow hard bastard.

Posted by: Louis | March 6, 2009 2:10 PM

John Phillips,

My envy.

You has it.

Louis

Posted by: Rayven Alandria | March 6, 2009 2:11 PM

I was planning to attend but decided not to. There are no advanced tickets and they expect a couple thousand people to show up to stand in line. Some are planning to get there 12 hours early. You know there will be protests by nutcase christian groups and violence may break out. It's not a place I want to take my son to so we decided not to attend. Bummer, I was really looking forward to seeing Dawkins.

When I say Oklahoma is the worst place we have ever lived, I truly mean it. I cannot wait to get restationed and get the hell out of this disgusting place.

Dawkins needs to take precautions, this is one area where his life may actually be in danger, seriously. PZ, please tell him to be careful.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 2:16 PM

To engage in theological peer review usually require taken a certain premise as a given (to a lesser extent this is true in science as well) and evaluating it from there for logical inconsistency and all of the fallacies. What can be verified is (e.g. issues of translation, historical fact etc.)

The comparison of what scientists take as a given and what theologians take is equivocation.

Give me a comparison of the givens from each group above and explain to me how they are similar. Maybe I'm just confused what you mean.

Posted by: Patricia the Vulgar, OM | March 6, 2009 2:17 PM

I can't wait to hear what Dawkins thinks of this incident. Hopefully now he will understand how deep the stoopid is here in the US.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 2:21 PM

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009

Please, don't feign ignorance. I'm off, until next time...

Oh Rookie, there is no need to point that out, you are always off. Way off.

Patricia, how bent are the tines of your fork from sticking it in the Rookie's thick hide?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 2:23 PM

Please, don't feign ignorance. I'm off, until next time...

Was that directed at me?

No I'm genuinely interested in what you think are equivalent "givens" in scientific peer review and theological peer review.

You running off is at a convenient time.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 2:28 PM

That is a disturbing image, and Rev, the review it in the same manner that one would review literature in a journal. It doesn't deal with empirical facts and so cannot be treated in the same manner.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 2:29 PM

I guess you go through a lot of forks. This must be an expensive hobby.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | March 6, 2009 2:30 PM

Louis, one of the advantages of the college I went to for my secondary education in the sixties was that apart from Caerwyn James we also had two other ex Welsh internationals as teachers and coaches. We even hosted the Fijians when they toured Wales and played against them for fun when they trained with us. FSM I feel old remembering all that :)

Posted by: CJO | March 6, 2009 2:33 PM

It doesn't deal with empirical facts and so cannot be treated in the same manner.

So, it's totally the same if you ignore the fact that it's completely different.

Praise the Lord!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 2:35 PM

That is a disturbing image, and Rev, the review it in the same manner that one would review literature in a journal. It doesn't deal with empirical facts and so cannot be treated in the same manner.

No Pete I'm asking you what are the equivalent givens you are referencing? That feels like you are sidestepping my question so as not to have to answer it.

But ok as long as you admit they aren't actually dealing with anything based in reality. Only with stories in a book. Like literature.

But that brings up the question. What are the reviewing for? Consistency with the Bible? Which version? Which contradictory story in the Bible?

Seems to me using theological "peer review" in the same sentence as scientific peer review is a bit dishonest.

They are nothing alike.

So I'm still curious. Why do you think they are similar?

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | March 6, 2009 2:38 PM

Rev. BDC, sounds to me like what Pete On Crack calls peer review is actually more like proof reading and fact checking against relevant documents than actual peer review. Why I am not surprised that he erroneously tries to conflate the two.

Posted by: tony | March 6, 2009 2:41 PM

Rev. I think Pete simply misspelled...

it's Theological pee-er review. They all get round a bucket, piss into it, and read the divination from the color, or smell, or the distillate, or evaporate, or something.

It's that English pronunciation screwing everything up, methinks!

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 2:43 PM

There are laws that govern the universe that go unquestioned in science(you start with a premise). It is in that sense that I was referring to an equivalence. You don't debate the underlying issue the conclusion based on the things considered to be matters of fact.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 2:46 PM

Blueelm,

I have no desire to draw a line in the sand between me and everyone elde.

Posted by: tony | March 6, 2009 2:47 PM

I've always wanted to be part of a sextet, but my wife won't let me

8-P

Posted by: Dark Matter | March 6, 2009 2:51 PM

Reminds me of when Bill Hicks said that there are some "very dark areas of humanity out there."

I just hope that Richard makes it out alive.

Posted by: Josh | March 6, 2009 2:53 PM

There are laws that govern the universe that go unquestioned in science(you start with a premise).

Please list two of these laws (so I can be sure we're on the same sheet of music re: exactly what you mean).

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 2:53 PM

There are laws that govern the universe that go unquestioned in science(you start with a premise). It is in that sense that I was referring to an equivalence.

Do you think these "unquestioned laws" came about absent empiricism? These laws were a question at one time but were elevated to law status after being subjected to the rigors of the scientific method.

You still are not answering my question but instead are dancing around it.

What actual "laws" (your word) in theology are equivalent to those used in science? What method of testing them is equivalent, or even close to the process I mentioned (though highly simplified) above?

You don't debate the underlying issue the conclusion based on the things considered to be matters of fact.

I'm having a hard time parsing that. Can you please make it a bit clearer?

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 2:54 PM

Tony,

That really isn't humorous (in any way whatsoever).

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 2:57 PM

Yes, it was garbled.

You debate the conclusion, not the underlying matters of fact that it rests on. IF-THEN Except in science the fundamentals are considered to be unquestionable (even though science is forced to ask how/what and not why).

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 2:59 PM

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009

Tony,

That really isn't humorous (in any way whatsoever).

I do not think that Tony was trying to be funny. Just showing that you are a stupid bloody git.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 2:59 PM

Louis,

I have no spoken or unspoken contract with you.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 3:03 PM

******** Pete. Tell everyone you think... blah, blah, blah, blah blah

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 3:06 PM

Pete me boy. You said you were going in #492. Lying and bullshitting again? Your almost zero credibility is now zero. You offer us nothing.

Posted by: Patricia the Vulgar, OM | March 6, 2009 3:06 PM

Pete - I'm finding it difficult because I have a limited education, having been crippled by fundamentalism for decades.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 3:08 PM

That makes absolutely no sense. I'm not arguing that simple sensibility is being offended. The two situations are in no way analogous.

Posted by: Helfrick | March 6, 2009 3:10 PM

Sweet baby jeebus what is happening here? I'm just about ready to put money on the idea that Pete is nothing more than a perl script run horribly amok.

Posted by: Louis | March 6, 2009 3:11 PM

@ Nerd of Redhead #533:

Again I find myself in the terrible position of having to vehemently disagree with a respected poster.

Pete's credibility has, since his arrival, never raised above zero and he has (like his ideological ilk) never offered anything so benign as nothing. The contributions of the Petes of this world are negative, damaging and injurious to reason. His existence is an affront to all thinking people by virtue of the actions he deems fit to waste his mental faculties, such as they are, on.

After all, if it's fair that Pete hold others to ridiculous jumped up standards, it's only fair that we can all play.

;-)

Louis

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 3:12 PM

We have laws to guide what can and cannot be said/done/acted upon etc. in society at large.

I am arguing that this burden becomes far greater (not necessarily the burden of law) in more private contexts (e.g. churches) particularly when you violate/oppose the sole aims of those in said context

Posted by: Louis | March 6, 2009 3:14 PM

Pete,

Neither am I arguing that simple sensibilities have been offended. Learn to read. It will make a nice change.

Louis

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 3:16 PM

Except in science the fundamentals are considered to be unquestionable (even though science is forced to ask how/what and not why).

Nothing in Science is unquestionable. The difference is you must back it up.

You can question Archimedes' principle or Boyle's Law, but you must show how they are wrong.

How does theology self check against itself? How do you know if you are wrong? What in theology is equivalent to a scientific law and how did it become that way. What process did you use to get to that law and how did you self check?

When you debate the conclusion of something in theology what facts are you using that are given?

Posted by: Louis | March 6, 2009 3:16 PM

Thanks Patricia!

And on that note I am going to go and spend some quality time with some chums and some beers.

A pleasant evening to all!

Louis

Posted by: co | March 6, 2009 3:20 PM

There are laws that govern the universe that go unquestioned in science(you start with a premise).

Like what? I'm a scientist, and I'd love to start questioning these laws/premises. If I do, that'll be a breakthrough. I'll even give you heaps of credit. So, please, let me know.

Posted by: Patricia the Vulgar, OM | March 6, 2009 3:21 PM

Thanks Janine, I was getting worn out granting gruesomes. Now I can go make some of that chai stuff. :)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 3:23 PM

We have laws to guide what can and cannot be said/done/acted upon etc. in society at large.

What does that have to do with my question about theological "peer review" and how you know if you are wrong?

I am arguing that this burden becomes far greater (not necessarily the burden of law) in more private contexts (e.g. churches) particularly when you violate/oppose the sole aims of those in said context

Ok now I'm not sure you are even speaking to me. That doesn't come close to addressing what I am asking you.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 3:27 PM

Posted by: Patricia the Vulgar, OM | March 6, 2009

Thanks Janine, I was getting worn out granting gruesomes. Now I can go make some of that chai stuff. :)

We have a Gruesome quorum. Gruesomes all around.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 3:28 PM

No, it was addressed to Louis.

Rev,

the basic scientific laws. There is after all a disjunction between macro level laws and the laws governing the micro (particle forces etc.). I'm not a scientist so I am unsure of the exact issue I'm referring to here. Perhaps others know what I'm talking about. Scientists are still searching for that all-encompassing law that governs everything.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 3:30 PM

Is it possible for theology to have primary sources as in history?

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 3:34 PM

Rev, in the same manner as philosophy. Some metaphysical questions do not concern the empirical (are above and beyond). The criteria for validity is, therefore, is it logically consistent, coherent, pragmatic, parsimonious etc. There are no absolutes like in mathematics. Science acts as though it is just as resolute as mathematics. It is closer to theology/philosophy.

Posted by: Lowell | March 6, 2009 3:38 PM

I think Pastor Pete is drunk or something. He's babbling on about things he admittedly knows nothing about just for the sake of trying to get a rise out of people with his stupidity.

Posted by: Helfrick | March 6, 2009 3:39 PM

I'm not a scientist so I am unsure of the exact issue I'm referring to here.Perhaps others know what I'm talking about.

Posted by: Lee (gruesome) Picton | March 6, 2009 3:44 PM

Petey has turned into a sort of Sarah Palin, a creature who just --- says things. I have no idea what he is trying to say in his last dozen or so posts of word salad. I have been accused of being hard of hearing, but as yet no one has ever fingered me for being hard of seeing. I see stupid, bloody, incoherent git.

Posted by: Lowell | March 6, 2009 3:46 PM

I'm saying that there may yet be a game changer behind/beyond the laws and that many assumptions based upon these laws may prove wildly inaccurate.

Yeah, and the universe and everything in it, including your memories, may have been created by an omnipotent being ten second ago.

So. Fucking. What? Of what use is the proposition that there's an utterly undetectable supernatural being tinkering with things? It's scientifically vacuous.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 3:47 PM

Pete, unless something has physical properties it doesn't exist except in peoples minds. Period. End of story. Science is all about reality.

Take your metaphysical nonsense to a woo site. They will appreciate you. We just find you stupid and incoherent.

Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2009 3:48 PM

A lot of theology is self-referential, and deals with scholarship within theology, and searches for consistency. Thus, you can have books written about Aquinas on epistemology, or the Greek influence on Paul, and you're pretty much doing the same sorts of study and analysis you'd do in other fields. There's no need to actually believe in God. Just make sure there are no internal contradictions.

You could do similar studies on the different forms and versions of astrology through the ages: what people said, how they worked, ways it influenced history, etc. Such scholarly study -- which can be checked on -- says nothing about whether astrology is actually true. But astrological studies done by people who also believe in astrology will veer off into Calvinball, or a self-referential game of Twister. They get into areas that can't be checked on, and invent elaborate systems of nonsense.

As soon as theology veers off the overlapping area of 'religious studies" and gets into deciding "what God really meant," I think it becomes as irrelevant and unscholarly astrological studies on "what the stars are really telling us."

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 6, 2009 3:50 PM

I'd love to start questioning these laws/premises.

No problem. Take any law or theory and decide that it is wrong. Your gut feeling will be a good guide here - best, perhaps to start with something you don't want to be true. It will also help if this is outside your speciality, indeed, the more ignorant of it you are, the better. It is vital that you have no practical knowledge - measurement, preparation of samples etc. This will make it much easier, later, to pretend that those who do are fraudulent or mistaken.
You will now spend several years (on average) mulling bitterly over the falsehood of this doctrine: it will be helpful if you nurture personal and professional grievances at this stage - academic ostracism later on will thus be guaranteed and can be blamed on the controversial nature of your views. Pore obsessively over out-dated research and rejected opinions - you will find plenty in the history of failed ideas to stimulate you.
Become involved in a religious or quasi-religious cult where your specific doubts are welcomed, and your apparent expertise in a related subject valued.
(Personal and religious crises will no doubt intervene here, and mental health may be a problem - work through it - madness can be a friend)
Finally, emerge triumphant, armed with spurious knowledge and opinions totally at variance with the so-called experts in the field. Remember Galileo and other mavericks later proved right. Ignore countless other nutters (except your chosen, dead authorities)
Remember, always, that rejection of your ideas is the ultimate proof that they are correct.
Et voila! You will be a professor of idiocy, a dean of dissimulation, or laureate of laxology.
Tell everyone! The Internet will be your greatest friend!
Now, how difficult was that?
at

Posted by: Endor | March 6, 2009 3:55 PM

"Yes, but what Cook did was inexcusable."

I am amazed at the level of disapproval (to put it mildly) he levels at Cook, while at the same time he had only one brief statement about the RCC and the excommunication of doctors who saved a 9-yr-old's life.

That is one seriously screwed up worldview.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 3:55 PM

#576 @ Lowell

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 3:56 PM

Pete, we don't care about your opinion. Keep it to your own blog. You have nothing to offer us. So stop bothering us.

Posted by: Patricia the Vulgar, OM | March 6, 2009 3:56 PM

Pete seems to ignore Genesis which has gawd walking in the garden, with audible footsteps, a physical body, and being capable of conversing with humans.

(My chai sucks.)

Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2009 4:00 PM

Pete Rooke #568 wrote:

The nature of religious experience is that it is by nature not verifiable given the privacy that characterizes the mind.

If you think you have a headache -- because you feel your head hurting -- then you do have a headache. It's not the sort of thing you can be mistaken about. Pain, by its nature, is the sort of thing that can be satisfactorily verified in private through direct experience (and it may be verifiable objectively as well.)

But, if you think that, because you have a headache, you have direct experience of a brain tumor -- and you can be confident about that because you can know that your head hurts -- then you're wrong. You might have a brain tumor -- or your headache might have some other cause. You could be sick, or have an allergy, or be under stress, or have an ice pick sticking out of the back of your skull.

Nobody doubts that people have 'religious experiences.' But the rest, is inference -- and could be mistaken. There are alternative explanations.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 4:04 PM

I think I agree again, Sastra. Of course it doesn't.

As I said earlier:

People in societies since the dawn of civilization have reported similar experiences. One has to assume that humans have an underlying psychological disposition to experience these moments. Either it's inspired by God or it is an evolutionary bi product. Now even the people on here must admit that sociobiology is on extremely shaky ground. Any number of factors could account for these and the ultimate answer may be unknowable. For this reason, holding that, as people crudely say, God "done it" is every bit as tenable as other a priori reasoning concerning this issue. Their can be no reason stemming from empiricism in this matter because science cannot go that far.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 6, 2009 4:08 PM

All of the Humanities derived from biblical scholarship.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 4:10 PM

I mean only ("all of the humanities derived from Biblical scholarship") the method. I will extrapolate in a few minutes.

Posted by: JJ | March 6, 2009 4:11 PM

Freedom of speech, provided it is not "offensive and contrary" to the opinions and views of the majority.

Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2009 4:14 PM

We have no explanation for the "why" question in reference to the laws believe that we have identified.

Astronomy can tell you how the stars and planets move. It can tell you why the stars and planets move -- from a technical standpoint.

But it can't tell you The Why behind the movements of the stars and planets -- what it means to you, and for you. The social reasons and intentions are beyond its grasp. For that, you need to use astrology.

The supernova which exploded in a galaxy thousands of light years away did so because, as a Taurus, you must be on guard against having business dealings with friends for the next few months.

There's your "why."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 4:18 PM

About a dozen posts and Pete "total fool" Rooke lives up to his epithet. Nothing of cogency there. Just mumbo-jumbo that would make a new-ager wooist proud. Pete, we don't give a hoot about your opinions. Never have, never will. But you seem to think you opinion means something to us. What a deluded idiot you are to think that.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 6, 2009 4:19 PM

But it can't tell you The Why behind the movements of the stars and planets

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 4:21 PM

Rev, The ontological argument for the existence of God. It took 800 years for Kant to come along and say that existence is most definitely not a predicate! Genius.

But that is not set in stone. There are many that still accept it and have significant philosophical and theological arguments to put up in support.

So you are left with a wishy washy confirmation. In what way is that similar to being able to demonstrate the validity of Coulomb's law?

I understand that there are arguments to be made using logic for many things theological. That doesn't mean they are correct and more to my point answering your original assertion, that doesn't make the use of them in theological peer review the same as in scientific peer review of which you were referring.

As Sastra said finding consistency between ancient texts is one thing, but using the term "peer review" to justify the process of circular justification to verify some theological questions regarding the actual nature or existence of god is a whole different kettle of fish.

The comparison in my opinion is a terrible one to make.

I'm willing to be corrected however. And if I'm wrong, I'm sure I will.

Posted by: tony | March 6, 2009 4:24 PM

Pete

People in societies since the dawn of civilization have reported similar experiences.

So? We have brains suffused with lots of fun chemicals, many of which have analogs in the rest of nature - there is a vast pharmacology to which our minds are blissfully compatible (so long as you don;t mind the side-effects).

One has to assume that humans have an underlying psychological disposition to experience these moments.

some humans, pete. only some humans. And why would that be so? psychology, or physiology. Is there really a difference (from an epigenetic perspective, not really). All we know is that some people are disposed to wingnuttery. Others less so. Some people are charismatic and influential. Others less so. If you get some charismatic, influential wingnut - their meme will be implanted in many others. and (in the words of Kurt) so it goes.

Either it's inspired by God or it is an evolutionary bi product".

parsimony, and evidence, points at evolution. wingnut memes are the only source of god.

next?

* oh! BTW - that's by-product. a bi product is something made by a person who likes to both pitch and catch (as the old saying goes).

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 6, 2009 4:25 PM

Well, that must be the explanation for the lack of knowledge and culture in ancient Greek and Eygptian cultures - no Bible. Fuck me, I'm learning stuff today!

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 4:29 PM

Sastra, the star could equally not have exploded. It exploded necessarily (and probably according to some law) but why?

Rev, my point was simply that science (I say this while communicating via the internet and in all humility) can, at a fundamental level also be seen as circular. I agree this circularity is more apparent in theology. The truth of the entire branch is often called into question. But in spite of this value can be found. The ontological argument is studied in modules on logic (premise-conclusion) etc and is tremendously beneficial irrespective of it's validity (that is not to discount the validity of the entire branch) which is why I get so upset when Dawkins suggests we can blithely bin all of theology and consign it to the scrapheap.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 6, 2009 4:35 PM

I'm off to relax. I'm going to a party I have not been invited to, with people I don't agree with. I plan to tell them they're all wrong and then, should they have the nerve to disagree with me I will get angry, defensive and upset. I will long outstay my welcome - easy enough - promise to go and then not do so, and take the resentment they show me as absolute confirmation of just how damn right I was to come in the first place.
It sounds great fun. Coming Pete?

Posted by: Josh | March 6, 2009 4:40 PM

and probably according to some law

Pete, we devise scientific laws to describe phenomina that we observe in nature. The number of laws we devise can maybe be taken as some kind of proxy for how well we understand nature, but to view nature as being somehow bound by the laws that we devise to describe it is really going off the rails. You're either using a different definition of law than we use in science or your misunderstanding what we do. The universe couldn't give two shits about whether or not we figure out gravity. Nature isn't bound by science. Science is how we figure out nature. Scientific laws are at best always going to be an approximation of the actual underlying principle that they are trying to describe. What you seemed to be saying teeters too close to the cliff of saying that science ever achieves Truth.

Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2009 4:43 PM

Pete Rooke #600 wrote:

Studia humanitatis (humanities) are derived from studia divinitatis (concerning the divine). Textual study that marked biblical scholarship evolved into textual scholarship in general.

One of the significant factors involved in the gradual shift between the "Dark Ages" and the Renaissance in Europe was the infusion of Greek and Roman texts and methods of inquiry into the monasteries. These sources were even critical to the changes between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

I don't think you can ignore the vital importance of classical scholarship and learning when you look at how western civilization evolved. Without it, Biblical scholarship would have been very different.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 6, 2009 4:47 PM

will you PLEASE not feed the trolls

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 4:50 PM

OK, so perhaps you can say it was reborn (the textual study). They certainly weren't developed to that extent. I think the idea of studying something like the classics (thus proving your point) was foreign in all of history and was an original feature of biblical scholarship

Posted by: Nominal Egg | March 6, 2009 4:53 PM

Rookie:

NOTHING goes unquestioned in science.
Moron.

Tony:

It was funny!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 4:58 PM

Rev, my point was simply that science (I say this while communicating via the internet and in all humility) can, at a fundamental level also be seen as circular. I agree this circularity is more apparent in theology.

How at a fundamental level do you see science as circular? You've hinted at this during this whole thread but I have yet to see you explain it.

You mentioned the laws but i think we've shot that down pretty substantially on the "unquestionable" assertion.

I'm still left wondering what you are referring to.

Posted by: SC, OM | March 6, 2009 5:02 PM

I think the idea of studying something like the classics (thus proving your point) was foreign in all of history and was an original feature of biblical scholarship

Library of Alexandria ring a bell?

Posted by: E.V. | March 6, 2009 5:07 PM

Answer: because the world and all its weather revolves around you, and has been gearing up for this deliberate blow to your self-esteem since the beginning of time.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 5:12 PM

Yes, SC. I am happy to consider it a rebirth rather than an original invention. I skipped over the ancients...

Rev, if you were to be methodical in your scepticism when conducting a scientific experiment you be go raving mad (start doubting the existence of an external world/and the existence of the self) and sit in a dark corner of the room muttering to yourself. When conducting a peer review there are some things (at the very least) that are taken for granted. It's in this context.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 5:22 PM

The issue is that if there were a purpose then it *would* surely reinforce or shape these intuitions and beliefs we have. If there isn't a purpose why do we have these beliefs? I understand Dennett provides rather vague explanations (drawing conclusions from apples falling from trees/cause and effect/ect.).

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 5:30 PM

EVERYTHING

CAUSE AND EFFECT/inductive inference in general (assuming that the past will be conformable to the present), the existence of an external world (as mentioned), the existence of other minds...AD NAUSEUM!!!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 5:35 PM

More vague mumbo-jumbo from Pete. Pete, you seem to think we are too dumb to ask questions. We ask the questions. It is just that we accept answers like, "we don't know now, but we are working on it", "random chance", "mutation and natural selection", "shit happens", and my favorite, "that is an illogical question". Science doesn't need gods and assorted mumbo-jumbo to describe the universe. So it doesn't use god and other mumbo-jumbo. Science will never know the TRUTH, but it will approach the TRUTH, getting infinitely closer as time goes on. All without the need for your deity which only exists between your ears.

Posted by: OFT | March 6, 2009 5:36 PM

Evolution is pure faith, actually more than religious faith:

Weaknesses:

1- It cannot muster a testable hypothesis (explanation) pertaining to the proposed mechanisms

2- It is too vague to be of any practical value- Variation? Variation to what exactly? No specifics have ever been produced.

Holes:

1- It cannot explain the physiological and anatomical DIFFERENCES observed.

2- No one even knows whether or not those afore-mentioned differences can be accounted for via genetic differences.

3- It does not attempt to explain ORIGINS and ORIGINS have a DIRECT impact on any subsequent evolution.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 5:44 PM

Is there not a sense which we can detach ourselves from such tendencies and come to the question via reason and rationality. It *truely* doesn't seem like an unreasonable (or better irrational) question to me. So I guess now I say that in spite of our beliefs might it not still be a viable question to ask, because it really doesn't appear meaningless to me?

Posted by: Wowbagger | March 6, 2009 5:46 PM

OFT,

Seriously, you are way out of your league. I hope you're ready to have your ignorance and denial given a savage beating.

Where's my popcorn?

Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2009 5:49 PM

OFT #637 wrote:

Evolution is pure faith, actually more than religious faith:

The theory of evolution is actually very specific, and testable. But it doesn't "account for" a view of the world shaped by the belief that everything was created for the specific human beings who exist today. It's a bottom-up explanation -- and you want a top-down one.

It's not that you start with God. You start with Man. And that's ultimately where your faith rests.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 6, 2009 5:51 PM

OFT:Bollocks.
Testable hypothesie? Provided, tested, passed.
Not vague. Of practical value. Specifics include all known living things.
Explains physiological and anatomical differences - see DNA, genetics etc etc
Yes. We. Do.
Does not attempt to explain origins.
Fucking moronic idiot. Why parade your stupidity? Whatever happened to humility outside one's own sphere of knowledge.

Posted by: pdferguson | March 6, 2009 5:57 PM

Evolution is pure faith, actually more than religious faith:
[blah, blah, blah ...]

That's so adorable! A talking monkey! Right here on Pharyngula!

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 6, 2009 6:01 PM

I would have to appeal to religious experience and "personal" relationship with God. Transcendental experience.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 6:06 PM

Transcendental experience.

Posted by: OFT | March 6, 2009 6:11 PM

Thank you for those who responsded politely, or even not so politely.

Please provide a single actual testable hypothesis for the theory of evolution, and the test of it and how it eliminates or reduces the probability of other possibilities.

Please also indicate why a failure to look at origins is not a flaw. It seems the origin of life has a direct bearing on the future of life.

Please also indicate the kinds of possibilities that are not possible within the theory of evolution, as it seems to explain any evidence rather glibly with further invented hypotheses as to how it operates.

DNA and genetics may explain physical differences, though there is a lot of murky water in the area. However, DNA and genetics are not evolution.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 6:13 PM

OFT, if you are pushing ID/creationism, you must show physical evidence for your deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. We don't have to defend evolution, you must prove yourself. Put up your proof positive or shut up. Proof negative against evolution means nothing about proving your theory.

Posted by: Wowbagger | March 6, 2009 6:20 PM

I would have to appeal to religious experience and "personal" relationship with God. Transcendental experience.

Which might be fine if there were only one god concept to choose from. But there isn't - all religions and sects have personal relationships and transcendental experiences. Beyond that, they are often very, very different; often to the point of contradiction.

If religions were limited to congregating people to have shared experiences of relationships with god and transcendental experiences then we wouldn't be at odds with it, but they don't. They make prescriptions - social, moral, ethical, scientific etc. - based on interpretations of the supporting literature.

Since I have no experienced God I have no idea whose concept he corresponds to - and until that happens, should I be following what I am led to believe are his rules? If so, exactly whose rules should I follow? Mormon Christianity? Catholic Christianity? Dutch Reformed? Hindu? Islam? German Neopaganism? The choices are myriad, and none of them (that I'm aware of at least) is very appealing.

They can't all be true. But they can all be false.

Posted by: OFT | March 6, 2009 6:24 PM

NoR, that's a rather contradictory attitude.

We don't have to defend evolution, you must prove yourself.

No, you're still under an obligation to defend evolution. Evolution is an assertive claim, and the burden is on the claimant to prove the claim.

I don't have to defend or assert creationism to question evolution. Evolution can be simply one more revealed faith, simply one revealed to a naturalist rather than a theologian. I don't have to prove the theologian's points to dispute the naturalist's.

What happened to "I don't know" as the scientific answer of record?

Posted by: Tulse | March 6, 2009 6:26 PM

Please provide a single actual testable hypothesis for the theory of evolution, and the test of it and how it eliminates or reduces the probability of other possibilities.

Temporally, earlier fossil organisms will generally be simpler than later organisms. For example, you would expect to see the development of single-celled organisms prior to development of multi-cellular organisms, creatures without an internal skeleton prior to those with, and creatures without brains prior to those with. (This is pretty general, of course.) Pretty much any finding that was contrary to these hypotheses would be a profound problem for the theory of evolution.

Please also indicate why a failure to look at origins is not a flaw. It seems the origin of life has a direct bearing on the future of life.

You don't demand an understanding of the origin of rocks to do geology, do you? That said, there is extremely fruitful work going on right now in both abiogenesis and the creation of artificial life, so my guess is that this shortly will no longer be an issue.

Please also indicate the kinds of possibilities that are not possible within the theory of evolution, as it seems to explain any evidence rather glibly with further invented hypotheses as to how it operates.

Rabbit fossils in the Cambrian. Dogs giving birth to cats (contrary to the standard creationist canard, such an event would be a clear repudiation of evolution, since change is not that rapid). The message "I made this. Signed, God" encoded in all organisms' DNA. Shall I go on?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 6:29 PM

OFT, in science, the burden of proof is on the one making the claims. The burden of proof is upon you to show that whatever alternate scientific theory to evolution you are claiming (which is behind your feeble attempts to make us defend it), you have to present the evidence to show you are right. Time to do so or shut up. Evolution with its myriads of papers stands as the only scientific theory of life until you present another. Preferably through the peer reviewed primary scientific literature.

We await your evidence.

Posted by: echidna | March 6, 2009 6:33 PM

OFT:

If you are really interested in the answers to your questions, then read these:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

and for a single testable hypothesis,those at Berkeley suggest this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/guppy/low_bandwidth.html

However, if you think that your questions are potent weapons against the biologists who frequent this thread, then you are sadly mistaken.

Posted by: Miranda Hale | March 6, 2009 6:37 PM

Anyone whose irony detector (and bullshit detector, obviously) doesn't go off when reading "which should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry" in the context of what the Bill wants to do is ridiculous and ignorant. What a hypocritical and ignorant piece of legislative bullshit.

(am I #666? If so, awesome!) :)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 6:37 PM

Ultimately, religion rests upon faith.

Posted by: OFT | March 6, 2009 6:45 PM

Thank you, Tulse

While you mention a hypothesis, it's not a currently testable one -- it's one judged merely by looking at circumstantial evidence. It's quite possible the fossil record is deceiving. If, for example, more complex creatures break down more quickly, we would see older simpler organisms and the "arrival" of more complex organisms later. The same is possible if simpler organisms simply fossilize a lot more easily.

And we don't really have jellyfish fossils, do we? But we presume they've been around a long time due to their simple nature.

As to rocks, I would think the origin of rocks is pretty critical to geology. Don't they class them by origin into igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic?

Given the human tendency to misuse knowledge, I have grave misgivings about the study of abiogenesis.

I'm sure Darwinists would come up with an explanation for rabbits in the Cambrian if it came up. After all, they've been finding new "human" fossils for years and adjusting the dates for the start of humanity, who says they can't do it with rabbits? It would barely be noteworthy.

There are already theories about possible rapid evolution, so I'm not sure your dogs giving birth to cats is something that would immediately cause an immediate rejection. If it did, though, other theories such as intelligent design would need to be rejected as well, so I'm not sure you're really putting it forth seriously.

Similarly with God's literal signature in English words on DNA. We know it's not likely at all, so making up something that's basically impossible and putting it forth as something that would defeat your theory is a bit of gamesmanship, no?

Posted by: echidna | March 6, 2009 6:47 PM

OFT@659:
Now you are just being obnoxious. In as much as the theory of evolution is an assertive claim, the evidence supporting it is overwhelming, and there is no contradictory evidence. The burden of proof has been met.

You seem to be asserting that people on a blog are obliged to answer your unfounded claims, or else somehow evolution will be somehow magically found to be unsupported. That is ridiculous. You have an obligation to educate yourself. If you are truly interested in knowing more about evolution, you will find people on this blog more than willing to help. But you don't. I assert that you are just a troll. I have the evidence in your post. You have the obligation to refute it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 6:51 PM

OFT, make a claim and back it up, or shut up. Welcome to real science. Taking pot shots at evolution will get you nowhere. By the way, cambrian bunnies would make a real dent in evolution. Why don't you go and search for some.

Posted by: echidna | March 6, 2009 6:55 PM

Shorter OFT@671:
"Science is a bunch of stories that scientists make up as they go along."

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 6:58 PM

Well you won't know how coherent the arguments are until you have read them. I will be working on it.

Posted by: Wowbagger | March 6, 2009 6:59 PM

While you mention a hypothesis, it's not a currently testable one -- it's one judged merely by looking at circumstantial evidence.

What, and ID/creationism has 'evidence' that isn't 'circumstantial'? Please, give us an example.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 7:05 PM

There are already theories about possible rapid evolution, so I'm not sure your dogs giving birth to cats is something that would immediately cause an immediate rejection.

No it would. It goes against everything that that the theory evolution says. You even making that claim is pretty telling to your ignorance on the subject.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 7:11 PM

EVERYTHING

CAUSE AND EFFECT/inductive inference in general (assuming that the past will be conformable to the present), the existence of an external world (as mentioned), the existence of other minds...AD NAUSEUM!!!

Oh good grief.

By that standard everything is circular. You might as well have said that scientific peer review and theological "peer review" are similar because the people involved breath air.

Posted by: Dan J | March 6, 2009 7:13 PM

Don't worry about killfiling me, you won't see me again.

I will shut up now.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 7:17 PM

OFT, if you aren't a creationist, you sure sounded like the hundred other creationists with the same ignorant questions. In spite of your claims to the contrary, I'll put good e-ducats on the wager that your are one.

Posted by: Josh | March 6, 2009 7:27 PM

While you mention a hypothesis, it's not a currently testable one -- it's one judged merely by looking at circumstantial evidence.

Explain what you mean by circumstantial.

It's quite possible the fossil record is deceiving.

Evidence to support the assertion that it's "quite" possible?

"Quite" adds a lot of confidence to your statement. I'm sure you've got the data to support that additional confidence. How many sedimentary sequences have you looked at? What paleoenvironments? Are you integrating this assertion across all preservational regimes or are you restricting it to specific paleoenvironments? If so, which ones? If we're going to have any sort of real discussion, then I need to know what you're actually asserting. Science is about details.

If, for example, more complex creatures break down more quickly, we would see older simpler organisms and the "arrival" of more complex organisms later. The same is possible if simpler organisms simply fossilize a lot more easily.

What does "break down" mean? Do you mean anatomically? Do you mean chemically? Which? Are you talking about syndepositional taphonomy or are you referring to alterations of the fossils after sedimentation in the burial regime has ceased? It matters...

What's a simple organism?
What's a complex organism?

I have definitions for these things. What are your definitions? If you're going to posit the possibility that you do above, then you must have started at the beginning, right? You know, making sure that you actually have operational definitions for the words you're going to use? You wouldn't be actually asserting something without having done your homework, would you?

And we don't really have jellyfish fossils, do we?

Yes, we do.
Next.

As to rocks, I would think the origin of rocks is pretty critical to geology. Don't they class them by origin into igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic?

No. This isn't analogous to the question which was asked. The analogy is more of whether there is a requirement to understand how the Earth formed in order to do geology. You know, how did the solar nebular produce the initial materials that existed prior to the start of the tectonic engine. This is more analogous to abiogensis being necessary to study evolution. And, as a practicing, publishing earth scientist, I can tell you that the answer to that question is a resounding no.

Seriously, do you guys ever do any homework before you spout your bullshit? Are your standards for theological research this fucking pathetic?

You guys always piss and moan that we don't respect you in discussions. Well, if you'd actually give us the common fucking courtesy of having read at least a little about the thing you claim doesn't exist, then you might get a better reception.

This is Pharyngula.
Respect is earned.

Posted by: Tulse | March 6, 2009 7:33 PM

Okay, it's clear where this is going, and I will waste no more of your time or mine.

Classic -- just like all other creationists, when it comes down to actually arguing the science, they scamper like the intellectual cowards they are.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 6, 2009 7:40 PM

No, you're still under an obligation to defend evolution

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 6, 2009 7:45 PM

Yeah, I know, sorry. It's just that I do like saying "fuck god". I know it's childidh but...
Actually, damnit no! I won't hear of critcism! People were put to death, and still are for blaphemy - it's my fucking duty!
Perhaps, though, it's just as well PZ banned the "c" word.

Posted by: Jason | March 6, 2009 8:04 PM

WOW! I have been reading this thread and it is apparent no one knows anything especially dawkins. What a joke, all of the so called thinkers. Please, nobody truly knows or understands origins and people that say they do are arrogant idiots. Thinking we can even understand the complexity of it all is like a dog writing a thesis about a flea bite. IDIOTS!

Posted by: Patricia the Vulgar, OM | March 6, 2009 8:14 PM

Fuck off Jason.

Posted by: CrypticLife | March 6, 2009 8:19 PM

I suspect you're right that it falls flat, Kagehi, given past posts of Our Founding Truth. I didn't really want to keep it up for long because I don't really want to waste people's time here (you know -- and I got flattened). Incidentally, though, I really enjoyed the guppy page and a lot of the other information.

I deeply apologize if it bothers those here -- I pursued it only to get answers that Our Founding Truth couldn't easily brush off. I won't do it again. And yes, the real OFT has links to ID sites on his blog.

Posted by: Escuerd | March 6, 2009 8:25 PM

KatjaE @ 267:

It's hardly even true that the University of Oklahoma is a state-funded institution. The State of Oklahoma provides less than 20% of the university's funding. If Dawkins is being funded out of the other 80+% of the university's funds, it's pretty rich for the legislature to think it should have a say at all.

I'm not sure I buy this as a general principle. Consider publicly funding a church that runs a religious charity. One might argue that the public funds only go toward the charitable activities and not toward the church, but it still frees up funds for the church to use and is effectively subsidizing it.

Of course, I think it's reasonable for science and its communication to the public (e.g. via talks) to get public support, and it looks like the legislator's only reason for not wanting Dawkins to talk is that Dawkins is a critic of religion.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 8:26 PM

WOW! I have been reading this thread and it is apparent no one knows anything especially dawkins. What a joke, all of the so called thinkers. Please, nobody truly knows or understands origins and people that say they do are arrogant idiots. Thinking we can even understand the complexity of it all is like a dog writing a thesis about a flea bite. IDIOTS!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 6, 2009 8:44 PM

Jason the Twit,

There is a respected regular poster at this blog known as Jason. He has seniority to the name. Chose a different name. Or better yet, fuck off.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 6, 2009 8:59 PM

As a teenager he has an excuse for being ignorant, but not for showing it. I do kind of wonder why more teens in the states don't rebel against the religious authority oppressing them. I suppose that the answer is that they do - by having sex and taking drugs and so on - but I could wish that their bullshit detectors, now fully functioning, could be a little more um...perceptive.

Posted by: Null Hypothesis | March 6, 2009 9:13 PM

I used to be an atheist, due to my scientific background in biology, ecology, chemistry, and physics. But the more I learned about science, history, and religion, the more it became apparent to me that Atheism is really a religion itself, just a branch of Christianity -- the mirror image of it, but with all the same problematic underlying philosophical underpinnings.

Can someone answer this, since I searched through all the Atheist literature during my last days as a devotee and could not find a shred of evidence to support it: how, on a biomolecular level, can genes and chromosomes reorganize themselves "randomly" to produce such things as complex as new proteins? The math doesn't add up.

I'm not interested in a macro-ecological explanation for Dawkins' theories, I've been through all that and accept it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 9:14 PM

Yawn, an alleged ex atheist. Boring.

Posted by: Null_Hypothesis | March 6, 2009 9:19 PM

"Null Hypothesis, evolution != atheism"
I agree. But I'm looking for an answer to my question about the elephant in the closet.

Posted by: clinteas | March 6, 2009 9:23 PM

But the more I learned about science, history, and religion, the more it became apparent to me that Atheism is really a religion itself, just a branch of Christianity -- the mirror image of it, but with all the same problematic underlying philosophical underpinnings.

Obviously you didnt learn much at all.

Can someone answer this, since I searched through all the Atheist literature during my last days as a devotee and could not find a shred of evidence to support it: how, on a biomolecular level, can genes and chromosomes reorganize themselves "randomly" to produce such things as complex as new proteins? The math doesn't add up.

And with all the sciencey stuff you learned you are still confused about whats atheism,and whats evolution.Atheist literature on genes and proteins?

I sense a liar for jeebus.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 9:24 PM

Can someone answer this, since I searched through all the Atheist literature during my last days as a devotee and could not find a shred of evidence to support it: how, on a biomolecular level, can genes and chromosomes reorganize themselves "randomly" to produce such things as complex as new proteins? The math doesn't add up.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 9:27 PM

I agree. But I'm looking for an answer to my question about the elephant in the closet.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 6, 2009 9:33 PM

I used to be an atheist

Why is it that every third proselytizing goddist makes this claim? While I don't doubt that a tiny minority of atheists find Jebus, I really have to wonder about the hordes of ex-atheists sweeping the internet like vast herds of wildebeests migrating on the Serengeti.

"I used to be an atheist" folks like Null Hypothesis are looking for people to believe them. Then they'll start offering great deals on ocean-front property in Wyoming.

Posted by: Null Hypothesis | March 6, 2009 9:36 PM

"The claim that atheism is the mirror image of Christianity is a bit retarded. You've evidently never met atheists from countries like Iran or Pakistan (oh wait, I'm sure they're just a mirror image of Islam, right?)."
In my opinion Christianity and Islam are pretty much the same, with a slighty different central theme.

"And why were you looking through atheist literature to find the answer to a scientific question?"
Because I thought that would be the first place where that evidence would be presented for all to see.

"Why do you think that genes and chromosomes reorganize randomly to create new proteins? "

Isn't that the central idea of Dawkins, that we are machines programmed by our selfish genes, who make proteins to express their genotype in the phenotype. With random mutations you get different genes and phenotypes on which evolutionary forces can act, right? What other mechanism does Dawkins suggest for the emergence of new genes and proteins?

"Could you show us your exact argument (including math) so we know exactly what the problem you're talking about is?"

I did the math a few years ago so it's a little rusty, but look at the complexity of genes and the proteins they encode. Then invoke this "irreducible complexity" stuff of the ID'ers (one of which I am not), and use the typical mutations that you learn about it biochem and microbiology, and see what the necessary rate of mutation would do to your chromosomes.....

I don't have the answer, I'm searching for it.

Posted by: Null Hypothesis | March 6, 2009 9:41 PM

"And the answer was you were looking in the wrong place."

Tell me where to look. I finished my degree in ecology then thought about med school so took up to 3rd year biochem, microbiology and organic chemistry, but then decided to switch to mechanical engineering. I found nothing in my formal education hinting at an answer.

"Why is it that every third proselytizing goddist makes this claim? While I don't doubt that a tiny minority of atheists find Jebus"

I never though that statement would ever be sent my way!

Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 6, 2009 9:44 PM

"I used to be an atheist, due to my scientific background in biology, ecology, chemistry, and physics..."

Oh? And what is/was your professional position exactly? Do you think listing several different scientific disciplines will impress us into think you were actually such a person? I await with giddiness for this answer...

"...But the more I learned about science, history, and religion, the more it became apparent to me that Atheism is really a religion itself, just a branch of Christianity -- the mirror image of it, but with all the same problematic underlying philosophical underpinnings..."

And what would those underpinnings be exactly? A branch of Christianity? That's a new one on me. I had no idea we were closet Xians. The Catholic and Protestant denominations would be interested in hearing about your rationale on this. As are we, actually...I think. How is the lack of ANY religion, a branch of Christianity? And what religion have you assumed yourself into?

"...Can someone answer this, since I searched through all the Atheist literature during my last days as a devotee and could not find a shred of evidence to support it: how, on a biomolecular level, can genes and chromosomes reorganize themselves "randomly" to produce such things as complex as new proteins? The math doesn't add up."

Well, to answer your question, maybe you should retake all those courses in biology, ecology, chemistry, and physics, and locate the answer yourself. One would think you'd know if you had actually taken those classes (let alone practiced your learnings in any sort of professional capacity), which you do not appear to have done so. Do you think that by simply saying you have a "background", we'll take that on face value? Even if you had all that education and still didn't find evolution compelling, you'd at least be able to tell us the answer that the "evil liberal academic establishment" uses to justify evolution in biological terms. So can you answer your own question first? My guess is you can't. If you can, you have ours

LOL "last days as a devotee"? I will give you this: you sound pretty funny. Please elaborate on what you practiced as a, quote, "devotee". Will you poseurs ever understand that trying to "trick" us into your frame isn't going to work? Do you think we're so stupid as to not see right through your religion-based perspective and how it permeates everything you say? "Searched through all the Atheist literature"? What literature would that be? And you read "all" of it? Be honest: you think we're a bunch of hayseeds. Atheism as a concept was formulated ages before evolutionary theory came along, and that's besides the fact that atheism is entirely separate from the sciences strictly speaking. How did atheism produce or formulate evolutionary theory?

Three words for you: You're an idiot.

Posted by: clinteas | March 6, 2009 9:47 PM

@ 729,

Well,thank gawd that the ToE doesnt really care if some religionist can google gene recombination or not.

And let me guess what your alternative theory is...

*POOF*

Right?

Posted by: Kung foo joe | March 6, 2009 9:49 PM

Null hypothesis states new proteins cannot be created by biochemical changes due to mathematics. I'm pretty sure BCR/ABL kinase is a new protein created by a translocation (theres you biomolecular process). As it's only found in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia i'd say it proves new proteins can just arise randomly.

Posted by: Kel | March 6, 2009 9:50 PM

Tell me where to look. I finished my degree in ecology then thought about med school so took up to 3rd year biochem, microbiology and organic chemistry, but then decided to switch to mechanical engineering. I found nothing in my formal education hinting at an answer.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 9:55 PM

Null hypothesis, if you think you have something new, what you need to do is to write a paper and submit to a proper scientific peer reviewed journal. I recommend Science or Nature, as high profile journals who attempt to publish ground breaking discoveries. So, write the paper and send it to be published. Don't waste your idea on us, who may take your idea, write and submit the paper first, and get all the credit. Failure to write the paper mean you are just a troll. Welcome to science.

Posted by: Null Hypothesis | March 6, 2009 9:56 PM

"And let me guess what your alternative theory is...

*POOF*

Right?"

I guess you didn't read my earlier post. I said I didn't have an answer, I'm looking for one.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2009 9:58 PM

Because I thought that would be the first place where that evidence would be presented for all to see.

oh for fuck's sake.

Seriously Null Hypothesis that's fucking stupid. No two ways to explain that.

Posted by: Wowbagger | March 6, 2009 9:59 PM

I did the math a few years ago so it's a little rusty, but look at the complexity of genes and the proteins they encode...

Was probability included in your studies? Because if you had you might have learned that a low probability ≠ no probability.

Posted by: Escuerd | March 6, 2009 10:03 PM

Null Hypothesis:

In my opinion Christianity and Islam are pretty much the same, with a slighty different central theme.

This is about as true as saying that Italian and Portuguese are the same language, and that cattle and wildebeests are the same animal. You're nothing if not a lumper.
But more to the point, there are atheists from diverse backgrounds (I have met a few from Hindu families as well). Perhaps you consider them all converts to this branch of Christianity, but you've yet to explain what it is that makes them essentially the same.

"And why were you looking through atheist literature to find the answer to a scientific question?" Because I thought that would be the first place where that evidence would be presented for all to see.

That's silly. You should check scientific journals (or at the very least, textbooks) for those kinds of questions. This is only very tangentially related to atheism in that creotards think that tearing down the ToE would somehow make atheism impossible.

"Why do you think that genes and chromosomes reorganize randomly to create new proteins? "

Isn't that the central idea of Dawkins, that we are machines programmed by our selfish genes, who make proteins to express their genotype in the phenotype. With random mutations you get different genes and phenotypes on which evolutionary forces can act, right? What other mechanism does Dawkins suggest for the emergence of new genes and proteins?

That's a bit different from what you said initially. Random reorganization is not the same as mutation and natural selection.

I did the math a few years ago so it's a little rusty, but look at the complexity of genes and the proteins they encode. Then invoke this "irreducible complexity" stuff of the ID'ers (one of which I am not), and use the typical mutations that you learn about it biochem and microbiology, and see what the necessary rate of mutation would do to your chromosomes.....

Could you please spell it out? I'm not math-phobic, but this is still more than a little vague. I'm sure you know how much room there is for pitfalls in naive calculations of this sort of thing, but it's hard to address without knowing quite what you're talking about.

And it's still not clear what any of this has to do with atheism.

Posted by: Null Hypothesis | March 6, 2009 10:09 PM

Here is the math:

Say you have a population of 2000 individuals undergoing evolution. What is the typical number of genes an organism has? 20,000?

For each gene, what is the probability that a mutation acting on its fundamental pieces would bring about a new so-called "irreducibly complex" functioning gene that could produce a new trait leading to a phenotype?

Natural selection selects for traits basically one at a time, in essence, one gene at a time, well maybe a few acting together at a time.

I'm not going to punch in all those numbers right now, but come on. It's absurd. You'd need a population of hundreds of millions, with 99.9% of the offspring turning out as gimps.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 6, 2009 10:15 PM

Still think we have a godbot who ain't as smart as he thought he was.

I have to agree with this. I've had to put two more pumps on line for my bullshit detector's cooling water.

Posted by: Cecil Seaserpent | March 6, 2009 10:17 PM

So what's next? Ban his books from the libraries, burn them, and burn Dawkins as a witch? Its even more laughable as its known for the surrey with the fringe on top. Okies, indeed.

Posted by: Jonathan | March 6, 2009 10:19 PM

That is indeed a foolish resolution for Oklahoma to be considering, but I could not find where it banned Richard Dawkins from the state. It seems that its entire effect would be to send letters expressing their strong disapproval to some university officials.

Maybe it would be better to condemn the resolution for what it actually is, than to make up stuff about it?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 6, 2009 10:25 PM

I'm a little surprised myself by all the resistance to me bringing up Atheism in a blog about Dawkins, the definition of Atheism, who trumpets the ToE as the explanation of all things biological. I don't know, it just seemed to fit the setting....

Because, you vacuous twit, atheism has NOTHING to do with genes and chromosomes reorganizing randomly to create new proteins. Your ex-atheism (which I am doubting more and more as you prattle on) has as much to do with micro-biology as whether or not you're right handed or what your sexual orientation is.

Posted by: Yanquetino | March 6, 2009 10:29 PM

I have sent this e-mail to the members of the Oklahoma legislature:

=======================================
Representative:

Please do your utmost to make sure that your colleague Todd Thomsen amends Resolution 1014 to include these provisions:

--------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, not only has the Department of Geology at the University of Oklahoma been engaged in one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory that the world is round but has made an effort to brand all thinking in dissent of this theory as anti-intellectual and backward rather than nurturing such free thinking and allowing a free discussion of all ideas which is the primary purpose of a university; and
--------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, not only has the Department of Physics at the University of Oklahoma been engaged in one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory that an invisible force called gravity causes objects to be attracted to each other but has made an effort to brand all thinking in dissent of this theory as anti-intellectual and backward rather than nurturing such free thinking and allowing a free discussion of all ideas which is the primary purpose of a university; and
--------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, not only has the Department of Astronomy at the University of Oklahoma been engaged in one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory that the earth revolves around the sun but has made an effort to brand all thinking in dissent of this theory as anti-intellectual and backward rather than nurturing such free thinking and allowing a free discussion of all ideas which is the primary purpose of a university; and
--------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, not only has the Department of Psychology at the University of Oklahoma been engaged in one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory that the human mind is solely a product of the human brain but has made an effort to brand all thinking in dissent of this theory as anti-intellectual and backward rather than nurturing such free thinking and allowing a free discussion of all ideas which is the primary purpose of a university; and
=======================================

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 6, 2009 10:31 PM

Yet you haven't addressed my question

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2009 10:34 PM

Null, we've had several trolls banned due to asking the same inane question over and over, until PZ gets bored with them. If you wish to avoid being banned, try to google the answer to your question on your own. You have asked it enough.