…and this is a 
Even here in Minnesota, we get creationists ranting in the newspapers. This one is in the Brainerd Dispatch.
In response to a previous writer's statement " ... modern neo-Darwinian synthesis of organic evolution is supported by more compelling and intellectually satisfying empirical evidence that any other idea ever advanced by the world's scientific community ... "
The retort to this statement is simple: hogwash! Remember, the neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is not "change over time" or "modifications through natural selection within an existing species", nor dynamics of cellular metamorphosis. These kinds of actions are simply workings of the natural order and have been observed and recorded for centuries.
I could tell exactly what the writer is about to do at this point. Note that he is responding to a statement of fact, that there is a great deal of empirical evidence in support of evolution. He has announced that that is "hogwash", but is he going to rebut any of the evidence? No, he's going to do a little dance over the word "evolution" and tell us what it isn't. And he's going to get it wrong. Neo-Darwinian theory includes all of the things he just listed (well, except for "dynamics of cellular metamorphosis" — I don't even know what that means, and the writer certainly doesn't, either).
It's nice of him to coopt elements of the theory and claim that we've known it all along, though. It's one small step forward.
So, science is not synonymous with neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is in reality a very recent construct. In fact, it was and is being continually cobbled together long after Darwin himself died. Neo-Darwinism in effect says - since there is no pre-planned design behind it - every thing is random and undirected-nothing is planned. There is no purposeful form of life. So human beings, like everything else, is in effect just one of the many possible resulting accidents of an unconscious blind cosmic dice shake. Everything that is came into being as an accident and will disappear someday the same way. Consequently, there is no reason for being, nor any purpose for the natural world, or behavioral norms, and surely there is no rational for a future hope in anything.
No one claims that science is synonymous with neo-Darwinian theory — the physicists and chemists and geologists would be very surprised to learn that they needed to be biologists to be called scientists.
The neo-Darwinian synthesis is less than a hundred years old. No one has been arguing otherwise about that, either. It's also an active theory which is being continually tested, revised, and re-assessed. This is a good thing: we like to modify our ideas to fit the facts, not vice versa.
So far, nothing he's said contradicts the claim that evolution is a well-supported theory.
But now we get to the nub of his objections: evolution is unplanned and lacks a long-term purpose. This is both a premise and an inference from the science. We always assume chance is behind variation; that is the null hypothesis. One could charge in, I suppose, and hypothesize that a particular pattern of change is the result of directed meddling, but the best way to test that would be to directly address the mechanism of the intervention. It's not a very productive approach, we've found. We'd have to deduce some of the properties of the agent behind the change, you see, and if we try that, advocates of teleology always back away quickly from any testable proposals. It's been a much more promising approach to postulate an absence of design, make predictions from that, and test them.
And voila, it almost always seems to work out well. Predictions that leave out angels, demigods, demons, and magic spells seem to work out quite nicely, so we are left with a powerful theory sans deities, which implies that deities are at least superfluous. That's all the ateleology of biology means.
Ah, but notice again: none of his railings have any relevance to the claim of empirical evidence for evolution, that which he calls "hogwash". This isn't an argument, it's an emotional appeal. Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of an absence of guidance, so he's announcing that evolution doesn't include a god, and gee everyone, shouldn't that make you dislike it? But whether we dislike an idea or not has no bearing on its truth.
Especially not when our Minnesotan critic then goes on to demonstrate his ignorance.
Neo-Darwinism's top proponents-Dawkins, Huxley, Weiner, Gould and Dobzhansky are all convinced atheists. For the person who is interested in the subject, but does not want to wade through pages of polemic, or get into deep esoteric scientific reading, might simply go to the video store and ask for Ben Stein's "Expelled" or get a hold of the book "Icons of Evolution" by molecular biologist Jonathan Wells. It might stun you on just how neo-Darwinism is pure fraud.
Ron Lindner
East Gull Lake
OK, let's see. The top proponents are:
- Dawkins: Definitely a top proponent, definitely an atheist. Good start!
- Huxley: Well, he was a top proponent, but he's dead now. Long dead. He also wasn't an atheist. He was the fellow who coined the word "agnostic"!
- Weiner: Who? It took me a moment to figure out who he's talking about, but it must be Jonathan Weiner, the excellent writer behind Beak of the Finch and other science books. He's more of a science journalist though, a good one. If he's an atheist, he doesn't write about it, and it doesn't come through at all in his books.
- Gould: Another top proponent, also an atheist, but also dead.
- Dobzhansky: Dobzhansky? One of the most important architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, sure, but an atheist? He was Russian Orthodox, and by all accounts, rather devout! He was author of the essay, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", which phrase irks many creationists, but if you actually read the essay, one of its central assertions is that science is not in conflict with his own sincerely held Christianity! This is the guy our writer wants to argue was a nefarious atheist?
I do have to give Mr Lindner points for unintentional irony. If you don't like polemics, go watch Expelled? Right. Don't want to read that science stuff? Then go read Wells. At least I can agree with that last point, since there isn't so much as a scrap of science in that book.
I'm feeling dissatisfied, though. His starting premise was that the body of empirical evidence for evolution was "hogwash", and he seems to have forgotten to actually address the point. Typical.
Comments
Posted by: SocraticGadfly | June 23, 2009 3:48 PM
Now out in print: The Bell Curve 2.0
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 23, 2009 3:48 PM
It never fails to amaze me that creationists spend all their time trying (and failing) to tear down evolution. They should be trying to build up their competing theory. If they could show that GODDIDIT answered all the questions and was testable, then they'd actually have genuine competition to evolution. But whining "all them evilutionists is atheists" and "I hate evilution so much I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue" neither devalues evolution nor enhances creationism.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 23, 2009 3:49 PM
Ron Lindner? The pro fisherman?
Posted by: RM | June 23, 2009 3:49 PM
I wonder if that is Ron Lindner of Ron and Al Lindner from the old In Fisherman TV show. I know they liked to end their shows with a good bible lesson.
Posted by: damnedyankee | June 23, 2009 3:53 PM
If that's the case, it's a wonder he ever caught one. Clearly the fish was the cleverer antagonist...
Posted by: RedPersephone
|
June 23, 2009 3:54 PM
Oh, yeah, that's one of *the* Lindners.
Brainerd is my good ol' hometown, full of creationist nuts, including my mother. So glad to be moving back there this fall!
/sarcasm
I believe at least one of Lindners goes to my former church, the 'megachurch' of the area.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 23, 2009 3:55 PM
You'd think, but they keep running to that problem of lack of evidence supporting it.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 23, 2009 3:59 PM
Hasn't he watched Expelled? Doesn't he know the Evil Atheist Conspiracy will have him killed for merely hinting at its existence?
Funny how the black helicopters seem to have no trouble rounding up every dissident but the one drunkenly bending your ear at the pub or writing letter after letter to the mainstream liberal media.
Yeah. You fight the power Ron.
Posted by: Mystyk | June 23, 2009 4:00 PM
There's an old saying in the legal profession: "When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both the law and the facts are against you, attack opposing counsel."
I find that the phrase is particularly enlightening to any argument involving conservatism and/or religion. The God-Bots were quite happy with the second position for a long time. When they started losing that, they desperately shifted to the first, only to find that the facts are/would/could never be in their favor. They have since retreated to the third position, and will likely stay there for some time.
Posted by: Shamelessly Atheist | June 23, 2009 4:02 PM
As for non-atheist supporters of evolution, what about Ken Miller? Oh, right. He's Catholic. Doesn't count.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 23, 2009 4:02 PM
Hence the 'Neo' part, Einstein.
Of course, everyone knows that by default we ought to prefer older scientific conclusions to newer ones, which is why I fully intend on keeping my appointment with my Phrenologist tomorrow.
Posted by: Darren S. A. George | June 23, 2009 4:07 PM
So who's going to write a rebuttal to the Brainlessnard Dispatch? You can't let such ignorance stand, and none of their readers will be coming to this blog.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 23, 2009 4:07 PM
That's a bit overdone, as there are many ideas as well supported.
]He claimed to be an agnostic, though was probably what goes for "atheist" around here.
Or any science at all.
Naturally, anyone who thinks Stein and Wells are anything but cheap liars will get everything else wrong, too.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Marc Abian | June 23, 2009 4:07 PM
Sorry to be pedatic, but does this qualify as a rant? I always thought of rants as rather spontaneous and delivered with fervour.
This seems less like an unstoppable locomotive careening off the track and more like a blind man distractedly walking off a cliff.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 23, 2009 4:07 PM
Brainerd, MN - isn't that the home of the big Paul Buyan statue? Brought flashbacks of one of my all time favorite movies. Is Mr Ron Lindner kinda funnylookin' ?
Posted by: tsg | June 23, 2009 4:09 PM
Their competing theory is that "all this" (waves arms around) couldn't happen without a god. Unfortunately evolution explains quite nicely how it could. They have to dismantle evolution or their premise fails.
I mean, really, how are we going to ponder the big questions if science is going to bloody well answer them?
Posted by: Lance
|
June 23, 2009 4:11 PM
"Neo-Darwinism is in reality a very recent construct. In fact, it was and is being continually cobbled together long after Darwin himself died. "
Wait, so if Hovind dies then creatardism should die as well? That sounds like a fair trade.
Posted by: tsg | June 23, 2009 4:16 PM
Completely OT but...
best typo ever.
Posted by: mikmik | June 23, 2009 4:17 PM
Should see the front of the Edmonton Journal. Last one, about two weeks ago (searching for link as I type), was about using the stars - astrology - to determine if it was a good time to invest or not.
Can't seem to locate.
Sombre, thoughtful money managers, yes they responded as stupidly as possible.
Posted by: antistokes | June 23, 2009 4:17 PM
@Joe Bleau, #11: "everyone knows that by default we ought to prefer older scientific conclusions to newer ones"
...reminds me of a story my one of profs would tell the class every year:
A young scientist gave a talk on his research, which happened to completely and totally provide conclusive evidence against the theory that one of the elderly, very well established, and very respected faculty members had been working on for his entire career. When the talk was concluded, the old scientist walked up to the young scientist and said, loudly and in fount of the entire audience, "Sir, congratulations, you have proved me wrong."
Posted by: James F | June 23, 2009 4:20 PM
#15
"Okay, so we got a trooper pulls someone over, we got a shooting. These folks drive by, there's a high-speed pursuit, ends here, and then this execution-type deal. I'd be very surprised if our suspect was from Brainerd."
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 23, 2009 4:26 PM
Neo-Darwinism "says ... every thing is random"? Darwinism implies that there are no behavioral norms? Darwinism posits an unconscious blind cosmic agent who shakes dice (metaphorically or otherwise)?
Gee, those are indeed some powerfully stupid ideas there. This well-written and thoughtful letter has me thinkin' that maybe I'm all turned around on this natural selection thingamabodge...
Ah, well, I guess it's off to the video store for me!
Posted by: Pareidolius | June 23, 2009 4:51 PM
Brainerd? More like he's been no-brainerd. I love the implication that if the universe turns out to be random chance influencing natural selection, that we'll all just give up and start raping, pillaging and generally acting altogether poorly because the invisible man in the sky is gone.
Posted by: Glenn Branch | June 23, 2009 4:53 PM
I'll bet that he was thinking of Julian Huxley, not Thomas Henry Huxley.
Posted by: SplendidMonkey
|
June 23, 2009 4:58 PM
Here's Ron: http://www.anglingedge.com/presskit/bios/Ron_Lindner.shtml
Posted by: ER Doc | June 23, 2009 5:10 PM
Yep, sort of funny-looking...
Posted by: Aaron | June 23, 2009 5:14 PM
THIS Ron Lindner? http://www.anglingedge.com/presskit/bios/Ron_Lindner.shtml
He's right by Brainerd AND East Gull Lake, so I'd venture it's one and the same.
Apparently, being a pro fisherman also makes you an expert on biology... (or at least Limnology, right? ;) )
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | June 23, 2009 5:20 PM
antistokes:
Dawkins included a variant of that story in The God Delusion:
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | June 23, 2009 5:20 PM
I don't think Brainerd is the Paul Bunyan town. It is famous for something else: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/brainerddiarrhea_g.htm
I think the symptoms are amusingly appropriate: Explosive watery diarrhea with cramps and gas.
Posted by: Tim H | June 23, 2009 5:26 PM
Say it ain't so!
I can see four books (all on fishing) on my shelf from here by Lindner and Co.
Sounds like his brain has a major line loop in it.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
June 23, 2009 5:27 PM
I do have to give Mr Lindner points for unintentional irony. If you don't like polemics, go watch Expelled?
No, no, Dr. Meyers, there's no irony. Look at what he actually said:
For the person who is interested in the subject, but does not want to wade through pages of polemic, or get into deep esoteric scientific reading, might simply go to the video store and ask for Ben Stein's "Expelled"
It's not the polemics he wants people to avoid. It's the reading. As in, if you want to know the truth, there's no need to delve into the lengthy scientific literature or books. You can just watch a movie!
The last thing he wants is for a genuinely undecided person to conduct thorough research and seriously consider something like Dawkins' actual writings. (He likely has never done so himself.) So, he directs people to what he thinks will be more easily digestible propaganda. And for those pesky people who insist on actual, written arguments, there's an IDiot book out there to skim.
No points for irony on my scale. Just a tactic designed to protect the only right Americans truly hold sacred: the right to remain ignorant.
Posted by: JeffXL | June 23, 2009 5:28 PM
Well, that's all I need: "Hogwash!" None o' that confusin' evidence.
Here's a gomer from my area. I actually yelled "Moron!" at the newspaper Sunday morning:
http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2009/06/17/r_o5ur_vndteihyy6jy8cubw/
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 23, 2009 5:31 PM
#29 BrainerdDiarrhea? OMG,imagine putting THAT in your travel brcohures.
Still, it beats "Brainerd, Where the fish are smarter than the fishermen"
Posted by: James F | June 23, 2009 5:39 PM
Notice how they never complain about atomic theory, plate tectonics, relativity, or gravity? And what's with the constant plugs for Expelled, is Premise Media underwriting these? You usually don't see letters about a young earth, six day creation, and a global flood in mainstream papers, at least - right?
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
June 23, 2009 5:48 PM
'Tis Himself @ 2:
It never fails to amaze me that creationists spend all their time trying (and failing) to tear down evolution. They should be trying to build up their competing theory.
I can't say I agree with that. At least not as a general principle.
Science works by proposing hypotheses, and then seeking to undermine them. That's the whole point of demanding falsifiability. Legitimate attempts to undermine the hypothesis of natural selection have simply not panned out. We just keep finding what we would expect to find if the hypothesis were true. And at this point in time, so much evidence has piled up that we have a bona fide theory of evolution.
But that hardly means that people shouldn't expend energy challenging the theory either at its margins or at its heart. Nor does it mean that such challenges are illegitimate unless an alternative explanation is sufficiently strong.
In fact, that's precisely how theists behave: "You don't believe in god? Then how do you explain . . . " And they won't let you say, "I don't claim to know. I just don't find your hypothesis satisfying." They don't understand that.
The problem with creationists/IDiots is not that they continually challenge the theory of evolution. It's that they do so in bad faith. They have no interest in the scientific method. They do not care to understand the theory evolution or even consider the evidence in its favor. They just huff and puff about their preferred premise of GodDitIT, and get angry when they're not taken seriously. The IDiots pretend they're doing science, but they know full well they're not.
Posted by: Watchman | June 23, 2009 5:52 PM
Brainerd Dispatch?
I don't like the sound of that. It sounds as if their mission is to dispatch brain-nerds.
Posted by: truthspeaker | June 23, 2009 6:04 PM
Before we through away all those fishing videos, keep in mind that Lindner is a very common name up here.
But, it could well be the same guy.
Posted by: Asemodeus | June 23, 2009 6:06 PM
Was reading my college paper one day where they had a creationists loon write a opinion piece. He was trying to hide it of course, but the telltale bullshit fodder lines kept showing up. "Evolution is JUST a theory!" and "Science can't explain everything!", gave it away real quick. I showed it to our local Students for Liberty club, as I am associated with its founder. He got pissed off enough to makes the university apologize for subjecting the less educated in the campus to this nonsense.
Then later on I saw posters out for a free viewing of Expelled! which would be on campus. I pretty sure now that we have a creationists infestation as I am going to do more on my part to expose them as much as possible.
Posted by: DJ | June 23, 2009 6:06 PM
RedPersephone@#6: Brainerd is my hometown too. Left there for greener pastures back in '96. I wonder if the Eclectic cafe is still around?
Anyway, it would be awesome if PZ or another articulate, intelligent voice of reason in MN would write back to the Dispatch and set that garbage straight. I'd even special order a copy of that newspaper. hehe
Posted by: littlejohn | June 23, 2009 6:12 PM
I've never had a biology class since junior high school and I could beat that dumbass in a dabate. Horseshit can be entertaining, but when it's this transparent, I just want to shoot myself in the head. Several times.
Posted by: quatguy | June 23, 2009 6:13 PM
Is it just me, or do others find editorial letters from ignorant, bible-thumping red necks boring? People like that should be put in a zoo. Remnants of a dying breed. Good riddance. However, I do feel sorry for the children.
Can you say EDUCATION people?
Posted by: raven | June 23, 2009 6:18 PM
Creationists rant and rave in newspapers everywhere. What else are they going to do?
They also have a charming habit of checking books out of the library about atheism and evolution and "losing them". I find their book burnings to be a fitting demonstration of their religion but they should buy their own books to burn, not steal them.
Posted by: Agathodemon | June 23, 2009 6:22 PM
Damn, you mean I have to throw out all my Paleo-Darwinism tracts? What happened to that old-time Darwinism?
Posted by: uppity cracka | June 23, 2009 6:26 PM
my cheeks hurt...
from laughing AT people.
Posted by: Lynna | June 23, 2009 6:26 PM
Raven @42: WTF? They really steal books out of libraries and claim to lose them? First I've heard of this. Makes sense, unfortunately.
Obviously my mind is not twisted enough to anticipate all the shenanigans of the religiously inclined.
Hmmm, seems we need a database of book-losers. Fine those suckers. If they don't repent, put them on a may-not-check-out-books list. I suppose they can resort to stealing books instead, but at least they'd have to answer "yes" then to "are you a thief?"
Posted by: truthspeaker | June 23, 2009 6:32 PM
I typed "through" when I meant "throw" above. As I discussed in the comlaints thread, I am often the first to harp on someone else's spelling mistake, so fire away. I have it coming.
Posted by: truthspeaker | June 23, 2009 6:35 PM
Complaints not comlaints. Seems I'm on a roll today.
Posted by: raven | June 23, 2009 6:40 PM
That is a conclusion on my part rather than a proven fact. But it fits the fundie MO perfectly.
The library had 8 copies of Dawkin's The God Delusion. They were always checked out. Then they started disappearing. Now down to 2 copies and one is listed as "lost".
This is typical fundie behavior. They also run around prying Darwin fish off cars with knives and screwdrivers without being too careful about the paint job. The cops actually caught one guy after another citizen called it in from her cell phone. He said the Darwin fish is a satanic symbol and he was doing god's work. LOL, sure I believe that.
And of course, vandalizing wikipedia. Xian morality is a myth.
Posted by: Lynna | June 23, 2009 6:43 PM
truthspeaker @47: I join you in head-hanging shame. @45 I typed "steal" in the first sentence when I was thinking "check out," then later compounded the error. Sigh.
Interesting how far off base my brain can be. I suspect a disconnect between brain and typing fingers.
High-test iced tea is almost as good as coffee.
Posted by: T. Mackiewicz | June 23, 2009 6:56 PM
I don't know which is sadder, the letter writer's complete lack of understanding or the dumb readers who will invariably take his letter as a wonderous refutation that exposes evolution as false?
Posted by: uppity cracka | June 23, 2009 7:04 PM
the dumb readers. definitely.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 23, 2009 7:16 PM
All they have to do is get their imaginary god to refute evolution with a simple appearance. This will definitely prove all of history to be bullshit.
Posted by: jasollsta | June 23, 2009 7:18 PM
More to the point on Ron Lindner:
http://www.anglingedge.com/pages/inspiration.shtml
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 23, 2009 7:23 PM
Raven @42: WTF? They really steal books out of libraries and claim to lose them? First I've heard of this. Makes sense, unfortunately.
They also do it with gay-themed books for youth and children. Usually they don't go to the pretense of lying about losing it, though.
Posted by: Null_Hypothesis | June 23, 2009 8:30 PM
Just to be accurate, we should understand that nothing in science can be considered to be "truth". As Stephen Hawking points out on page 10 of A Brief History of Time,Rather than being a way of discovering some Truth of Reality, as most people misunderstand science to be, what science actually is is a method that we have invented to create objects in our minds, and test our ideas of how those objects interact. It can therefore be used to explain observable phenomena and to make predictions. Rather than revealing the truth, what science does is reveal a kind of anti-truth, since that is how the scientific method of hypothesis / null hypothesis works, and then we humans, on the basis of all of our accumulated cultural and scientific memes, use the results of scientific observation and experimentation to infer a "truth", based on provisionally nullifying the anti-truth, in our own reality.
The null hypothesis is not an assumption; it is simply the anti-truth to the hypothesis, which you fall back on if you get any evidence refuting the hypothesis (in this case that variation is not random). One could also flip it around and make the hypothesis say that variation is not random and the null hypothesis says that variation is random. Depending on what perspective you look from, you get evidence refuting the hypotheses in both experiments. Until evolutionists can demonstrate a single calculation, out of the millions of possible examples out there, of how random genetic mutations acting at their baseline rates can lead to new or improved functional genes, it will continue to be pointed out that this premise has problems. It is not incorrect, since on many levels it is completely consistent with observation and is good at predicting phenomena, but what it points out is limits to the ToE in explaining the origins of biological complexity. The sooner evolutionists accept this, the sooner we will be able to posit modifications to the ToE, or new additional theories altogether, that do.Posted by: truthspeaker | June 23, 2009 8:36 PM
I'm pretty sure this has already been demonstrated.
Posted by: Rieux | June 23, 2009 8:40 PM
Aw--sure he was!Yeah, the guy was uncomfortable enough with the opprobrium heaped upon "atheists" since time immemorial that he came up with "agnostic" to hide behind (not exactly the last time that that's happened--even Robert Freakin' Ingersoll, anything but a shrinking violet, prominently chickened out of wearing the scarlet A), but face it: Huxley didn't believe in gods. Whether he accepted the label or not, by common atheist parlance, the guy was an atheist.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
June 23, 2009 10:01 PM
Dobzhansky didn't belong to the right cult, therefore he's hellbound, and therefore an atheist. If there ever were evidence for Lamarckian inheritance it would be the propagation of John Calvin's supreme stupidity which seems to be inherited by all self-proclaimed christian fanatics.
Posted by: raven | June 23, 2009 10:23 PM
It's been demonstrated countless times in the real world. You slept through the 20th century and the 21st as well.
The premise doesn't have problems. You do. You have had this explained to you countless times as well and just ignore it and keep babbling. Sign of a true creationist crackpot, immune to logic, reason, or facts.
"We lie a lot, are stupid, and are crazy, therefore goddidit."
To cite just one recent example for you to ignore again. There is a new flu going around, swine flu. We've sequenced its genome and 800 others as well. This gives a great detailed picture of its evolutionary trajectory all the way back to the 1918 influenza strain, of which it is a distant descendant.
This flu strain looks to be the next, predicted and long awaited pandemic. It will scare everyone, make millions sick, and kill 1/2 - 2 million extra people. And you wacko creationists will probably be one of those who get sick and may be one of those killed. All the while watching evolution in action while denying it exists. Pretty creepy and stupid group of people.
Posted by: antistokes | June 24, 2009 12:24 AM
Benjamin Geiger, #28, "Dawkins included a variant of that story in The God Delusion"
Yes, my prof mentioned the Golgi story too, his point was that this was a common thing to happen in science.
....Don't remember reading it in Delusion, but I read it a while a ago (and admittedly I skipped over the arguments I'd head before).
The point remains: if you want to do science, you ain't gonna be right all the time- and nor should you be! Quoting the same prof (heard a bunch of variation of this saying, so I don't know if he was quoting someone): "When you become wedded to your hypothesis and not your data, that's a little scary".
Posted by: Steven Carr | June 24, 2009 1:56 AM
'In fact, it was and is being continually cobbled together long after Darwin himself died.'
Those scientists! Always correcting and improving their theories.
Shows you just how little confidence they have in their beliefs.
They will believe one thing on Monday and another thing on Wednesday, simply because something happened on Tuesday.
Posted by: Malcolm | June 24, 2009 2:21 AM
Null Hypothesis,
Go look up globin genes.
When you can fully explain them to us, we can begin considering your argument.
Posted by: Miguel | June 24, 2009 2:49 AM
Ron Lindner:
The retort to this statement is simple: hogwash!
Posted by: BK | June 24, 2009 10:55 AM
A little sidestep on the topic....
I find it interesting that so many of the religious folk equate understanding evolution with becoming atheist. I have never met anyone that became an atheist after learning about evolution. In fact, I think think the church and religion produces more atheists by the sheer number of rotten actions and terrible people. I mean really....does it REALLY take allowing the raping of children, or other abuses of those unable to defend themselves, to make people prove their worth? The number of sick, sick actions they can explain away, make excuses for, or claim it's not their problem is amazing. Before coming to that conclusion, I had no problems with having both scientific understanding and religious belief together.
Even after changing my own belief system, I don't think I got overly upset until they tried forcing their religious views into the public schools and science, and at THAT point I decided I had enough of them trying to force their views onto society. I see this as a fight THEY started. All I really wanted was separation so that I could live a life without religious dogma.
Ok, sorry for the personal rant. I have been holding onto that one for months. I just had to give up and post it.
Posted by: Steve_1 | June 24, 2009 1:48 PM
One quibble: Shouldn't the phrase be "Neo-Darwinism's top crproponentists..."?
Posted by: KI | June 24, 2009 1:51 PM
Two Brainerd related points.
Yep, Ron Lindner, inventor of the Lindy Rig and star of many TV fishing shows. He's been a bible thumper for many years, lots of church talks, that sort of thing, and it's really weird 'cause he's the guy who introduced the modern scientific-method mindset to angling. He knows his fish and lake biology.
There used to be a big Paul Bunyan statue at the amusement park on what used to be the edge of town. Paul was seated, and it had a speaker in his head, so when the kids came in, he'd greet them by name. Scared the hell outta me the first time. The park is gone now, someone bought Paul, but I don't know if he's around anywhere anymore.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 24, 2009 4:30 PM
Brainerd Dispatch.
Heh. Sounds kinda like the local franchise of Lobotomies R Us.
Posted by: RedPersephone
|
June 24, 2009 6:12 PM
Re: Brainerd stuff.
Yes, we're the home of the Paul Bunyan statue, but he was moved to make room for a Kohl's (that's progress for ya). Here's the place he is now, with a pic and a little 'history':
http://tinyurl.com/l2a93p
Note that the statue used in "Fargo" was one made by the movie production, and thus does not actually exist in Minnesota.
The Brainerd Dispatch has a long history of mediocrity to outright shamefulness. Many of us call it "The Brainerd Disgrace."
Oh, and our favorite name for our town as teenagers: Braindead.
One more interesting fact related to Brainerd Diarrhea: we were also the locus of the most recent peanut butter-salmonella outbreak, with 3 deaths (one of them the grandfather of a childhood friend of mine).
Okay, I'll stop belittling my hometown, now. :)
DJ: did you go to BHS? You're probably a bit older than me, as I graduated in '99.