…and this is a 
I am deeply, horribly ashamed. On the principle that one's reputation is known by the quality of one's enemies…I have the pathetic Bryan Appleyard acting as if he is my nemesis. You know a post is worthless when it begins with "Please note that at the end of this post P.Z.Myers will still be a jerk and I still won't be," and then goes downhill from there. But then, Andrew Sullivan thinks there's some substance to Appleyard's bilious nonsense, so I tried hard to see if there was some reasonable argument somewhere in his pouty whine. There isn't; it's mostly excuses for why his science writing is such godawful tripe and wrong-headed babble.
His big point, if he has one, is that evolution has become an ideology. In that he shares common ground with the ideologues of the Discovery Institute, and also reveals that he doesn't know anything about science.
The big point is that […]ideology has migrated from politics to religion and science. This is bad for religion and very bad for science. The minor reason it's bad for science is it generates public confusion and mistrust. So, for example, mention intelligent design and the likes of Myers will be hurling abuse. But I gather from reading John Gribbin's superb exposition In Search of the Multiverse that ID is, in fact, a perfectly respectable hypothesis among some physicists - the designer would not be a deity but a more technically advanced civilisation. So the world is 'designed' then? 'No!' howls Myers; 'Maybe,' murmur the physicists.
ID is also a perfectly respectable hypothesis among some biologists — the ones on the crank side of the spectrum. Most of the physicists I know are fairly sensible on the matter, and reject Intelligent Design creationism; the physicists aren't murmuring "Maybe," they're walking quietly away from loons like Appleyard.
I thought Gribbin's book was awful. Basically, he believes that if there are multiple universes, then all things are possible…and that maybe our universe is the creation of semi-god-like beings in another universe. This is not convincing. It's simply deistic wishful thinking. Citing Gribbin as representative of common thought in the physics community is a bad idea.
It also misses the point. Sure, you can invent science fiction scenarios — the Big Bang was a science experiment in a grander metaverse, life was concocted in an alien laboratory and inoculated into our oceans 4 billion years ago — but these fantasies ignore the reality. Life was not designed, because we have the evidence of the processes that formed it and we see the relationships in living forms today. Appleyard is comparing hypothetical speculation about gaps in our knowledge with the concrete facts of life's evolution on earth and pretending that his guesswork about physics is as good as the solid body of evidence in the scientific literature…of which he is completely oblivious.
This isn't ideology. It's the simple, plain fact that we can see in the molecules of our body our relationship to the weirdest marine annelid you can find, and that we can trace eons of history without invoking a single angelic intervention, yet can still explain in rough outline our origins. We are the progeny of worms, not clever cosmonauts from another dimension. Any physicist who tries to argue that ID is 'respectable' is an arrogant ignoramus with no knowledge of biology; even Gribbin is not arguing for intelligent design, but for a rather fuzzy version of pseudoscientific deism.
Not that Appleyard would be able to tell the difference. He's a fellow whose mind is as muddled as a plate of scrambled eggs, and he thinks this is a virtue.
I was in the middle of writing on Friday when I noticed, as if for the first time, a habit of mine. For pace and economy I often set up a point of view without reservation or comment from me. Thus, for example, 'Hitler was right. Arnold Bonkers says....'. This seems to confuse people. Furthermore, I tend to write hybrid pieces - typically about 20 per cent column and 80 per cent news feature. The latter involves transmission of information, but not for the purpose of illustrating my own approval of disapproval of something or other. This further confuses people. On top of that, I had to shorten the Darwin piece that all this fuss was about by about 40 per cent at the last minute. It happens. This required me to tighten up my economy and pace habit even further. This definitely confuses people.
To be clear: I have no problem with the plausibility and coherence of a Darwinian explanation of the development of the eye. Indeed, to be honest, I don't care one way or another: it's not on my agenda or within my realm of competence, though I do regard myself as free to report the views of those who do find it unconvincing.
So evolution isn't within his 'realm of competence,' and he has just noticed that his writing style is confusing, but he insists on writing about the subject. That's a plain admission that a) he's ignorant, and b) his writing sucks. Which is what I've been saying all along.
At last! We agree on something!
Comments
Posted by: Sirutka | November 30, 2009 9:36 AM
Bah, everyone knows your real nemesis is Captain Hammer.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 30, 2009 9:37 AM
Bah! Captain Hammer will not be able to stand before my Freeze Ray!
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 9:41 AM
What made me laugh:
Andrew is probably patting himself on the back for making you "try hard" to find something edible in the slop bucket — as if!Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | November 30, 2009 9:41 AM
Well, in the interests of fairness I read quite a few entries on that blog. Yeah. He's basically a babbling, bristling, content-challenged berk.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
November 30, 2009 9:48 AM
And according to The Science of Discworld, our Universe might be the result of using up the excess of magic created by Unseen University's failed attempt at central heating. It was co-authored by a mathematician, so I'm sure that's a respectable opinion within the scientific community!
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
November 30, 2009 9:50 AM
Appleyard is a poster child for the condition from which most of humanity suffers, of being eager to believe absolutely any old pile of dreck just to avoid the effort of kicking the unsubstantiated-belief habit altogether. Sigh.
Posted by: The Tim Channel
|
November 30, 2009 9:52 AM
At least you're a mild mannered jerk. LOL.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Jackal | November 30, 2009 10:04 AM
I say the fist proto-cells were zapped into Earth's oceans 3.5 BYA by the Cosmic Unicorn, and anyone who disagrees with me is a big meany. What, you don't respect me or my theory? Meanies!
Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 30, 2009 10:04 AM
He actually said that. What is he, in high school?
As soon as I saw that link on Sullivan's blog this morning I started snickering; what does Appleyard know about science, anyway?
Anyway. If PZ is to be defined as "jerk" and Appleyard is to be defined as "non-jerk," then I would rather have the jerk on my side.
Posted by: Orac
|
November 30, 2009 10:07 AM
It could be worse. You could be like me and have J.B. Handley of Generation Rescue or, even worse, Patrick "Tim" Bolen thinking himself your nemesis.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | November 30, 2009 10:08 AM
PZ, you should file a grievance with the Guild of Calamitous Intent and see if they could hook you up with a new Arch.
I hear Baron Unterbeit's available.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 30, 2009 10:09 AM
Jackal sez,
Zapped in? That's crazy talk. No, they weren't zapped in, they were sprinkled onto the oceans by her hooves and stirred in by her horn.Posted by: F
|
November 30, 2009 10:24 AM
I reserve the right to publish opinions which have no foundation as if they have equal weight as facts do, and express my own opinion on subjects of which I know nothing, and have no interest in.
So there. Take that, you big jerk.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 30, 2009 10:24 AM
There's a very pretty short story about the origin of life, by French sci-fi writer Francis Carsac.
A group of aliens is on a scientific mission of exploration on a small planet (guess which one). They're supposed to study it and find out what benefit can be drawn from exploiting its resources. But there's nothing. It's just a sterile lump of rock. The leader of the expedition stands by the sea, looks around and finds the place despicable. And he spits in the water.
As for Appleyard, I'm afraid he's among the people who have no clear idea of what "ideology" means.
Posted by: chebghobbi
|
November 30, 2009 10:33 AM
@11
I held off from posting this earlier because I figured PZ wouldn't be a Venture Bros viewer (although I'd recommend it to anyone) but the promo for next Sunday's new episode features a well-loved Lovecraft character...
Posted by: dinkum | November 30, 2009 10:35 AM
Does Appleyard distribute free kneepads? His comments display more group fellatio than Caligula.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 30, 2009 10:35 AM
That was dull...and rather pointless.You're right, you need much better enemies. This guy doesn't even want to deal in facts and evidence it seems.
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
November 30, 2009 10:35 AM
Appleyard can see past the naive certainty of science, and see the world in a more nuanced and philosophical light. He can perceive subtle complexities where others can't, and armed with such knowledge, he can easily refute the narrow and misguided scientism of the uncultured rationalist mob.
At least, that's how he seems to see himself. In reality his "nuances" are patent misunderstandings, his "subtleties" are incoherent blatherings, and his "refutations" are lists of insults.
Posted by: Parnell | November 30, 2009 10:40 AM
This, don't forget, is the same Appleyard that once defended ID on the grounds that ID only relates to the origin of life, and thus does not overlap with evolution. Because of course, God made the first life forms with fully formed flagella, apparently.
Posted by: middlekk | November 30, 2009 10:42 AM
My only question is - where can I get a gig where I can get paid to write badly about things that I admit that I don't understand?
Posted by: Ten Bears | November 30, 2009 10:43 AM
Recalling that in all legend lay a kernel of fact, reading the fabrications koran, bible, and torah in larger, historical context with other fabrications lain down in stone it is in fact quite easy to afford “Intelligent Design” a measure of credibility. When chariots with wheels of fire flitting about, vast arks propelling the seeds of life across vast empty spaces, and fathers asking of their wives “be this my son, or that of a “giant?” are lain aside the physical record it isn’t all that far fetched to supposit that at some point in the past half-million years extra-terrestrial travelers – for whatever reason: pure science, sheer boredom, desperate survival, or profit – genetically interfered with the development of the proto-humans they found roaming the savannahs of Northern and Western Africa. Not only are we but fleas agitating the hide of a far greater organism, but some bastard’s abandoned science project, if not cattle, as well. Wrap the twelve percent of your brain you use around that.
Posted by: gman | November 30, 2009 10:47 AM
PZ says: "We are the progeny of worms..."
PZ, please don't do this again. Indirectly and distantly, yes, it's true and I understand that the relevant contrast you're denying is alien parentage, not human parentage.
But it encourages the uncharitable reader to conclude that you think we descended directly from worms (perhaps via a hu-worm).
And even worse, it begs the question, "If we descended from worms, why are there still worms?"
Posted by: middlekk | November 30, 2009 10:48 AM
BTW and then onto work:
The universe was brought into being by giant, green, interdimensional alien monkeys who shat it out of their red monkey butts.
The evidence is all around us. "Red shift" is clearly the leftover evidence that the monkey butts were red. Chlorophyll is clear evidence that they were green. And creationists are clear evidence that they were monkeys.
You ever wonder why the galaxies are spread out the way they are? Monkeys flinging poo.
You may now all join my church. We sacrifice virgins on Wednesdays.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 30, 2009 10:50 AM
First off, ID is a perfectly acceptable hypothesis, but only a hypothesis completely without substantiation.
Secondly, the buffoon doesn't know that the only ID that is at all a respectable hypothesis is cosmological ID, not biological ID. That's because biological ID has been tested (Paley's version), and has failed, while the present fraud is anything but testable. Above all, there are no marks of identifiable design in organisms.
So he's a useless ignoramus.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
November 30, 2009 10:50 AM
I adhere to the Golgofrinchan Ark B theory, myself.
Which is in fact another of the myths that you apparently like to believe in. By the way, how did those extraterrestrials themselves arise?
Posted by: BenW
|
November 30, 2009 10:52 AM
I seem to recall an episode of ST:TNG when Wesley Crusher created a universe inside a warp bubble and it expanded (as universes tend to do) but was a plank length away from ours in every dimension.
It was on TV so it must be true. =)
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 30, 2009 10:52 AM
Gribbin has long been willing to write the most absurd pseudoscientific garbage - presumably just for the money. See in particular The Jupiter Effect (1974) and The Jupiter Effect Revisited (1982).
Posted by: Russell Miller | November 30, 2009 10:59 AM
Ummm. No. You're arguing that because we have the evidence of the process that formed it (which I agree with) that there was no way that process was not designed. Evolution can be entirely true and all science can be entirely correct and life could stil be designed. It's simply not within the realm of science to determine that at this point, and is a matter for individual faith.
I have no problem with "intelligent design", as long as it is kept where it belongs - outside of conflict with real science and in the realm of spirituality. The problem is not with those who argue that life was designed, the problem is with those who try to prove it.
Posted by: realinterrobang
|
November 30, 2009 10:59 AM
Dear Mr. Appleyard,
Speaking as someone with a Master's degree in rhetoric who has also spent the last ten years making a living writing, if your writing "frequently confuses people," you're doing it wrong. I'd say "Don't quit your day job," but apparently someone already had the bad sense to hire you to write professionally. Maybe you'd be better suited to a different occupation? Given your apparent propensity for blending, or even emulsifying, language and concepts, perhaps a satisfying career as an industrial blender operator awaits you.
At the very, very least, you need a better editor than the one you have, and the one you do have ought to be ashamed of hirself over the dirtiness of your published copy.
No love,
?!
Posted by: gg | November 30, 2009 11:00 AM
As a physicist, I must disagree with the details of your statement -- I run away as noisily as I can from loons like Appleyard.
Posted by: mohammed allah | November 30, 2009 11:00 AM
Watch and read mohammed T-shirt art from Sweden at,
http://www.mohammedt-shirt.com
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 30, 2009 11:02 AM
Ten Bears,
Recalling that in all legend lay a kernel of fact
That's just a legend.
it isn’t all that far fetched to supposit that at some point in the past half-million years extra-terrestrial travelers – for whatever reason: pure science, sheer boredom, desperate survival, or profit – genetically interfered with the development of the proto-humans they found roaming the savannahs of Northern and Western Africa.
Yes it is, extremely far-fetched. Neither the morphological nor the technological development of humans over the past half-million years shows any sign whatever of such interference, nor has any trace whatever of these aliens ever been discovered.
Wrap the twelve percent of your brain you use around that.
I'm quite prepared to believe you only use 12% of your brain. The rest of us - no: the brain is fucking expensive to build and maintain: if we didn't use it, we wouldn't have it. Sheesh.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 30, 2009 11:03 AM
Intelligent design makes empirical claims.
Posted by: fauxrs
|
November 30, 2009 11:03 AM
I think the first place I ever saw this theory considered was in Robert E Hienlien's novel "The number of the beast" in this case the number of teh beast was not the biblical one per se but was 6^6^6 (which is a bloody big number by the way. That number represented the # of alternate universes.
Oh also every alternate universe was essentially a book written by an author, so in the story the characters visit Oz, and Barsoom.
Little did I realise this was a perfectly acceptable hypothisis :)
Posted by: DrFrank | November 30, 2009 11:05 AM
@Ten Bears #21
Speak for yourself, I use the entirety of my brain like most of the rest of the human race ;)
Posted by: middlekk | November 30, 2009 11:06 AM
@ TenBears #21.
It is a myth that we only use 12% of our brains. We use ALL of our brains, just not all at once (that would be a grand mal seizure, which you most definitely do not want to experience).
Neurons make up about 10-12% of the brain's anatomy (whether by weight, volume, or number of cells as a percent of the total, I'm not sure). They have the job of "thinking".
The rest of the brain is made up of glial cells, but those cells are not mere empty stuffing. They play extremely important roles in the overall functioning of the brain.
Evolution has given us "junk" DNA - but most assuredly has not given us "junk" brains. Except if you're a creationist.
Posted by: Russell Miller | November 30, 2009 11:07 AM
That's why I put it in quotes - as an attempt to distinguish it from the movement, which I am in complete agreement with most everyone here that is complete hooey.
Perhaps I should have used a different set of words.
I simply consider the argument - that since there is no evidence of design, that it could not be designed, to be as fallacious as the opposite argument - that since there seems to be a design, that it must be designed.
I, personally, am a spiritual person - not religious, but spiritual. I think that there very well may have been a design, but it probably was inherent in the starting conditions of the universe, and thus is, at the moment, an unprovable hypothesis. I am content with that. If science ever disproves that, I will be more than happy to renounce it. It most likely never will, at least not in my lifetime.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
November 30, 2009 11:08 AM
And, as they say, monkeys could fly out of my butt.
Bullshit. The primary job of science is to engage in abduction (inference to the best explanation). As you acknowledge, in this instance an explanation that fits the extremely copious evidence very well indeed is in hand. To instead believe any old bullshit of one's choice on grounds of "faith" is merely to mark oneself out a complete ass.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 30, 2009 11:09 AM
All the evidence for evolution could be an elaborate ruse on the part of a designer.
However without evidence such supposition is pointless. You might be happy wasting your time on it, but most of us are not.
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
November 30, 2009 11:10 AM
As for Andrew Sullivan, he only quotes Appleyard out of dislike for Myers. He's a Catholic who threw a hissyfit over Crackergate. It's all about personal animosity rather than content. If Appleyard said "Ekke Ekke Ekke Ekke Ptang Zoo Boing Zow Zing, therefore Myers is wrong", then Sullivan would blindly parrot it.
Posted by: Russell Miller | November 30, 2009 11:10 AM
No, it is simply to mark oneself as true to oneself. That which science cannot prove or disprove is fair game, and those who think otherwise are as narrow minded as the IDers who will stop at nothing to "prove" their choice theory and just end up making idiots of themselves.
And on that note, this argument is fruitless. I've tossed myself into the lion's den, but I must remove myself, as I have real, productive, work to do. Best of luck.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
November 30, 2009 11:12 AM
Amounts to the same thing in your case.
Posted by: anonym | November 30, 2009 11:12 AM
I do think you are a jerk PZ. But science isn't a popularity contest and your demeanor is irellevant to the arguments you make.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 30, 2009 11:14 AM
I think Russell Miller is one of those science is just one type of knowing types, no more or less valid than others.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
November 30, 2009 11:17 AM
Goddamn Descartes. His deceitful demon, ancestor of the brain in a vat, started one of the biggest, longest-running wastes of perfectly good neurons in all of intellectual history- the notion that you actually have to argue against such idiotic "possibilities" rather than giving them the curt dismissal that they merit.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 30, 2009 11:18 AM
No. We are descended from worms. Our precambrian ancestor would have been distinctly wormy.
Get used to it.
Posted by: Tulse | November 30, 2009 11:20 AM
That's a waste of perfectly good virgins.
While humming Also Sprach Zarathustra.
(See, I know that theory isn't true because it's 8 years past the time we should have commercial spaceplanes traveling to rotating space stations, and my Mac has shown absolutely no homicidal tendencies.)
Posted by: Peter G.
|
November 30, 2009 11:22 AM
My eyeballs were designed by advanced aliens instead of a bi-polar deity with a shitty sense of humor? That's a relief.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 30, 2009 11:26 AM
Only sort of, you know.
Actually, it makes the kinds of empirical claims that religions and magic do, vague analogical comparisons without any causal explanations (not in the scientific sense).
Which is why we can still test it, by first turning it into a meaningful theory, or we can point out that it is indeed untestable in the manner that they present it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: gg | November 30, 2009 11:27 AM
Tulse wrote: "...and my Mac has shown absolutely no homicidal tendencies."
You're looking in the wrong direction. I can say with certainty that my various Windows PCs have tried to kill me numerous times (usually by strategically losing my important data in ways that have pushed me towards a heart attack).
Posted by: Julian | November 30, 2009 11:29 AM
I have to agree that this Appleyard seems to be a rather disorganized thinker. First, he writes a piece declaring evolution to be shaky. Then, at the end of it, he states he isn't competent in the subject. Finally, after admitting his lack of familiarity with the field of biology, he then passively claims to have the competence to air the opinions of those who disagree with evolution and are competent enough in biology to be allowed to judge it.
So which is it? How can he be both not competent enough to discuss evolution and competent enough on the subject to judge who is competent to discuss it? And if he feels himself so lacking, why did he write the article in the first place? This whole nonsense is akin to the statement, "Penguins are evil. Now, I'm no expert on penguins, nor do I know anything about the field of Penguinology. But these people, who I agree with on other things, incidentally, think penguins are evil, so I'm pretty sure they are, and you should trust me, because I'm a competent reporter."
If he really doesn't care about the issue, then why not just admit that all he's "reporting" is his own opinion and be done with it? This attempt to masquerade his prejudices as news is not only insulting in its poverty of skill, but also dangerous for precisely the reasons he happens to be attacking science; because it confuses fact (news reporting) and ideology (what he would like to be true).
Posted by: Endor | November 30, 2009 11:34 AM
You're ALL wrong. The universe was CLEARLY started by a man named David Lister when he accidentally jump started the *second* big bang using jump leads from Starbug (his spaceship).
He also started the Felis Sapien species - humanoids evolved from house cats.
it was on t.v., so it's obviously true. Repent!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 30, 2009 11:40 AM
PZ Myers:
A trait still preserved in some members of our own, supposedly "highly derived" species: Bryan Appleyard and Joe the assistant in This Island Earth spring to mind.
The "universe designed by a superior civilization" idea is a rather bad explanation, as it presumes what it is trying to explain, namely the existence of a physical universe which can sustain life and intelligence.
Posted by: raven | November 30, 2009 11:42 AM
Why are fundie xians so stupid?
Who turns the light on when you open the refrigerator door?
Who drags the sun across the sky in a chariot every day?
Who keeps the planets moving across the sky?
The old answers were sprites, Apollo Helios, and angels. Most of us don't need supernatural explanations for things such as orbital mechanics. We know why the sun appears to move across the sky and why the planets orbit the sun and it has nothing to do with invisible beings. Same thing for evolution, the fact and theory of.
Gods and multiverses are speculation, not proven scientific theories.
I think the christofascists are just willfully ignorant and stupid. They must think that science is just choosing whatever beliefs you want. This doesn't take into account the trillions of dollars spent to accumulate the evidence and facts that support the best current knowledge of objective reality. Science also works, a point they are oblivious to. We invented modern Hi Tech 21st civilization.
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 30, 2009 11:48 AM
Ah, yes. The old "spirituality" defense. The point of view that allows the unknown to be known, and the purely-speculative to have equal footing with that which is supported by evidence.
There is a substantial flaw with this. I'm glad you tacitly admit the flaw. Ontological standing is determined only by empirical vetting. Speculation has no ontological standing whatsoever, whether or not you dress it up in the pretty, pretty robes of "spirituality."
To claim that "not-designed" is as equally foolish as "designed" in this argument is ignorance at best. I suspect it leans more to sophistry or self-delusion in most cases.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | November 30, 2009 11:56 AM
Just skimmed the guy's blog post. Wow. There was no need to lower yourself to even acknowledging it. You can't win a battle of the wits with an unarmed man.
Posted by: Tulse | November 30, 2009 11:59 AM
PCs? Well, of course they're evil. Duh.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 30, 2009 12:03 PM
Appleyard is one reason I now take The Observer on a Sunday rather than The Sunday Times. Everytime I read an article by Appleyard in The Sunday Times I ended up ripping up the section in a fit of frustration and disbelief at the imbecilic things he said.
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
November 30, 2009 12:07 PM
One of the most annoying things these idiots keep throwing around is "spirituality"! Listen, you can try to sugarcoat your particular form of religion with as many honey and syrup analogies as you like, but at it's core it's still SHIT!
Posted by: Arabian Stallion | November 30, 2009 12:23 PM
I disagree with those who said that PZ shouldn't have 'lowered himself' to Appleyard's babble. I can clearly see him getting owned in his comments' section. He'll be the one to regret ever instigating this exchange. It'd be worth it if only to sow some seeds of doubts in the minds of his reasonable readers. (and I do hope he has some of those)
Posted by: middlekk | November 30, 2009 12:33 PM
@47...well, we actually just sacrifice their virginity, if you catch my drift.
Posted by: Mr Right | November 30, 2009 12:39 PM
|Every time I come across an evolutionist I simply ask them why, if we came from monkeys, there are still monkeys. I have never received a satisfactory answer!
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 30, 2009 12:46 PM
Mr Right,
On the offchance you are a real honest-to-goodness moron, and not someone making a feeble joke, the answer is this. The theory of evolution does not say, and has never said, that everything will evolve in the same direction. Species evolve in response to the selective pressures in their local environment, including other species. Species also split into more than one descendant species. So, while our ancestors evolved first into apes, and then into humans [note to the knowledgeable - I'm deliberately using lay and not scientific taxonomic terminology here for Mr. Stupid's sake], other monkeys evolved into different kinds of monkey. Got it now, Mr Halfwit?
Posted by: middlekk | November 30, 2009 12:49 PM
@62.
Why are there still monkeys? For the very same reason that if you make a left turn going to your house, the city doesn't then tear up the street going to the right.
The process of speciation is a process of SEPARATION. It's not a process of "defeat" of the old. You're thinking of "survival of the fittest" as a winner-takes-all contest. It's only a "winner-preferentially-survives-in-that-environment" contest.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 30, 2009 1:08 PM
That's probably because you didn't phrase your question the best way possible. Here is a better way of asking the question:
" Do I really want to go on the internet and demonstrate that I am too stupid to understand the basics of evolutionary theory, but just smart enough to almost correctly parrot a catchphrase I heard somewhere?
Posted by: scudbucket | November 30, 2009 1:12 PM
"Speculation has no ontological standing whatsoever..."
We'll see about that! For your enjoyment, the Ontological Argument from Conceptual Possibility!
There are an infinite number of worlds. It is possible that God exists in one of them. God is, by definition, all-powerful, omnipresent, etc., so if he exists in one world he exists in all worlds. Therefore, God necessarily exists!
Oh, and one other thing: the claim that "the designer would not be a deity but a more technically advanced civilisation" is just silly. It reminds me of Bertrand Russell's conversation with a man who believed the earth rested on the back of a giant turtle in space. Russell asked him what supported the first turtle. "Another turtle," was the reply. And what supports that turtle? The man thought for a minute. "It's turtles all the way down."
Posted by: gg | November 30, 2009 1:18 PM
Blake wrote:
Did you recently watch MST3k: The Movie, and if so, why wasn't I invited? :)
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 30, 2009 1:38 PM
Please tell us what answers you have received, then, and why they are not satisfactory. Otherwise, I will just assume that you are lying.
Posted by: Iain Walker | November 30, 2009 2:01 PM
Russell Miller (#28):
If an empirical question isn't within science's ability to resolve, then it's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of not knowing.
And what exactly is the "realm of spirituality", what makes it a valid area of discourse, and in what way does "intelligent design" belong within it?
Generally speaking, to argue that something is true is to try and prove it, in the broad sense of the term "prove" (i.e., to offer reasons for supposing something is the case, or at least to assert that there are such reasons). That's kind of what arguing for a proposition means.
Posted by: jdhuey
|
November 30, 2009 2:03 PM
Well combining the concept of the 'spandrel', referenced in another thread, with the acience fiction idea about created Universes brings to mind the book _Implied Spaces_ by Jon Williams. In the book people have developed the technology to create 'pocket' universes along with the ability to determine how the laws/spaces inside will work, designing planets and people and civilizations and so on. One of the consequences of this design is the creation of 'implied spaces' - places in the universe (or on a world) that were not really intended to exist but have to exist as a result of the intended design: spandrels.
Spoiler Alert.
After other conflicts are resolved, the conclusion is reached that our own Universe is actually a manufactured 'pocket' Universe that was just very poorly designed. The book ends as if to set up a sequel (I don't know if it was ever written) to search for the idiots that did such a botch job of creating a Universe.
Posted by: blf | November 30, 2009 2:13 PM
It seems like it could be fun having as your nemesis a complete looney. Especially when the looney is the only one who thinks it's your nemesis—and everyone else is doubled-over in laughter…
(It needn't always be fun. For instance, the nutter who shall not be named in Montreal probably wouldn't be much fun.)
Posted by: gman | November 30, 2009 2:15 PM
PZ responds:
"No. We are descended from worms. Our precambrian ancestor would have been distinctly wormy.
Get used to it."
It ain't a question of me being used to it (I am).
It's the fact that quote-miners will deliberately distort claims such as these to suggest you (and other evolutionists) believe we descended from worms with no intermediary ancestors.
Posted by: Iain Walker | November 30, 2009 2:20 PM
scudbucket (#66):
Sorry, this is just a rehash of Plantinga's modal version of the ontological argument, and is subject to the same refutation, to whit:
It is not self-contradictory to posit a possible world in which agency is not instantiated. But since the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection all presuppose agency, it follows that there is at least one possible world (indeed many possible worlds) in which God does not exist. Hence, it is not the case that "God exists" is necessarily true.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | November 30, 2009 2:25 PM
Every time I come across a child I simply ask them why, if they came from parents, there are still parents. I have never received a satisfactory answer!
Posted by: blf | November 30, 2009 2:26 PM
They might. So what? They're also quite capable, and prone to, just making it up: “The notorious euchrist-molesting athesit Dr Meyers has even claimed we evolved from ants! Ants!!!1! How silly can you get? When did you ever seen a pregnant ant? How would it carry a human child?” Yadda yadda yadda…
I'd rather have it clearly and baldly stated there is a evolutionary connection between worms and people (as surprising as that might seem), rather then, well, then what?
Posted by: Skeptic Tim | November 30, 2009 2:27 PM
"... But I gather from reading John Gribbin's superb exposition In Search of the Multiverse that ID is, in fact, a perfectly respectable hypothesis among some physicists - the designer would not be a deity but a more technically advanced civilisation. ..."
This appears to be a rather confused understanding of some arguments occasionally made by a number of mathematician/physicists: see, for example "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality: Brian Whitworth, Massey University, Albany, Auckland, New Zealand" where he "...explores the idea that the universe is a virtual reality created by information processing, and relates this strange idea to the findings of modern physics about the physical world..."
It is true that physicists occasionally use the analogy, or device, of exploring the consequences of assuming that the universe behaves in a "designed" manner. This device can be useful as a means of examining the logical consequences of making some assumption(s) about "reality". For example the paper mentioned above, might be used in conjunction with Seth Lloyd's (Computational capacity of the universe: arXiv:quant-ph/0110141v1 24 Oct 2001) which builds upon Landauer's statement that ‘Information is physical’ to '... [quantify] the amount of information that the universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history...' One can then go on to argue, as P C W Davies does in "Emergent Biological Principles and the Computational Properties of the Universe", that 'life is an emergent phenomenon.' This type of argument, however, is not intended to imply that there exists some 'god' or extra dimensional programmer that has created the universe. I can see, however, that these discussions could be used by a sufficiently confused individual to claim that some physicists accept the possibility of ID.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
November 30, 2009 2:33 PM
Which even if true would be as utterly irrelevant as the fact, if it were to be a fact, that some biologists dispute, say, general relativity. (I know you know that, just felt it should be stated explicitly for the record for the benefit of some of the dimwits who may be hanging around.)
Posted by: Steve_C | November 30, 2009 2:38 PM
It's pointless to worry about quote miners. There's no way to avoid it. Seriously, they can't even get the "descent from apes" right.
Posted by: sikiş izle | November 30, 2009 2:44 PM
I can see, however, that these discussions could be used by a sufficiently confused individual to claim that some physicists accept the possibility of ID
Posted by: RichieP | November 30, 2009 3:08 PM
Well a usually agree wholeheartedly with PZ- but I have one or two problems with his post on this occasion. It seems to me that there really is a big difference between the idea of an evolved (Naturalistic) God and the conventional appeared-out-of-nowhere/always existed Deity. The latter really is stupid, and I think all of us Pharyngulans can agree on that. Indeed, the main thrust of Dawkins argument (The ultimate Boeing 747) is focused around precisely this point, that God is the ultimate free lunch.
I am not quite so confident about dismissing the former possibility though. If the Multiverse really does exist then it seems reasonable to me, given the large number of individual Universes, that they might be Aliens capable of creating Universes in at least some of them. Given this, there will be some statistical chance that our universe is one of the artifically created ones. Yes I know that it is not a very useful hypothesis, as nothing is explained, and maybe it isn't especially parsimonous either anfd there is no evidence suggesting it's truth. BUT it really is significantly better than ID or even conventional Deism because it doesn't suffer from the same logical flaws as these ideas.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
November 30, 2009 3:12 PM
Well, yes, but somehow you don't seem to realize that these characteristics taken together render the idea as little worth discussing seriously as, say, the turtles all the way down theory.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 30, 2009 3:16 PM
@gman #72: Have fun structuring every thought you express in a way that someone can't maliciously chop up and combine with unrelated thoughts elsewhere. I suspect your output will be exceedingly small and uninformative.
Posted by: RichieP | November 30, 2009 3:19 PM
#81- Steve LaBonne-
The only point I was trying to make is that the Naturalistic God hypothesis shouldn't be treated the same as (or categorised with) ID or Deism. Why? Because ID and Deism have gigantic gaping holes in their reasoning, whilst the intelligent Alien God from another universe doesn't. The conclusion I come to is that this type of God is the most reasonable to belief in (still fairly ridiculous mind you).
Posted by: RichieP | November 30, 2009 3:22 PM
I just realised that my terminology in the last post dodn't really help my argument-
"The intelligent Alien God from another universe"
It's a damn good title for a B-Movie though!
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
November 30, 2009 3:24 PM
Unfortunately, that point is wrong, and ironically you yourself have already explained why. Hypotheses that explain nothing (where did the "gods" come from?), that are to say the least un-parsimonious, and that are completely unsupported by evidence, are as idiotic as any hypothesis can possibly be.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 30, 2009 3:26 PM
gg asked,
I haven't seen it in years, but damn if those jokes don't stick with you. I don't know how many valuable nerve cells I've lost to Mystery Science Theater riffs and old Far Side cartoons. . . .
MST3k party at ScienceOnline 2010!
Posted by: RichieP | November 30, 2009 3:34 PM
Steve LaBonne-
Comment 85-
LOL! Well the thing is that actually IT IS POSSIBLE to make a hypotheis that is even stupider than one that explains nothing and is unsupported by evidence. THE CREATIONISTS HAVE MANAGED TO COME UP WITH ONE. Creationism is not only unsupported by the evidence, but flatly contradicts verifiable facts and commits a shit-load of logical fallacies into the bargain. Compared to Creationism or ID, merely not having any evidence isn't all that bad!!!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 30, 2009 3:49 PM
…for the principle of parsimony.
Except that, as Dawkins keeps pointing out, "all the way down" is not far, because the universe simply isn't infinitely old.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 30, 2009 4:16 PM
My sincere condolences for your mother having died in childbirth while in labor with you.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | November 30, 2009 4:27 PM
To the likes of Russell Miller:
Essentially you say anything is possible - to which I'd agree on face value to that simply said. Except that you all actually are saying: "whatever is non-falsifiable is as worthy as that which can be tested in reality" and that is not so.
Rational processes (like science) deal with situations that come down to a "null hypothesis" of sorts many times. They really cannot be directly assigned a cause and assumptions have to be made. But science has no problem with induction (or deduction for that matter).
For example: sure I could be imagining everything and be the only reality in my sphere. But that is not highly probable nor practical nor necessary for an explanation of why I exist. So why would I use it?
Bottom line: I do not have to draw improbable answers when probable ones exist, and are known, and work just fine and dandy! To me only dolts or insane people or charlatans do that.
Posted by: scudbucket | November 30, 2009 4:44 PM
Iain @73
"Sorry, this is just a rehash of Plantinga's modal version of the ontological argument, and is subject to the same refutation, to whit: It is not self-contradictory to posit a possible world in which agency is not instantiated."
I supposed the argument was more easily dispatched by noting the internal contradiction: The conclusion follows only if God is both a contingent and a necessary being.
Posted by: EB | November 30, 2009 5:02 PM
Andrew Sullivan has always pissed me off. I still remember the days of his witch hunts against the likes of Paul Krugman, his irresponsible behavior during Clinton's healthcare, the Iraq War, and the utter refusal to take responsibility for any of it.
Questions:
1) Does he always tacitly support IDers (or is it just when he is being spiteful against those who have offended his persecution complex and sensitivities...I mean, Catholic faith)?
2)Anyone else bothered by "Abusing Science"? Why is it that only when the facts are disagreable then they are "abused"?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 30, 2009 5:36 PM
Neither of these claims were evidenced in any way by Appleyard.
Posted by: sharky | November 30, 2009 6:28 PM
I am now picturing PZ as Darth Vader at the end of Episode III. I think it was the "'No!' howls Myers" bit.
Also, after glancing over linked articles and comments, I'd like to suggest PZ Myers change his last name to "Smith." Maybe then people would have better than a 50% chance of getting it right.
Considering that some physicists have suggested the universe is a giant hologram, only with more evidence pointing towards it than the ID team has put together towards an alien god-civilization, I think that "maybe" is hollow indeed.
(Link: http://startswithabang.com/?p=1486 if you missed that.)
Posted by: pjg | December 1, 2009 12:19 AM
I find Appleyard's assertion that science ought to be purely a methodology and entirely free of ideology to be idiotic. Simply by selecting a methodology you are making some ideological assumptions about the subject of your investigations. That this is true does not mean that science is ideological in the typical negative sense; it only means that science takes some (generally uncontroversial) positions on epistemology.
Basically, you can't be neutral. Anytime you try to learn or do anything you must adopt some ideological viewpoint(s). For example, we usually assume that what takes place in experiments is similar to the larger universe (ie, I assume the carbon atoms in my experiment will behave like other carbon atoms and that they can inform me about how the universe works).
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | December 1, 2009 12:21 AM
If Americans & Australians came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?Posted by: blf | December 1, 2009 1:46 AM
They didn't. One, the Amerindians, came from Asia via the Berring Land Bridge, and the other also very probably came from Asia, exact route/method unknown. And those pesky invading Asians must have come from the Middle East (possibly with detours through other locales), who in turn were invaders from Africa. So why are there still Africans?
Posted by: Yair | December 1, 2009 2:36 AM
I want to highlight some cherry-picking here: even those physicists that conjecture that our universe may be the result of life in another universe (and there are some), posit that alien life created the laws our universe abides by, at most; everything important - like the history of life on our planet, or even the existence of our planet - proceeds from these laws by chance (quantum randomness), not through design. There is absolutely no way for the creator of a universe (black hole, actually) to control or even know what happens inside it, so this scientific pseudo-deism ID is incompatible with evolutionary ID.Posted by: Aquaria | December 1, 2009 3:21 AM
Self-loathing is the term that always comes to mind whenever I even hear about Andrew Sullivan.
Of course, being Catholic, that's what he'd be good at.
Posted by: James Taylor | December 1, 2009 3:22 AM
PZ deserves a Captain Hammer but he just keeps getting Johnny Snows.
"Dude, you are not my nemesis."
Posted by: Walton | December 1, 2009 2:13 PM
I'm usually a big fan of Andrew Sullivan, and tend to agree with him on most political matters. In general, he's a very clear thinker. But I don't understand why, despite his disagreement with much of the Vatican's social agenda - and despite the fact that he, as a gay man, is part of the very class who are most marginalised by Catholic "moral" teaching - he still clings to Roman Catholicism.
Posted by: D | December 1, 2009 7:07 PM
QFT. "Possible" does not mean "plausible," and it definitely doesn't mean "pointed at by the evidence." WTF.Well, when you trust idiots to do the thinking for you, then reporting on their idiocy will make you sound like an idiot.Posted by: efrique | December 2, 2009 10:46 AM
#97 The poster you respond to is presumably referring to white Australians and white Americans, in which case, the analogy is sound.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | December 2, 2009 11:11 AM
As long as theren't any nasty New Atheists involved, Sully has no patience for ID. (And whenever he deals with the godless on his blog, whether from linked passages or as readers, he only ever complains about the tone; I don't recall him ever disputing the substance.)
Posted by: fatpie42
|
December 6, 2009 2:49 PM
I dimly recall an episode of Friends from that period in which sweet, scatty Phoebe challenges pompous, irritating Ross on the subject of evolution. Ross, in the end, retreats and Phoebe gets on with her sweet, scatty life, convinced she has won. It was Ross that was being satirised. Our sympathies were entirely with Phoebe.
I remember that episode too. Rather less dimly it seems. In that routine Ross is the straight guy and Phoebe, as always, is completely crazy.
Not only does Phoebe claim that she doesn't agree with evolution, but she also claims that she's never been convinced by gravity either. If Appleyard found himself siding with Phoebe in that discussion, he's bloody mad.
Posted by: baju
|
February 1, 2010 10:21 AM
Neither the morphological nor the technological development of humans over the past half-million years shows any sign whatever of such interference
Posted by: funscience
|
February 7, 2010 11:48 PM
The problem is not with those who argue that life was designed, the problem is with those who try to prove it.