Pharyngula

Posted by: Tom | November 17, 2009 3:19 PM

What is a Ph.D. in "measurement and evaluation"? Do you get a golden ruler and balance when you graduate?

Posted by: JD | November 17, 2009 3:23 PM

Come on PZ, tell us how you really feel.

Posted by: Brian | November 17, 2009 3:24 PM

"Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions pointed out that it is very difficult for those entrenched in the establishment to change and paradigm shifts come with generational revolutions by those whose life work and reputations are not tied to the current model."

Mr. Olson, mirror. Mirror, Mr. Olson.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 17, 2009 3:28 PM

So in reality, you use a straw?

Barbarians!

Pita bread, lightly toasted, cut into triangles, I tells ya.... Then ya use the bleeding stump sorta like a dip bowl...

(/Martha Stewart tip. 'It's a good thing.')

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 17, 2009 3:29 PM

There is a logical dichotomy involved. Life either has a natural origin or not. If not, then the origin must come from outside natural mechanisms.

What evidence is there that an origin would come from a "non-natural" force if it didn't come from a "natural" one? How do you even define "supernatural," except as "not natural," which is merely a grab-bag of nothing?

Epistemologically, the only dichotomy is that there is an explanation, or there is not. Saying that there is not an explanation tells you nothing about the existence of a God or some godlike Designer. I noticed how you "evolved" something "beyond nature" into "intelligently designed," without batting an eye at the colossal idiocy in so doing.

but there is no doubt that "Junk DNA' was clearly touted as evolutionary leftovers and delayed the search for function, which was predicted by Intelligent design.

How did it do so, moron? That's what you liars never explain, especially since you have no theory and avoid claiming that the designer is a good engineer, makes good things, or anything else.

It's just more of the idiocy that we got from Bergman, I guess to punctuate the fact that none of them can think. Olson can't even make a decent paragraph.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: AaronSTL | November 17, 2009 3:36 PM

[quote]The only point at which the crowd got rowdy was with the mention of evolution's influence on Hitler. Actually, that issue is not solved by shouting because there is a strong case that the desire to improve the race leads to eugenic and ethnic cleansing policies.[/quote]

I have one problem that I have to blame on public supports of Darwin's theory of evolution and it's letting creationists slip with this evolution/Hitler garbage argument. Nowhere have I seen a supporter of Darwin point out to the creotards that Darwin's theory is evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION!!!!! Eugenics and ethnic cleansing is ARTIFICIAL SELECTION!!!!!!!!! If the two are to be considered the same thing either the creotards have to admit a bajillion things like dog breeding to be evidence of evolution or they'll have to redirect their crazy anger away from Darwin to the person with whom they actually have a problem, the Stone Age person who first decided to reuse the seeds from the best crops and thus started agriculture.

PZ, please, please, please shut them up on this argument once and for all. Don't let them get you into this red herring argument.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | November 17, 2009 3:39 PM

Synopsis of the email to PZ with all the irrelevancies omitted:

You are too a Nazi!

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 17, 2009 3:43 PM

need to be answered with the point that they are still finches and the changes cycle with changing environmental conditions.

You mean, uh, when environment changes between two extremes, natural selection actually responds to the oscillation, like predicted? Wow, that has to be pointed out to you? How stupid are you, anyway?

Here's your problem--the evidence that indicates that finches have "microevolved" in the past is of the exact same nature as that which shows that finches in the Galapagos evolved from a single finch that made it to the islands, which is also of the exact same nature as that which demonstrates that finches evolved from other birds, from fishes, and from single-celled eukaryotes (it's a bit more complicated with earlier evolution).

Unless you have any kind of actual evidence that something other than evolution caused all of the "macroevolution," you're nothing but dishonest in denying that as the cause.

Your redefinition of vestigial organs as reduced function may get some traction but is not the way they were presented 100 years ago

Science isn't the same as 100 years ago? OMG, it's not religious like you claim that it is? I guess you just lie.

Anyhow, we have essentially functionless vestigials, in kiwi wings, and likely in goose-flesh. So even your lame protests fail.

And your call for punishment of those who reject the ruling paradigm conflicts with the view of science as growing and self correcting. How can purveyors of new ideas work hard to establish them if they are not allowed to do so?

The call for standards has nothing to do with your demand that lies and complete nonsense be accepted as science. You don't accept phlogiston, dickhead, so don't go around demanding that worthless ideas have to be accorded respect.

How could science exist if it wasn't allowed to discard rubbish like creationism and claims that the earth is flat? It couldn't, and I really suspect that however dumb you are, Olson, you're not as dumb as to believe that every bit of nonsense has to be continually considered as likely no matter how much it has failed in the past.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2009 3:44 PM

Glen Davidson #10 wrote:

What evidence is there that an origin would come from a "non-natural" force if it didn't come from a "natural" one? How do you even define "supernatural," except as "not natural," which is merely a grab-bag of nothing?

Pure Mind, or Values, independent of any need to be connected to the lower world of physical matter, that's how. The semantics are really just distracting. The so-called "supernatural" can be inside of Nature, outside of Nature, above Nature, or Nature itself. Anything but "below Nature" -- unless being 'below' Nature is used in the sense of being deeper and more meaningful. They can give it any damn relationship to nature they want: after all, it's something they're making up based on their feelings about reality, and not reality itself.

I can't think of any given example of something that would be "supernatural" that wouldn't fit this. A supernatural origin of life either means that a Thought thought living physical things into existence; living physical things are really just forms of Thought; or, perhaps, Life itself is an irreducible Vital Essence, existing the way our thoughts exist.

They're so worried about evolution, when they ought to be worried about evolution + neurology.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 17, 2009 3:46 PM

Wow - those creationists sure try hard to fit the outmoded notion of "psychological projection". Sure questions weren't addressed, and we'd really like to see the creatards actually address those questions instead of whining about how they're such martyrs prosecuted by the unbelievers (they have yet to discover the word "non-believer").

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 17, 2009 3:51 PM

To say there can be no such thing [as a non-natural explanation] is not a scientific statement or even a logical one but an a priori elimination of one whole field of inquiry.

That's why our side doesn't say that there can be no such thing. You have to state a blatant and obvious, but crowd-pleasing, lie in order to claim otherwise, and your side almost always does so.

What you have to do is to show that there is a "non-natural" field of inquiry, which none of you magic-believers has ever done. Ever. In the millenia in which you have tried.

If you want to be treated politely, quit lying about what we say, you damned liar.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Islander | November 17, 2009 3:53 PM

Olson comes across as such a whiny brat here. He's actually complaining that PZ treated Bergman courteously, and then requesting that PZ put on the kid gloves on his own fucking blog?

Fuck off Olson. Your boy lost, deal with it.

Posted by: bdc | November 17, 2009 3:54 PM

That CV is not something I would want to be proclaiming too loudly. I suppose they aren't used to dealing with people who might evaluate the quality of the degrees rather than just counting them.

BTW, I've seen a number of IDists/creationists go out of their way to let us know where they went to school. I honestly haven't a clue where PZ got his degree (guess if you know what you are a talking about you don't need to appeal to degree lists).

Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | November 17, 2009 3:57 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Pacific_University

I wouldn't be bragging about that PhD from Columbia Pacific University, if I were he. BTW, a fellow PhD alumnus is John Gray of Men are From Mars fame. (I always wished that he'd followed up with ...And Dogs are From Pluto.)

Indeed, your claim that morality comes from our culture needs to answer the question, "What if my culture is the Mafia?"

That's a laugh, considering that the Mafia originated in 19th Century Sicily, a Roman Catholoic culture.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 17, 2009 3:58 PM

You can, by the power of example and occasional criticism of overzealous followers, turn the blog into an actual forum of ideas. It would be a great contribution to the intellectual world.

In saying that, I hope many of these creationists do come here to argue their case. Come on creationists, show the "overzealous followers" on this blog that you've got some evidence that a) contradicts evolution, and b) supports creation. That way you can use this place to hone your publication that you'll send off to Nature and Science which will win you fame, money and several Nobel prizes. Come on, do it. do it. do it. do it.

Posted by: stptrck75 | November 17, 2009 4:03 PM

Just the fact that someone would see no problem in attending a non-accredited "university" for anything speaks volumes about their character. It provides a very clear insight into the mindset of the faithful. There's a disconnect from reality. They want something (respect and prestige) for nothing. It's all about the show.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 17, 2009 4:07 PM

What evidence is there that an origin would come from a "non-natural" force if it didn't come from a "natural" one? How do you even define "supernatural," except as "not natural," which is merely a grab-bag of nothing?

Pure Mind, or Values, independent of any need to be connected to the lower world of physical matter, that's how.

IOW, to divorce the terms from the phenomena actually named by them and to pretend that they then still have meaning. Indicating that we're back to the grab-bag of nothing.

But of course that is what they do. Indeed, that's exactly what they do with ID, pretend that all mind is supernatural, or not natural, or not material (all pretty meaningless terms, without deliberate empirical grounding), and "analogize" between our clearly "material minds" with the supernatural mind of the godlike (but don't you dare claim it's god) Designer who created the entire universe.

The semantics are really just distracting. The so-called "supernatural" can be inside of Nature, outside of Nature, above Nature, or Nature itself. Anything but "below Nature" -- unless being 'below' Nature is used in the sense of being deeper and more meaningful.

Could be below, if it's due to Satan. Some don't mind bringing Satan into it, at least to explain why we live in a world that really doesn't look designed for us, but looks like it was (or something) before the Fall.

They can give it any damn relationship to nature they want: after all, it's something they're making up based on their feelings about reality, and not reality itself.

Often trying to save the "soul" from the heartless hand of science.

I can't think of any given example of something that would be "supernatural" that wouldn't fit this. A supernatural origin of life either means that a Thought thought living physical things into existence; living physical things are really just forms of Thought; or, perhaps, Life itself is an irreducible Vital Essence, existing the way our thoughts exist.

Circular usage of terms, yes. It's why it's "a different worldview," because it means that if you're trapped into defining meaningless terms ripped away from their empirical foundations according to other meaningless terms ripped from their empirical bases, you can't get to the "natural world" at all. Which is the goal, after all, to have a worldview that can't do anything but rely upon God for the meanings of words and concepts.

They're so worried about evolution, when they ought to be worried about evolution + neurology.

Oh, they are. UD expends quite a lot of electrons complaining about neuroscience and "materialism." But they don't dare to attack neuroscience directly, even though it is the greater threat (and capable of emptying their claims of force independently of evolutionary theory), since they don't want to appear as though they are attacking science broadly, only the supposedly faulty evolutionary theory.

If they ever manage to effectively neutralize evolution with "criticisms" or ID, they'll be coming after the neurosciences, and presumably all other sciences involved with human thought, from psychology to anthropology.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: MikeM | November 17, 2009 4:13 PM

He forgot one thing:

Yay Jesus!

(Sorry.)

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 17, 2009 4:15 PM

If I hear the "finches/dogs/roses/pigeons/etc... are still the same" garbage I'm gonna throw up.
Doesn't the fact that we are all still apes bother them at all?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 17, 2009 4:16 PM

I can answer one of Olson's questions, at least:

Indeed, your claim that morality comes from our culture needs to answer the question, "What if my culture is the Mafia?"

Then you pack up your family, leave the Mafia, and go into witness protection. You, as an intelligent agent with free will, have the ability to understand the culture in which you were raised, criticize or defend it, leave it, and find a new one. You and other intelligent agents with free will have the ability to shape and change your culture through the decisions you make. Your culture is not written in stone, it is probably not the same as it was 100 years ago, and it will probably not remain as it is for another 100 years. Cultures change because people move around and learn new things, which they either embrace or reject.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | November 17, 2009 4:21 PM

#32

"They want something (respect and prestige) for nothing. It's all about the show."

Yep and that is all!

They need the supposed gravitas they find in real degrees to be a heady elixir, they cannot intellectually pay that price.

So they invent then, set up a puppet awards board that dispenses them and give them to the troops, so that the troops can use them to dazzle their own and fool the undecided.
They prey on the ignorant and the uniformed, it is what they do!

The mere fact they do it means they are charlatans and liars and what is even worse con men for jeebus without a clue but with a mission.
There is no evidence, no proof, and no such thing as creation science, that is the fact they have to avoid debating, it could ruin a good scam.

They can present nothing but waffle, they know that it is best to dance in the shadows whining piteously from the sidelines.

It is all they have.

Posted by: topquark | November 17, 2009 4:24 PM

Totally agree about Bergman's laundry list of degrees. A doofus who collects degrees is still a doofus. I've had a long email exchange with Bergman and found him to be, not to put too fine a point on it, rather thick.

Posted by: AH | November 17, 2009 4:28 PM

I was at the debate. PZ, I think you're missing a very important point...

How could Dr. Bergman be wrong? Didn't you hear how he's friends with several Nobel laureates?

I read a study just last week about it!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 17, 2009 4:30 PM

We should have Ross Olsen come here. But, we need to make sure that the debate is scientific, and only the scientific literture is used to back up arguments. In other words, if no macro evolution has occurred, there is an appropriate citation to the peer reviewed literature to back it up. Naked assertions will be severely mocked. To many IDiots see it not as a scientific argument, but rather a philosophical argument. We need to put the philosophy in the dumpster.

Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2009 4:34 PM

Oh, I know the creationists/ID folk have been attacking neuroscience, and I've been following along with Novella vs. Egnor, etc. But, for both the fundamentalist and moderate, the implications of neurology are not quite as direct as the implications of evolution are for the fundamentalist. They can still apply the folk-theory of mind being like radio waves, and the brain like a radio, and skim on the surface as usual.

Plus, they're not teaching neuroscience to kids. That's what usually trips their panic button. Think of the children!

Posted by: Joe Bleau | November 17, 2009 4:39 PM

Glen D @ 10:

How do you even define "supernatural," except as "not natural," which is merely a grab-bag of nothing?

A minor quibble - the problem, I think, is rather that 'supernatural' is really a grab-bag of everything. Definitionally, it basically breaks down to "everything that is by necessity inaccessible to us via experience".

Not only is that a patently pointless and untenable concept; but it is self-evident (assuming that there is anything necessarily inaccessible to us via experience) that this realm is utterly immune to any sort of rational or ordered description or discussion back here in the universe of experience. There is no possible relationship between language and this hyper-fecund ontological landscape where there are infinite cardinalities of infinite 'objects', and, quite literally, no rules. How can language help when there are no rules? To a certain extent, language is rules!

It's basically Calvinball (which can actually be a lot of fun, until someone goes and spoils it by pretending that it counts, and tries to declare a winner).

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 17, 2009 4:46 PM

Or, ya know, they change because they are invaded, raped, tortured and murdered by a bloodthirsty crusading pack of religious fanatics looking for stupid relics and heathens to convert under pain of death

Well, yes, that's one of the directions that "people moving around and learning new things" can take, unfortunately. I didn't say the process always yielded positive results. Only that you may be born into the Mafia, but you don't need to raise your family there.

Posted by: Country Crock | November 17, 2009 4:50 PM

Three words:

Columbia Pacific University

Posted by: RickK | November 17, 2009 4:55 PM

The stupid Hitler argument.

Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin - they would have done what they did with or without Darwin.

But none of them could have done it if there was such a thing as an all-powerful, loving god!

Posted by: bunnycatch3r | November 17, 2009 4:58 PM

I wonder if Columbia Pacific University and Patriot University are rivals.

Posted by: Nastasie | November 17, 2009 5:01 PM

@ Joe #52

Yay Quine!
Er...sorry, I don't even know if you had Quinean ontology in mind, but this:

"hyper-fecund ontological landscape where there are infinite cardinalities of infinite 'objects'"

...instantly reminded me of "On What There Is" and the hilarious way in which Quine takes apart Wyman and others' "overpopulated slum of unactualized possibles and impossibles", and how he much prefers desert landscapes.

I think discovering Quine was the most fun I had as a Philosophy student.

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 17, 2009 5:03 PM

Creationists are not the heralds of a coming paradigm shift; they are the rotting detritus of the old regime of unreason that has haunted the human race for far too long.

Epic line! (I have nothing of substance to add, I just had to point that out.)

~*~*~*~*~*~

bevo/devo (#45)

Is free will good or not? Make up your mind; you can't have it both ways, and actually you're wrong twice.

Tsk, don't you know, god's beyond our comprehension so it's a non-contradictory paradox that he gave us non-autonomous free will. (I wish I was exaggerating, but that's essentially what a creationist told me recently.)

~*~*~*~*~*~

Celtic_Evolution (#49)

it is just so unlikely and counter-intuitive for a person to go from a position of evidence-based, reasoned logic to one of hand-waving, magic supposition

Well, don't forget, not all atheists are atheists because of the whole evidence and reason thing.

Posted by: freelunch | November 17, 2009 5:06 PM

Hey, let's not automatically trash schools like Wayne State too much. Sure, it's not the University of Michigan, but it does offer a real, North Central-accredited college and graduate education, often for folks who have no near relatives who have gone to college before them.

Like many of the other urban public universities, it will automatically be a tier 4 college in such a ranking system because the whole purpose of the school is to give opportunities to everyone who wants to try college. The tiering system rewards schools that don't want to try too hard and only pick those students who will do well in college anyway. See Washington Monthly's College Guide (which, I realize, says that even by their standards Wayne State isn't particularly good at fulfilling its mission though Toledo does better).

Posted by: Joe Bleau | November 17, 2009 5:14 PM

Nastasie @62:

Actually, I guess you could say it's Quine after Rorty got done with him.

Twas Professor Rorty that saved me from a life secreted away in the Ivory Towers, successfully nitpicking minds far better than my own, having to convince myself that I really believed my own bullshit, and pretending that that work that I was doing was on a par with science and mathematics in terms of relevance and deserved prestige.

Posted by: Chiefley | November 17, 2009 5:19 PM

"What if my culture was the Mafia?"

Good point. But then, what if my culture was the Roman Catholic Spanish Inquisition?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 17, 2009 5:28 PM

Coach Olson, irrelevant materials. Religion, which is ID, should not be taught in science classes. The only appropriate place for ID is mythology, comparative religion, or philosophy. Never, never, in a science class except as an example of Junk Science. What part of that don't you understand?

Posted by: Nastasie | November 17, 2009 5:32 PM

Joe @ 68:

"and pretending that that work that I was doing was on a par with science and mathematics in terms of relevance and deserved prestige."

Oh, wow. That was exactly my problem, though if I were to credit one specific philosopher it would be Quine, especially "Epistemology Naturalized", for helping me realize how much I was trying really hard to believe my own bullshit. I don't know if you abandoned philosophy altogether, but that's what I ended up doing when my dissertation supervisor asked, regarding my research (which was a desperate attempt to make my interest in cognitive science fit in at a philosophy department), "That's all well and good, but how is this relevant to philosophy?" It wasn't that I had no answer - it was that I had absolutely no interest in finding one.

*sigh* My plan was to start again and just do actual science instead of nitpicking, like you said, works that satisfied my need for answers to the few philosophical questions I found important to my area of interest.

I still haven't started again, though...maybe one day.

Posted by: jimmiraybob | November 17, 2009 5:32 PM

...but is not the way they were presented 100 years ago,...

Well. There ya go.

PS: Columbia Pacific University - Bwahahahah...catch breath, bwahahahahahahahahahahah...check pulse rate, bwahahahahah.........sigh.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 17, 2009 5:35 PM

Interestingly Dr. Ben Carson head of surgery at Johns Hopkins Medical is a young earth creationist. So I would have to say that it can’t be true at least all the time—right?

The whole foundation of science is first expressed in the Bible.

and probably several manuscripts before that.

According to the paradigm espoused by Dr. PZ Myers, this is unacceptable rubbish.

Are we talking ID here? Or are we talking magic apples and talking snakes? and whats the difference? and why would you want to teach your religion in school since that is actually illegal?

Posted by: RickR | November 17, 2009 5:40 PM

When the IDiots proclaim they want ID taught in schools, the first question in my mind is always "what do you teach?"

The challenge to the ID community is to come up with a curriculum. I say, let them try.

But with one condition: you can't mention evolution. Not even once. No complaining about mutations or information. No handwaving about persecution and Darwin>Hitler.

School is in session, the floor is yours. What do you teach?

Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 17, 2009 5:49 PM

Oh, I know the creationists/ID folk have been attacking neuroscience, and I've been following along with Novella vs. Egnor, etc. But, for both the fundamentalist and moderate, the implications of neurology are not quite as direct as the implications of evolution are for the fundamentalist.

Not yet.

Moo hoo ha ha.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 17, 2009 5:53 PM

Coach Olson, I like what you've written:

In the past I have gone around and around with bloggers at the Dr. PZ Myers site. They have claimed that I must be a terrible science teacher (and should be fired) because I believe in Intelligent Design. My point to them is still, "Where is the proof??"

This is what I find the problem of ID to be, it relies on evolution being false - so a lot of effort is going into disprove neo-darwinian evolution, when really all you do when you disprove neo-darwinian evolution is disprove neo-darwinian evolution. You still don't have a positive case for design, as far as life goes it reverts back to the null hypothesis. So the entire argument for design seems to rest on not understanding how evolution works - "I can't see how evolution can build a flagellum, therefore designer". The entire argument is one of personal incredulity. It would be like me saying "I can't see how storms could cause lightning, therefore Thor". We don't accept such argument for good reason - they tell us nothing about the way things work!

So I ask you, what is the mechanism for ID? You need this otherwise you have nothing. It's like seeing crop circles and concluding aliens, or hearing hoofbeats and concluding unicorns.

Posted by: Coryat | November 17, 2009 5:57 PM

"School is in session, the floor is yours. What do you teach?"

Godditit.

Posted by: jimmiraybob | November 17, 2009 6:00 PM

Aaron STL @ #12
"...Darwin's theory is evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION!!!!! Eugenics and ethnic cleansing is ARTIFICIAL SELECTION!!!!!!!!! If the two are to be considered the same thing either the creotards have to admit a bajillion things like dog breeding to be evidence of evolution..."

I've heard and read this response in blog posts and comments sections, in printed media, and on TV and radio. But it never does any good.

What the scientist says: "Eugenics and ethnic cleansing is ARTIFICIAL SELECTION"

What the IDiot hears: Blah, blah, blah, eat children, blah, blah, worship Satan, bla.........

Just like every other argument that doesn't support the Jesus narrative de cult de jure..

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | November 17, 2009 6:02 PM

When the IDiots proclaim they want ID taught in schools, the first question in my mind is always "what do you teach?"

The challenge to the ID community is to come up with a curriculum. I say, let them try.

But with one condition: you can't mention evolution. Not even once. No complaining about mutations or information. No handwaving about persecution and Darwin>Hitler.

School is in session, the floor is yours. What do you teach?

Oh, you mean the way chemistry courses (other than in survey courses and 'history of' courses) manage to teach chemistry without continuously whining about the flaws in phlogiston theory and persecution by phlogistonites, or physics courses (other than in survey courses and 'history of' courses) manage to teach physics without continuously whining about the flaws in the concept of the æther and persecution by ætherites, or medicine courses (other than in survey courses and 'history of' courses) manage to teach physics without continuously whining about the flaws in theory of the four humours and persecution by humourites, or well, how pretty much any real science is taught?

Why, you're just an expelling little Nazi aren't you, what with your demands that ID be taught as a science only if it somehow comports itself as if it were an actual science. Hitler! HITLER!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 17, 2009 6:03 PM

In the past I have gone around and around with bloggers at the Dr. PZ Myers site. They have claimed that I must be a terrible science teacher (and should be fired) because I believe in Intelligent Design.

No you should be fired if you teach it as science. You can believe whatever nonsense you want as long as you do your job properly.

Posted by: coach olson | November 17, 2009 6:05 PM

I think Dr. Myers protests too much about Dr. Bergman. Are you really that insecure sir? Did anyone tell you that you teach at a college that has 1700 students (about the size of an average metro high school)? You have to hide behind your tenure and have your president back you up for your off the wall silly comments about the Catholic church and communion. Are you thinking you are Galileo and being persecuted? What a joke! You show your true colors by not even referring to Ross Olson as Doctor, when he is a medical doctor. Your lack of educational professionalism is a sad state of affairs. Your little followers support you by being grammar police on a blog and try to trash Ross. Get a grip people and realize what an intolerant person Dr. Myers is.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 17, 2009 6:15 PM

Coachie, coachie...

Take a deep breath, sir, count to ten, and then see if you can find your meds.

Did anyone tell you that twisting the minds of the impressionable with lies about sky faeries is a form of abuse?

Professor Myers' comments about the catholic church and communion would only be silly if they weren't true. But as they are true...and the Church is truly silly...and transubstantiation is even more truly silly...then they point more accurately to something tragic that would be pathetic were it not so pernicious and anti-human.

Do you deny that the Catholic church would have gleefully tortured Professor Myers to death in the past for daring to disagree with their calumnies and mind control techniques?

If Ross Olson is a medical Doctor I hope he's better at probing a prostate than he is at making an intelligent argument.

I recommend that you get a grip, Coach Olson, sir! A good wank might settle you down and get some of the pressure out of your system.

yours in Christian concern

Smoggy

Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2009 6:21 PM

Brownian OM #90 wrote:

...or medicine courses (other than in survey courses and 'history of' courses) manage to teach physics without continuously whining about the flaws in theory of the four humours and persecution by humourites, or well, how pretty much any real science is taught?

You had me up to here; bad analogy. There are a lot of people not only whining about how medical courses need to include vitalism, ancient wisdom, the memory of water, and "other ways of knowing" in their physics -- but getting their way, to an extent creationists can only dream about. Those who advocate that only science-based medicine should be taught in medical science courses have been compared to ... (wait for it) ... the Nazis.

Academic Health Freedom!

Posted by: coach olson | November 17, 2009 6:24 PM

Like I always say when corresponding with all of you interesting people. I think it is very therapeutic for all of you to vent your anger and have someone visit that is not in the club so you don't just stay in your echo chamber. So have fun, but you really need to get out more and interact with real people.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 17, 2009 6:25 PM

We don't want any students told your lies, whether they're smart or dumb. It's wrong to lie like you do, and to whine about your treatment as the liar that you are.

... which is, of course, all that now very monotonous whine about making the blog an 'actual' forum of ideas is, and that endless bleating about 'persecution' is, really...

... Beyond, of course, being a typically slimy insinuation from that camp.

News flash, dearies: in 'actual' fora of ideas, lying morons like you are 'actually' going to get called lying morons.

Because 'actual' people like me 'actually' get really 'actually' kinda annoyed at lying sacks of shit like you, who, when called forthrightly on your BS do everything but retract it, disavow it, and move on, like honest, normal, decent people not running an outright con would 'actually' do...

No, instead, you look for every wiggle, every twist, every pathetically silly ruse you can imagine to stick to the same bullshit anyway, despite its having been revealed as utterly intellectually bankrupt a million times over... Whine again about 'persecution' because sensible, honest people aren't going to give space to your bullshit shell game in a reputable journal... Try to strike this ridiculous pose as being revolutionaries on the cutting edge of some new paradigm when the reality is you're just the same, hoary old fairy tale nonsense in yet another tackily, laughably thin disguise, yet again... And pal, it was old the last six hundred times you lot tried it... Dunno why you figure this time is gonna be different, somehow.

And what, when 'actual' people get fed up and tell you just to shove it like you so richly deserve, you think you've got any right to get all pissy about the tone they choose to take when they do so? Awww... ya poor dears... Did someone call you a bad name? When all ya were doing was being a lying huckster, after all? And never mind you do like sliming the whole of your opposition as being either (a) some kind of conspiracy, where everyone's in it for various allegedly evil aims and/or (b) just drinking the 'Kool-Aid' or somesuch other hilariously ass-backwards insinuation of conformity--a rich vein, I might mention, for the next cover story in 'Projection Today'...

And seriously, speaking of that, how stupid do you think people are? Do you honestly believe anyone not already in your camp is gonna bite on that? 'Ah, yes... they're lying hucksters, can't string more than three words together without inadvertently constructing some outright fallacy or other, apparently don't even grasp the basic science even remotely, and if basic logic had been a mandatory credit in elementary school they'd probably still be repeating grade five at the age of 60... but they say the folk opposing them are only doing so because of some irrational conformity to a dogma... so... wow... I bet they're right...'

Right. So civility, huh, that's the whine du jour? Fuck. Absurd and a telling indicator of the paucity of your argument in most situations, especially so, here... It's like a mugger whining 'cos when he tried to deck you and swipe your wallet, you failed to go down as he intended, and then you turned served him his ass in return...

How unneighbourly of his intended victim, after all.. How uncivil... How... mean!

So fuck that noise. Seriously, ya pathetic, dimwitted, disgusting frauds, bite me. You don't like being called lying sacks of shit, stop being lying sacks of shit.

Posted by: bootsy | November 17, 2009 6:29 PM

@94: Presumably you are similarly upset at the 'intolerance' that emergency-room doctors display toward witch-doctors.

It's about what works and what you can prove, Wuss. If you or your charlatan pals had something real to present, it wouldn't matter how many insults flew your way. You could rely on the real evidence you presented... Too bad you don't have any...

Hey "Coach," what do you do if the other team says you're gonna lose? Run away and cry, it sounds like.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 17, 2009 6:32 PM

Dr. Paul Myers has said that science teachers that believe and mention Intelligent Design as a possible alternative to random atheistic evolution should be fired.

That's because he can read the Constitution. To teach ID, religion in other words, as if it were science would mean to privilege one religion over all others; that would be "an establishment of religion" as forbidden by the First Amendment.

Besides, evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but selection is not – it's determined by the environment. You don't know the uttermost basics of the theory of evolution; so why do you talk about it?

I wouldn't even say the theory of evolution is atheistic. It is – like all the rest of science – apathetic agnostic: to add a god (or several) wouldn't change anything and is not necessary.

"The whole foundation of science is first expressed in the Bible. The world is intelligible – it has fixed laws—the universe makes sense—it is not random. [...]"

The Bible says God messes with the universe as He damn well pleases. This renders its laws subject to His whim without prior notice. This renders the universe unintelligible in the long run.

If miracles are commonplace, science is impossible. A little resurrection here or a little virgin birth there aren't going to make a difference, but the Bible isn't content with that.

an expelling little Nazi

:-D

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 17, 2009 6:34 PM

Your little followers support you by being grammar police on a blog and try to trash Ross. Get a grip people and realize what an intolerant person Dr. Myers is.

This is the problem with much of this debate, the creationists time and time again get up in arms about incivility and intolerance by evolutionists to their ideas. Yet these are the same people who will lie about the evidence, lie about how evolution works, lie about their motivations, and lie in order to subvert real science education. Should people be tolerant of liars whose goal it is to subvert science?

Yet they harp on about the incivility, as if robbery would be okay if only the burglar would rob you with a smile. There's no reason to be tolerant to those who lie and lie and lie and lie. How about before you ask for civility and tolerance you first show some - treat those as you wish to be treated. By subverting the scientific process, by lying to people about the evidence and the science, how can you possibly demand anything in the way of good treatment?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | November 17, 2009 6:36 PM

So have fun, but you really need to get out more and interact with real people.

Like what you're doing right now?

The Christian capacity for hypocrisy knows no bounds. No wonder you're all so terrified that your kids are going to grow up monsters; so few of you are able to demonstrate an iota of integrity or self-reflection. What an oblivious idiot. 'Coach' indeed. I can only assume 'Do as I say, not as I do' must be inscribed in Latin above your door.

@ Sastra: Yep, I knew as soon as I hit 'send' that medicine was a bad example.

Posted by: 386sx | November 17, 2009 6:37 PM

You show your true colors by not even referring to Ross Olson as Doctor, when he is a medical doctor.

coach olson, look what Dr. Olson wrote:

"To be addressed is your claim that evolution adds information. That needs to be supported."

What kind of a Dr. doesn't know how to look something up. Surely there's more to being a Dr. than pretending like he's still in the debate when it's over. Debate over... time to look stuff up!! I guess he must be a "dog ate my homework" Dr.

Posted by: Lynna | November 17, 2009 6:39 PM

I'd like a full on Rip on Ross Olsen thread. Just read his website and the out right stupid and vile things he espouses on it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 17, 2009 6:43 PM

I see Coach Olson still has no evidence for what he teaches, ergo, he has no professional ethics. A grave problem for a teacher. Just another Ignorant Liar for Jebus™.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | November 17, 2009 6:46 PM

I agree with the Rev BDC on this one. Ross Olsen, says, among other execrable things, that although child abuse by clergy is terrible, it is just as bad for gay activists to defend gay abuse of children. WTF?

Jesus, Lynna, do you have to nitpick every stupid thing the man says?

After all, he is a MEDICAL DOCTOR.

Posted by: 386sx | November 17, 2009 6:50 PM

"To be addressed is your claim that evolution adds information. That needs to be supported."

What kind of a Dr. doesn't know how to look up supporting evidence for himself! Lol, that really cracks me up. :P

(The answer to "What kind of a Dr. doesn't know how to look up supporting evidence for himself?" would be "A denialist Dr.", of course.)

Posted by: Lynna | November 17, 2009 7:00 PM

Brownian @118

Jesus, Lynna, do you have to nitpick every stupid thing the man says?

Good point. I'll refrain from nitpicking every stupid thing the man says and just stick to the most egregious.

Proponents of comprehensive sex education promote the myth that abstinenence education does not work...

Why do Pro-choicers suppress information on the greater success using adult stem cells? Is it to capture a "humane" rationalization for abortion?

"To say that it is OK to use stem cells where the life or death decision has already been made is like saying, "We know that the lampshade is made of human skin, but because the person is already dead, we will keep on using it."

Anti-spanking persons, like most Utopian thinkers, have wonderful motivations. They see a terrible problem with society and want to fix it. There may even be a shred or two of evidence for their view. But then, armed with faulty presuppositions and incomplete analysis, they proceed to inflict their policy on the masses.

This is not to say that judicial "caning" by a parent is necessarily a good idea. But the application of a switch or hand, which would not leave more than temporary redness on a normal childish posterior, may save all sorts of trouble in the future as the recipient learns that loving boundaries help prevent serious consequences.

Posted by: llewelly | November 17, 2009 7:02 PM

Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin - they would have done what they did with or without Darwin.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 17, 2009 7:05 PM

By the way, what counts as "real people"? Are the people I interact with not real somehow? Are they any different to the people I interact with online? Are the people who sit at computers not real? Or just somehow subhuman?

He probably means he doesn't like it when atheists are allowed to say things that don't lead to them being beaten up by good Christians (i.e. thugs). Since he and Christians like him (thugs) have no scientific or intellectual defense for their ludicrious superstition, they gets frustrated and can't do anything to stop their superiors other being physically violent.

So, translating, what he said was: 'I can't win the argument so I'd like to see you beaten up my someone on my side.'

Posted by: Mack | November 17, 2009 7:11 PM

I hadn't heard of Ross Olson before. So I did go to his site. Scary as all fucking get out. Did you know that looking at pornography makes people into serial killers and child molesters?
And that women are subjected to domestic abuse because they're whores?
I'm paraphrasing, but geeeeez, it's pretty fucking close to what he actually says.
Seriously, Ross, get medication. It will help make the voices go away. Or at least they won't be so nasty anymore.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 17, 2009 7:17 PM

Did you know that looking at pornography makes people into serial killers and child molesters?

What? I heard that watching porn makes you gay. Oh. Wait a second, being teh gay is as bad as being a serial killer and child molester.

And that women are subjected to domestic abuse because they're whores?

But I thought that was how women were kept obedient. Oh, I forget myself yet again; a disobedient woman is, by definition, a whore.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 17, 2009 7:29 PM

REAL PEOPLE are people who think and believe like coach olson. That is because they are in touch with what is REAL. It has nothing to do with the percentage of the population.

I have to once more laugh at the charges of this place being an echo chamber. With out the trolls, lots of people start going after each other.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 17, 2009 7:36 PM

The oldest solar-system rocks, that is.

A whole bush of horses that veer off in all directions.

Posted by: Eidolon in middle Georgia | November 17, 2009 7:47 PM

Are there any actual courses on 'creationism' taught at any accredited universities (in the literature departments, of course)? There is plenty of evidence of creationism in literature. Legitimate courses like this would be a good way to start educating young scholars about the vast store of knowledge that is available concerning creationism (in cultural mythology). It would help put creationism in its proper perspective - outside of science.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 17, 2009 7:51 PM

It's almost irrelevant whether Hitler was an atheist or not - his followers who enthusiastically did his dirty work were largely good christians.

That psych prof's text (The Authoritarians) that's been popping up in threads here and there might sorta support the possibility, come to think of it... And whether or not it specifically applies there, it may be a not uncommon pattern: that the guy leading the scary movements isn't necessarily himself a believer... The psychology can be a bit different at the top. The folk looking for a demagogue to follow and the demagogue himself can be cut from rather different cloth, with the former very convinced of the justice of the cause, and the latter possibly even considering that irrelevant, except as a tool to fuel the movement.

... under that model, the leader can be a believer, too, however, as I recall. And then there's the question of how current/supported any of this is... Honestly, I dunno. And honestly, beyond that, I was always a bit more interested in the degree to which willing self-deception might make the 'believers' as they are... and the degree to which they ever truly believe, which does confuse that dichotomy a bit, I'd think... But then, in fairness, this may be beyond the tools of pscyhology to determine anyway, which does make it kinda idle speculation, I guess...

(/And thanks, #119/lose_the_woo... it also does amuse me, somewhat, this whole 'why the anger' gambit, too. It's a method from the toolboxes of trolls/IDC folk in general: walk in, say something spectacularly insultingly stupid... and then pontificate with banal, kind 'wisdom' on the 'anger' of folk calling you on it... A tip for such folk: people aren't angry at you because of some deep-seated issues from their childhood... it ain't because they're unlucky in love, frustrated in life, got picked last for the softball team, whatever the hell else you'd like to try to pawn it off as on this particular occasion... No dear, they're angry specifically at you, and it's because you're being an asshole.)

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 17, 2009 7:54 PM

"Real people"? What does that remind me of?
Oh, yes. Sarah Palin's "real America".

Good catch!

It's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in action.

Intellectual rigor, honesty - mere trifles, just annoying distractions that get in the way of me being right.

/coach

Should I resist godwinning this?

Perhaps not.

"Conscience is a Jewish invention"
– Adolf Hitler.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 17, 2009 8:06 PM

I keep wondering how one could be an atheist and hate jews, but I suppose there are weird racial theories one could adopt.

Of course that's what the Nazis did. They defined "Jew" by ancestry, not by religion.

That said, their "theories" were all full of woo. The whole ideology was anti-rationalistic.

Posted by: RickR | November 17, 2009 8:13 PM

Janine- "What? I heard that watching porn makes you gay."

I read over at Ed Brayton's blog about some right wing nutcase who says exactly that- ALL porn makes you ghey. Including straight porn.

Which is absolutely true, of course. The first time I checked out Miss September, I got a woody.

For MR. September. *rolls eyes*

Posted by: freelunch | November 17, 2009 8:24 PM

As far as I can tell, Coach Olson is impervious to correction. He merely comes up with more new mistaken ideas to spread.

Posted by: Mack | November 17, 2009 8:32 PM

What people like these (Olson et al) don't seem to understand is that, if The Grand High Inquisitorial Order of Sciency Things decreed tomorrow that Darwin was wrong, natural selection was a crock of shit, evolution had no basis in reality, it STILL wouldn't make ID a science. Or worthy of being taught in a preschool science class for the mentally deficient.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 17, 2009 8:39 PM

As far as I can tell, Coach Olson is impervious to correction.

Posted by: Little Boots | November 17, 2009 8:43 PM

I wish I could see this debate on these intertubes.

But I'd much rather see a real honest debate on morality, which is the real crux of the matter for all creationists/id'ers. Of course PZ wins the science debate. He knows what he's talking about and they don't, or at best pretend not to. But the real deep down questions of morality. That is very different. Where does it even come from? Does it matter? Is there actually a right and wrong?

As the Hitler babble shows, that's what everyone is really struggling to get toward. But it's always so hard to get to the real questions because of all the fake ones.

In that sense, I suspect daffyd is right: pretentious, obtuse, disingenuous. It's pretty much a summary of how atheists and theists continually talk past each other.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 17, 2009 8:52 PM

Public debates are wonderful.
They give people like PZ Myers a chance to make his case.
They allow his opponents a chance to state theirs.
They give the audience a chance to form conclusions. Some in the audience may remain undecided or even ask for a “round two” encore.
And it all happens under the spotlight. Nobody can say I would have won if you hadn’t banned me or censored me or given me a chance to get a word in over the top of your shouting.
I wonder if PZ Myers is debating anyone in Melbourne in March next year at the "Beacons Of Enlightenment" Convention.
Lion (IRC)

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | November 17, 2009 8:59 PM

I know everyone else has thrashed the Coach's (lack of) logic already, but I just wanted to address something very crucial in his so-called initial point.

He pointed to ACT scores as his "demonstration" that ID doesn't damage biological expertise and knowledge. Yet, the ACT doesn't actually test students for comprehension in Biology. So, what the fuck was his whole raison d'entre other than demonstrating how little of a clue he has over the sciences?

Also, it might be unfair, but I have never seen a "coach" who was also a good teacher in whatever class they threw him in. In general, you could tell what subject or age group the school values the least by where they stick the football coach.

Ok, this should take care of my daily SIWOTI quota.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 17, 2009 9:03 PM

Nobody can say I would have won if you hadn’t banned me or censored me or given me a chance to get a word in over the top of your shouting.

Sure - until lying, intellectually dishonest Christians (like you) stop abiding by the spirit of the debate format, which they do (constantly); hence the phenomenon known as the Gish Gallop.

This is why most sensible scientists and atheists don't bother giving them the time of day.

They give the audience a chance to form conclusions.

If they're closed-minded delusional fools like you then they've already formed their conclusions - since critical thinking makes baby Jesus cry, apparently - meaning that it doesn't matter how many facts are presented, they'll continue to believe Christian dogma and deny reality.

Posted by: freelunch | November 17, 2009 9:11 PM

Janine -

Do you think that Randall Munroe waited until installment 386 for that point about the hopeless obesssion with trying to correct those errors or was it just wonderful luck?

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 17, 2009 9:15 PM

Our friend the lyin' jerk is leaving droppings again.
I do agree, public debates are helpful. But not with the subject being whether 2 plus 2 is 5 or whether Mein Kampf was inspired by the Origin.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | November 17, 2009 9:19 PM

@ 154:

Nobody can say I would have won if you hadn’t banned me or censored me or given me a chance to get a word in over the top of your shouting.

Posted by: R. Schauer | November 17, 2009 9:33 PM

If we compare "Hitler the evilutionist" against the IDers current actions to eliminate health care, abortion, contraception, stem cells and other anti-science declarations and actions...we'll see them for who and what they are...far worse than Hitler could even imagine.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | November 17, 2009 9:38 PM

On the topic of the email, I will just note that the fact that the theocrats always ALWAYS consider tone more important than substance says everything about the value of their statements on anything.

If one has facts, then how they present it is mostly meaningless unless the substance of their word usage is to infer something not provable by the dataset. Like someone plopping down an argument between two scientists about what some new dataset means and trying to use a rhetoric style to pretend it means that science has no clue about anything and therefore any viewpoint is valid.

But instead, they believe that anything you say can be thrown out if you use a bad word or are female or swarthy-colored or unacceptably deferential to their delusional vision of themselves and that anyone who says anything within their culture must be automatically correct because he used the correct style and hit the right buzzwords regardless of whether or not their statements have any connection to the reality we live in.

That is literally madness. Reality is reality and any meaningful pursuit has to accept data from reality even for a complex and ultimately human endeavor. Hell even fields and movements based on word-usage point to real-world effects and life experiences to make their point, where the theocrats seem to use it as some game of "aha, you're a demon, I can ignore you". Again, madness.

Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2009 9:40 PM

A theist claiming that God somehow establishes morality in a way that atheism can't is severely handicapped. They have to speak in terms that will persuade an atheist. This means they're screwed before they begin.

If God's morality makes sense even to an atheist, then God wouldn't need to tell us what is moral through a special revelation. Right and wrong are established by their good consequences. And if God's morals don't make reasonable sense to an atheist, then why would we agree that it's a good thing that God can establish them: they don't make any sense.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 17, 2009 10:03 PM

@89

Thousands - probably tens of thousands - of people in the Detroit area have degrees from WSU, and are well represented in the sciences, professions and humanities locally and nationally.

Believe me, a degree from WSU is not like a degree from Regent or Liberty.

Crikey, I sound like a PR flack and I don't even have my degree from WSU. But I have done some continuing ed and grad work there.

With all due respect, bcoppola, I'm just going by the statistics they set out. They're considered to be one of the best ranking systems for universities in the USA. I'm not saying I right about WSU, because I don't know, and I'll also admit I have a severe hate for Reagent and Liberty because they're right at the back door of where I lived. (I used to be 10-15 minutes from Reagent's campus). But, to see a school with the same tier rating makes me very suspicious. I'm not saying that they're a fundie college or something, but to get a rating that low they must have something wrong.

I'm was just trying to point out that the guy's education was mostly from lower end schools and one not-really-a-school.

I understand a want to defend where you live, but you must realize that the number of degrees given out and the proliferation of them in your area doesn't mean anything. I have a feeling that you would agree that Liberty and Reagent Universities are on the very bottom of rankings for a reason, but a degree from one of those schools was one of the most prominent in the Bush administration. So how many there are or where you work doesn't necessarily define how good a school actually is.

Posted by: Uerba | November 17, 2009 10:14 PM

The Hitler\racism thing again? Don't these people realize that evolution actually DOESN'T favor prejudice, hate, or violence, on account of it lowers overall reproductive fitness? Any competent 'evolutionist' would know this, but why wouldn't they?

Posted by: F | November 17, 2009 10:27 PM

BGgirl

Nothing wrong with BGSU. University cannot be held accountable for everyone who matriculates.

Posted by: may | November 17, 2009 10:43 PM

as a non scientist

the hardest part is deciding whether the word

wittering or blithering apply.

maybe blithering witterer?

or wittering blitherer?

try-hard flibbertigibbet.

the problem seems to be that there isn't a space in a reasoned debate to acknowlege that faith doesn't do reason.

it wouldn't matter except the ideologues want to colonise my (admittedly tiny) mind

and on top of that,run my life like a bunch of creationist commissars.

Posted by: 386sx | November 17, 2009 11:06 PM

Thanks to you all for keeping the debate on a courteous intellectual level.

You are quite welcome. Sorry for confusing you with Dr. Bergman in my previous comments regarding this quote from your email to Dr. Myers:

"To be addressed is your claim that evolution adds information. That needs to be supported."

I thought it was Dr. Bergman who wrote that, and I said that he must be a "dog ate my homework" Dr. because he apparently was incapable of finding support for that claim himself, like a little kid whose "dog ate my homework".

But it turns out that it was not Dr. Bergman who wrote that, and he may not actually have that low of an "intellectual level", but it was yourself instead who wrote it.

As you say, the debate should be kept on a courteous intellectual level, and so I humbly apologize for confusing you with Dr. Bergman in my previous comments.

Posted by: jk | November 17, 2009 11:25 PM

we need to refuse to use the phrase 'intelligent design.' Both we and the creationists known that ID = Creationism and we cannot further legitimize the grossness of all ID/Creationist theories by giving in an letting them use ID as a phrase that convinces people it is a scientific alternative (with the same exact tenets) as Creationism.

From now on everyone should stop using Intelligent Design and should call by it's true name- CREATIONISM

Posted by: jk | November 17, 2009 11:29 PM

we need to refuse to use the phrase 'intelligent design.' Both we and the creationists known that ID = Creationism and we cannot further legitimize the grossness of all ID/Creationist theories by giving in an letting them use ID as a phrase that convinces people it is a scientific alternative (with the same exact tenets) as Creationism.

From now on everyone should stop using Intelligent Design and should call by it's true name- CREATIONISM

Posted by: nywoodsman | November 17, 2009 11:48 PM

I have a question regarding the distintion between, artificial and natural selection.
Would the large scale culling of humans and the subsequent genotypic changes that could have resulted from mankinds genocidal history be an exanple of artifical or natural selection,or is specific intent an important part of the definition of artifical selection? .
And if so, if a breeder, intending to create a herd of black sheep, instead inadvertantly created a population of animals subseptible to a disease which subsequently killed them all, would that be artifical or natural selection?
When intentions are often thwarted by natural systems that are beyond the control of forsight , how does one distinguish between the two? By short term effects? It seems to me,if natural selection eventually prevails, this is a false dichotomy.

Posted by: F | November 18, 2009 12:18 AM

Lion

Nobody can say I would have won if you hadn’t banned me or censored me or given me a chance to get a word in over the top of your shouting.

Whatever are you on about?

Dr. P

...I was thinking the same thing, as expressed earlier by another poster, the Greeks and Romans might have something to say about the foundation of science...

Yeah, I almost complained, as I was trying to get the OP to pony up. ;)

nywoodsman

And if so, if a breeder, intending to create a herd of black sheep, instead inadvertantly created a population of animals subseptible to a disease which subsequently killed them all, would that be artifical or natural selection?
When intentions are often thwarted by natural systems that are beyond the control of forsight , how does one distinguish between the two? By short term effects? It seems to me,if natural selection eventually prevails, this is a false dichotomy.

That may be artificial mating selection, but is certainly not the Final Selection, so I don't really see the false dichotomy at this point. In the case of the black sheep, natural selection has thwarted an artificial breeding environment, because someone was manipulating the wrong bits of the gene pool and limiting variation.

Even the selection here may be considered artificial, if inadvertent, as these sheep are certainly in a less-than-natural environment, for better and worse.

Posted by: madbull | November 18, 2009 1:00 AM

they are still finches
Why does he think that species are watertight containers and evolution would result in a fish sprouting legs ? :-/

For argument sake , say the hitler crap is true.
Evolution makes us think like hitler and the rest.
Even then ,
All the creationists are pointing to is the desirability of evolution as a fact.
Desirability does nothing to change the truth value of a statement.
So are they saying that we aren't mentally matured enough to handle the truth so we must brain wash ourself with their donkey crap to remain peaceful?
What similarity does he see between PZ and Hitler neway

Posted by: nywoodsman | November 18, 2009 1:23 AM

F
"Final Selection" very funny!
Maybe I'm having a problem with the definition of artifical selection.
If a jungle tribe is surrounded by prides of hungry lions that are preying upon their weaker members, then that's an example of natural selection. But if the same tribe is surrounded by headhunters, killing the weaker members,to shrink their heads is that artifical selection, or do the headhunters have to set up a deliberate breeding program to create a stronger tribe with unshrinkable heads for it to be an example of artifical selection? Is artifical selection defined as specfic breeding efforts to acheive narrowly defined goals, or more broadly as the entirety of the human effects in the natural world? I always thought it was the latter,

Posted by: shatfat | November 18, 2009 1:41 AM

@Sastra

If you're truly interested in the responses, you will ignore style, language, and attitude, and focus only on the issues you're bringing up. That will be challenging, also.

Ah, that Vulcan, "who cares about the package? show me the contents" stuff is for nerds like us.

Wanky touchy-feely wanna-be Interrectuals like Mr. Olsen think the medium IS the massage, and all that jazz.

(What else would explain the popularity of Lacan and Derrida? I mean, nobody's ever wooed the shy, handsome girl with Derrida quotes in any movie I've ever seen. Then again, most of the movies I've seen were Star Trek II, IV, and VI. Repeatedly.)

Posted by: shatfat | November 18, 2009 1:54 AM

@29 Brownian

That post was win! I'm supposed to be keeping quiet in here so my wife can sleep, but I was laughing like a mofo.

I was going to cry "deserves a Molly!" but I see I have been anticipated. :D

Posted by: F | November 18, 2009 2:06 AM

nywoodsman

I mostly meant to say that the fellow selectively breeding to get black sheep is not necessarily precluding his non-candidate sheep from breeding, so that is not so much selection in the sense that they do not survive to breed, only that they will not be breeding with the candidate black sheep progenitors. While he is selecting for the appearance of traits in the subject population, he does not prevent other traits from existing in the species as a whole.

But yes, I pretty much think that if Man has a hand in the selection process of causing individuals, populations, or entire species not to survive long enough to reproduce, the selection is artificial to some extent. If Man has somehow buggered the species so that some natural force wipes them out entirely, the selection is at least partially artificial.

Rather the opposite of the headhunter scenario, you don't need to selectively breed a population for artificial selection to take place, only kill or otherwise prevent that population from reproducing.

It is possible that I misunderstood your first post to which I responded, in light of reading the second.

Now I wait for those who deeply understand this stuff to point out where I am wrong at every turn. :0

Posted by: shatfat | November 18, 2009 2:48 AM

@94

I think Dr. Myers protests too much about Dr. Bergman. Are you really that insecure sir? Did anyone tell you that you teach at a college that has 1700 students (about the size of an average metro high school)? You have to hide behind your tenure and have your president back you up for your off the wall silly comments about the Catholic church and communion. Are you thinking you are Galileo and being persecuted? What a joke!

I call Poe.

Oh, and sir? Well played.

Posted by: Sam C | November 18, 2009 3:00 AM

You say:

His long paragraph of creationist fallacies up there doesn't save face for him, it merely makes him look ridiculous. I think I'll take it apart later, [...]

Seriously, why bother taking it apart? It's been done again, and again, and again, and those who need to listen have their fingers in their ears and are singing "la! la! la! can't hear you!! hallelujah!!".

Those who are on the side of science and fact already understand this, especially readers of your blog (except Dumbski's students doing their assigned "for extra credit" blog posting on a hostile blog site!). The wilfully and accidentally ignorant might be persuaded face to face, but they won't be here.

Posted by: shatfat | November 18, 2009 3:25 AM

@Dr P

Ah, but they do!

what do these people say about the fact that here in the states, the states with the most aggressively pushed abstinence only programs( Texas and I believe Louisiana) are among the states with the highest reported STD's and teen pregnancy? I think Texas has twice the national incidence of syphilis.I saw something similar when I was in med school and was continually dumbfounded that the facts never seemed to speak for themselves with these people

First, abstinence-only ed means they lie, lie, lie to the kids. The kids won't learn about the facts of life until it's too late.

Second, the fact that this regime leads to more suffering is the point! Put yourself in the authoritarian mindset: unwanted pregnancy and STDs are the punishment for unworthy, disobedient behavior. The gist of abst-only is "obey!" and those who have ears ... will hear. Thus we sort the chaff from the wheat. The unworthy can darn well suck it--it's only what they deserve.

The Religious Reich's solitary purpose is to bring about Hell On Earth. Remember when the RCC was in charge? Well, it doesn't make a lick of difference what religion it is ... it's always the same tactics.

Posted by: 386sx | November 18, 2009 3:59 AM

To be addressed is your claim that evolution adds information. That needs to be supported.

I might suggest looking on a blog, the name of which I don't remember off hand, but which I believe starts with a "ph" and end with a "aryngula", if I'm not mistaken. Or, you might try looking on, oh, say, the rest of the whole freakin entire internet.

Anyways, other than by your sheer lack of motivation for looking up stuff on your own, probably fueled by your severe case of denialism (I would guess), I never would have guessed you were a creationist. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Spooky | November 18, 2009 4:58 AM

With this ... fetish ... the creotards have for qualifications, I wonder what would happen if the "new atheists" started getting Doctorates in Theology from degree mills?

I mean, if the nasty atheist has an advance degree in talking about godidit, surely they must be taken more seriously! :P

Unlikely?

Probably.

Posted by: 386sx | November 18, 2009 5:12 AM

Indeed, your claim that morality comes from our culture needs to answer the question, "What if my culture is the Mafia?"

Then I guess it doesn't come from the culture if it comes from the Mafia culture? What exactly is your point, Mr. "slinger of incoherent fallacies".

Other evolutionary apologists have candidly pointed out that the only morality that can come out of evolution is that I leave my genes, as many of them as possible, to the next generation.

Oh, okay I guess. Dude, you're giving me a really big headache!!

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | November 18, 2009 5:36 AM

"Indeed, your claim that morality comes from our culture needs to answer the question, "What if my culture is the Mafia?"

The Mafia has its own set of values and morality...so bad example!

Morality is subjective to the culture it is formulated in.

The morality of certain tribes in Africa that 'believe' they have their ancestors in them insure it is so by drinking a potion containing their recently departed loved ones ashes in it.

Recently a video on Pharygula showed the funeral arrangements that involved leaving the body to natural predation.

Every culture has its own standards of decency and morality.

So the Mafia is no different..it has standards and morality like any other society.

If specifics dings ya bell...

1.No member must ever upon penalty of death talk about the organization. Nor the Family of which he was made member. Not even within his own home.

2.Every member must obey without question the orders of his leader above him.

3.No member must ever strike another member regardless of provocation.

4.All grievances to that day he is initiated imagined or real are to be forgiven & total amnesty granted.

5.Total harmony was to rule both the business & the personal relationships between the families and the members.

6.No member could covet another’s business or another’s wife.

7.No drug dealing upon penalty of death.

8.To introduce a third person who is not a member of the Family but who can be vouched for by a Family member you would say this is a friend of mine.

9.To introduce a third person who is a member of the Family you would say this is a friend of ours.

10.The only way that someone can do business legal or illegal with someone in their Family or another Family is if their capo approves it.

11.Tell your capo everything.

12.A member of one Family could contact a member of another Family only through his own boss.

Those are just the bare bones of their morality.
Sounds very much like xian religion does it not?

And just because your idea of morals are not the same as the others views of morality means nothing, they are still morals specific to their environment, just not as you know it.

Your morals will be equally distasteful to African tribesmen or a Tibetan funeral director.
You are not the centre of the world, however much your delusion lies to you.

Time to quit the projection and get out and about a bit yourself Sherlock!

So morality point made by the IDiot=Fail

Posted by: Lilith | November 18, 2009 7:48 AM

@#15 said:

Faith baffles me.

The thing that you need to understand is that faith -- especially fundy faith -- is all about fear.

Faced with a big scary world that they don't really understand, instead of making an effort to understand it, some people retreat to an infantilized state where they never have to make decisions for themselves, because those decisions are already made by the deity of their choice, their pastor, or some other authority figure.

It's safe. You know what the rules are, so you don't need to actually think. You can't be blamed when things don't work out because you were only following orders, or the devil was involved, so it isn't your fault.

And it's nice, because as well as taking away any semblance of personal responsibility for your life, it promises a magic kingdom in the future where you will be one of the few special chosen people and nothing will every be scary again.

And when reason does manage to beat you over the head with a cluestick, when that nagging little voice starts asking 'What if this is the only life there is? What if I've wasted all these years hanging out for an afterlife that doesn't exist?', it's very easy to stick your head under the covers and hope it will go away. Because if you listen to that little voice the thought of having wasted half a lifetime on a lie is crushing. Having to live the rest of your life taking personal responsibility for your actions and wearing the consequenses of your mistakes is very frightening.

And having to admit to yourself that you were taken in by a giant con trick is just plain embarrassing.

Posted by: Tuomo Hämäläinen | November 18, 2009 8:05 AM

Actually I have used this emailer's argumentation against the ID -crews.

Play their own rules and use them against them!

They say that it is either law, random or intelligent design. And if there is no proof you must need think alternatives.

So if I say that there might be something else than these. Just claiming that only possible cases are random, law and design are not scientific claims at all.

If we don't know, then we must admit that. If we dont know is it law or random (that is not proven, they need to guestbeg just only when it is not proven impossible.) then we just can not claim it is not intelligent. Otherwise we can argue with similar strength that "if we haven't seen ID in work and building bacterial buttmotors" and it is not random, then there MUST be law which make them.

So they must admit the alternative to that. "It is not scientific claim to say there is not effecter". Which may be unintelligent force which peoples are used to call "magick". (But we are not saying it is magick at all. We just all happened to be great Harry Potter -fans!)

Of course I think evolution is right answer. And that's becouse intelligency is one form of law. And if you claim that somethin is, then burden of proof is on your side. So "effecter" is not good claim at all.

And I believe in cause and effect. Ant that they are related in time.

All intelligency which we see are living organisms. There is no intelligency which is before organism. Some organisms are not intelligent, but everything which is intelligent is organism. So life is needed cause for intelligency. Then it is more than strange to claim that intelligency is cause for life. Claiming otherwise is like saying that fireman's main job is to create burning houses.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 18, 2009 8:12 AM

Ah, Jim, your reputation as a drooling idjit without any real cogency, or perspective, and being an insufferable ass, precedes you. And you life up to your expectations. You are an insufferable ignorant ass.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | November 18, 2009 8:49 AM

Jim, seems you protesteth to much, is it because PZ actually nails retards like yourself to the garden fence...and throws rationale at you?

Does ID have the credentials to be labelled 'Science'?
If so...name them!

In fact any ID drooler will be welcomed to provide a list of attributes that can classify ID as a scientific discipline!

So instead of mewling and whining about nasty unfair atheist critical brutality, maybe this is the chance ID can 'prove itself'.

So the floor is yours ...knock ya self out!

Name those attributes?....Convince us!

Posted by: co | November 18, 2009 9:19 AM

#156:

Also, it might be unfair, but I have never seen a "coach" who was also a good teacher in whatever class they threw him in.

My junior high (then, unfortunately, Middle School) track coach was also an earth science teacher. Now, granted, it was at the junior high level, but he did a fantastic job, got the science *right*, and was scrupulously honest.
Just an anecdotal N=1 point.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 18, 2009 10:02 AM

But the real deep down questions of morality. That is very different. Where does it even come from? Does it matter? Is there actually a right and wrong?

Morality is not inbuilt in the universe the way, say, gravity is.

Morality comes from:
1) My innate empathy. Are you even capable of not reacting when a baby cries? I guess not. (I hope not.)
2) Rational consideration of my own long-term self-interest.

Are you sure any more than that is necessary?

Public debates are wonderful.
They give people like PZ Myers a chance to make his case.
They allow his opponents a chance to state theirs.
They give the audience a chance to form conclusions. Some in the audience may remain undecided or even ask for a “round two” encore.
And it all happens under the spotlight. Nobody can say I would have won if you hadn’t banned me or censored me or given me a chance to get a word in over the top of your shouting.

This is all very short-sighted. Have you ever noticed that debates like this are never conducted between scientists?

That's because scientists are (ideally) not interested in convincing other people. Instead, they're interested in finding out which ideas are wrong, even if that includes their own.

Debates have lots of disadvantages over written publications.
– In debates, there is more or less always a time limit, which may prevent one from presenting all evidence and all reasoning.
– Rhetoric is nothing but a distraction from science. Yet, debates are always won by the best rhetor (unless all are equal in that respect), not by the idea that explains the largest amount of evidence in the most parsimonious way.
– Rhetoric can include outright dishonest tactics, such as the aforementioned Gish Gallop (which is extremely popular among creationists).
– The number of participants is limited (often even to only two).
– Who the best rhetor is depends to some extent on irrelevancies such as how nervous, tired, hungry or whatnot each participant happens to be at that particular time, or if their budgie just died.

No, Lion With Or Without Parentheses. Debates are show, not science. They're entertainment, not evidence.

raison d'entre

Raison d'être, "reason for existence", literally "reason of being".

So baby jesus doesn't exist in any embryo? So embryos don't matter. But baby jesus doesn't exist in babies either. So babies don't matter? Okay, they matter to their parents (hopefully), but their parents don't matter either, really. Everyone's expendable, everyone dies. And why exactly should anyone care what's crippling Africa, at least anyone outside Africa.

Atheism can lead to nihilism.

So can belief in an afterlife and supernatural justice.

Exhibit A: "Kill them all – God will recognize those who are His."

...I think you haven't thought the question through.

Them as can't do, teach. Them as can't teach, coach. Them as can't coach, preach.

Into my quote folder.

being aghast that you are unaware that Stalin, as well, was no Darwinist.

It was late at night, I must have forgotten about that, or perhaps given too much weight to the fact that Lysenkoism, being a form of Lamarckism, still was a theory of evolution, while Mao apparently didn't accept evolution at all. Anyway, Lysenkoism was already mentioned in comment 124. :-)

Interestingly, Lysenkoism has a parallel in linguistics: Marrism. Fortunately, Stalin himself ended that one (by means of an article probably ghostwritten by the Georgian linguist Arnold Chikobava) before all linguists had been sent to Siberia.

7.No drug dealing upon penalty of death.

That's a lie. In modern Italy at least, the Mafia deals a lot of heroin.

It seems you forgot the most important rule, the one revealed to us by L. Ron Hubbard:

Make money. Make more money.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | November 18, 2009 10:27 AM

#220

Thought not!

Thus confirming the fact that ID does not nor ever will be worthy of educational support.
You can keep it in your church though...let it rot behind the alter to ignorance.

Posted by: nitramnaed | November 18, 2009 10:45 AM

What's this all about Jerry?

http://www.rae.org/BergmanTenure.htm

Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 18, 2009 11:03 AM

Well said on the Kuhn claim PZ, they have had their day and they lost it. They hang around like a bad smell.

Carl Sagan: "They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Posted by: Paul | November 18, 2009 12:03 PM

Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin - they would have done what they did with or without Darwin.

And Mao, at least, did it without Darwin. He had next to no idea about evolution and found what little he knew about it too ridiculous to accept.

I'm caught between being tickled at learning this little tidbit about Mao (he was, indeed, incredibly ignorant about the business of agriculture for being the son of a Chinese kulak) and being aghast that you are unaware that Stalin, as well, was no Darwinist.

Nor was Hitler. He wrote in Mein Kampf that it would be impossible for humans to have evolved from apes. Not to mention the fact that Social Darwinism as practiced by the Nazis has nothing to do with Darwinism, and is really just selective breeding (artificial selection as practiced for hundreds of years before Darwin, just applied to humans). There is no reason this idea could not have occurred to Hitler without the background ideas of Darwinism in place.

I actually read an interesting post on Respectful Insolence about how the Nazis didn't use evolutionary metaphors so much as immune system metaphors (e.g. the undesired elements are an infection affecting the health of the nation). I guess the only reason we don't see much demonization of Pasteur and Koch to discredit the Germ Theory of Disease is they've already given up on the Demonic Possession Theory of Disease, whereas they still see the evolution battle as something they can affect public perception on.

Posted by: TheBlackCat | November 18, 2009 12:46 PM

Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions pointed out that it is very difficult for those entrenched in the establishment to change and paradigm shifts come with generational revolutions by those whose life work and reputations are not tied to the current model.

Apparently this guy hasn't actually read Kuhn, since that is the exact opposite of what Kuhn actually said. Kuhn pointed out that this is a common claim, and then argued that it is false. According to Kuhn, When a paradigm shift occurs most scientists (young and old) switch immediately, some take a bit longer. Generally a small minority of the oldest scientists in the field refuse to change, but they are quickly marginalized by the rest of the field, young and old alike, since they are no longer using the same approach to looking at issues. These individuals tend to get more publicity, but they are a small minority even of the oldest scientists and are totally irrelevant to the field.

Posted by: F | November 18, 2009 2:03 PM

Tuomo Hämäläinen

You are right. These people have no understanding of bacterial buttmotors, nor that they do not require a designer.

Posted by: slpage | November 18, 2009 2:38 PM

bcoppola writes:

Kema #35: Being a Detroiter, I have to come to the defense of Wayne State U. here. The US News rankings are controversial and not to be taken as (pardon the expression) gospel. Wayne State is in fact a reputable public university here in MI with a history dating back about 150 years (it began as a "normal school" or teacher's college, I think). It has a good med school in partnership with the Detroit Medical Center hospitals. Its mission is making higher ed available to an urban population; it's like Bill Cosby's alma mater of Temple U in that regard.

Thousands - probably tens of thousands - of people in the Detroit area have degrees from WSU, and are well represented in the sciences, professions and humanities locally and nationally.

Believe me, a degree from WSU is not like a degree from Regent or Liberty.

Crikey, I sound like a PR flack and I don't even have my degree from WSU. But I have done some continuing ed and grad work there.

I agree. The school of Medicine (which I attended, via the graduate program), is outstanding:

****
Feb. 21, 2000
Contact: Amy DiCresce (313) 577-1429, adicresc@med.wayne.edu

School’s research ranking climbs

The Wayne State University School of Medicine climbed to number 22 of the nation’s 125 medical schools in the latest rankings released by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The rankings are based on total research expenditures and reflect an excess of $99 million in research funding to the School of Medicine faculty in 1998, the latest year reported
******

I graduated in 1999. In addition, the School of Medicine boasts Morris Goodman, who has been described as the world's leading expert on molecular evolution in primates as well as Gabriel Lasker, a big name in physical anthropology in the 1970s. The biochem and anatomy departments there are very active and generate soem exceptional research.

I cannot attest to Bergman's programs, which do not appear to exist anymore (not sure how you can get a BS in 'sociology, biology, and psychology', either), but the medical school is top notch.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 18, 2009 4:21 PM

(e.g. the undesired elements are an infection affecting the health of the nation)

Not "nation". Healthy Body of the People® was the term they made up.

Posted by: Ross Olson | November 18, 2009 9:52 PM

November 18, 2009

Dr. Myers,

Thank you for posting my comments and promising to comment on the questions I raised. Here is the introduction I gave to your debate with Dr. Jerry Bergman on the topic, "Should Intelligent Design Be Taught in the Schools?"

Although many of us on the ID side did not think our arguments were clearly presented, we were pleased with the civil tone and actual intellectual interaction that took place, just as I asked for below:

*****************************************

Introduction to the Debate

Thank you, on behalf of Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists, Christian Student Fellowship and Twin Cities Creation Science Association, for coming to this debate which can serve as an example for dealing with explosive issues in a courteous, intellectual manner. I am Ross Olson, serving on the Board of TCCSA. I was educated at the University of Minnesota for both undergraduate and medical school and never heard any evidence against evolution. It was 10 years later that I discovered a powerful case against it and I changed my mind, although it took a long time to do so.

Perhaps some will change their mind today, one way or the other, but even for the vast majority who do not, a new respect for the other side may be developed. You may be sitting next to those who you consider enemies tonight. Those of us coming from a Christian perspective know that we are told to love our enemies. And from my interactions with Nick Wallin, leader of the Student CASH, I sense that he follows a very similar principle.

A few years ago I was invited to speak at a gathering chaired by Matt Stark, former head of the Minnesota chapter of the ACLU. Introducing me he said, "Unlike theists, we do not believe in revelation. So we have to arrive at truth the hard way; we have to listen to everybody." And they did listen and of course they questioned and argued, but they did listen.

I hope you will take one of the pre and post debate surveys, fill out the first section now and the second section at the end. This will help us evaluate the event. We also hope to have a DVD of the entire debate available through the sponsoring organizations within a few weeks.
I would now like to introduce Dr. Mark E Borrello, Assistant Professor, Ecology, Evolution/Behavior, UMN Twin Cities who will introduce the debaters and explain the format.

*****************************************

Dr. Myers, when you do answer my questions, which you refer to as "creationist fallacies," could I ask you to send a copy to my e-mail address? I do not have the time to sift through the chaff of the Blog to find the occasional grains of wheat.
It is ironic that the characterization of creationists by Carl Sagan as "armies of the night," mindless groupies and sycophants, could be applied to the Blogosphere. I asked you to raise the level of the genre but I get the impression that you have no desire or intention to do so.

One retired professor began by e-mailing me some barely comprehensible trash talk in the language of the blog but shifted into normal English and actually interacted for several exchanges. When he concluded that interlude, however, he said this, "You are too delusional to continue with...I must return to PZ's blog to get my sanity back."

OK, I have studied the dialect and can try to speak broken "Blog-talk." Dr. Myers, you criticized Dr. Bergman's academic credentials and publication record as a cover-up for insecurity. May I ask you what you have published in peer-reviewed journals? Or in edited journals? I find many references to your blog entries.
And by the way, a blog is not instant peer-review. You would admit -- indeed insist -- (as did Superman) that you have few peers and that most blog entries are not even reviewed by the minds of those who post them. The blog is combination of mutual admiration society with occasional piranha-like attacks on any outsider who wanders in.

Ross Olson

Posted by: Kevin H | November 18, 2009 11:16 PM

"And to claim that evidence against evolution does not represent evidence for intelligent design needs closer analysis. There is a logical dichotomy involved. Life either has a natural origin or not."

Argh! how many times do we need to say it? origins of life = abiogenesis, not evolution! it doesn't make him any less pathetic, but would the creati-loons please pick a battle and stick with it?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 18, 2009 11:29 PM

That should have been none of your "oh, I can't bother to read" nonsense. Oh, for an edit function. Sigh.

Posted by: Ross Olson | November 19, 2009 12:27 AM

Daniel, #145.

Please look closely at what you are claiming.

************************

Take the string below:

ABCCCDBADABCCA

This string contains a certain amount of information, depending on what set of mathematical tools we analyse it (Shannon, Kolmogorov, Titchener). But even intuitively, we know this string must contain some information.

Now: Under replication, a mistake cuts in. See if you can spot it.

ABCCCDBADABCCAABCCCDBADABCCA

Yep, it's been duplicated. Now, this is an accident, and not necessarily deleterious if it happens in an organism. Now, the information has increased in doing this. It won't have doubled, but recording two of something takes at the very least a 'x2' modifier, and that modifier is an extra piece of information.

****************************

Appealing to this very technical definition of information does not help evolution because it is still an nonsense sequence. A better comparison would be to take a paragraph in a book or a string of computer code, duplicate a portion of it and see if the result not only makes sense, but makes MORE sense than the original. The blithe comment that there will be a few beneficial mutations and that they will be preserved by natural selection firstly fails to understand the incredible complexity of every living being and forgets that natural selection selects individuals, not genes. It can happen in bacteria because they can reproduce every 20 minutes and a single gene can make a difference. They have remained bacteria, however, and not turned into anything else. A mammal, however, with sexual reproduction and long generation time in addition to the problem of a mutant gene most likely being recessive and needing a mate, just could not cause a new gene to propagate across the population. This is Haldane's Dilemma. Also read John Sanford's Genetic Entropy. In real life the genome is aging and deteriorating, not improving.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2009 12:56 AM

A better comparison would be to take a paragraph in a book or a string of computer code, duplicate a portion of it and see if the result not only makes sense, but makes MORE sense than the original.

Wrong. DNA is not a computer code, nor is it English text. It's a chemical that undergoes chemical reactions that result in proteins and/or regulate the chemical reactions that result in proteins.

The blithe comment that there will be a few beneficial mutations and that they will be preserved by natural selection firstly fails to understand the incredible complexity of every living being

Complexity is a non-sequitur.

and forgets that natural selection selects individuals, not genes.

Irrelevant hair-splitting. Since individuals develop according to genes, then genes are selected along with the individuals that they developed into.

A mammal, however, with sexual reproduction and long generation time in addition to the problem of a mutant gene most likely being recessive and needing a mate, just could not cause a new gene to propagate across the population.

Strawman and pathetic argument from ignorance and incredulity.

Genes do not magically jump to other members of the population; the population changes over time such that a gene that causes successful individuals to develop will outbreed members of the population without that gene.

Inbreeding does occur, so even recessive genes have a chance to spread and may well result in changed populations.

In real life the genome is aging and deteriorating, not improving.

Wrong. In real life, genomes are evolving, whether you like it or not.

Posted by: F | November 19, 2009 1:31 AM

Appealing to this very technical definition of information does not help evolution because it is still an nonsense sequence.

Would you prefer an example from actual genetic code? That is still exactly how it works. The "meaning" is there, even if it still has the same meaning of the non-mutant sequence.

A better comparison would be to take a paragraph in a book or a string of computer code, duplicate a portion of it and see if the result not only makes sense, but makes MORE sense than the original.

No, it would not be a better comparison, as the metaphor doesn't stretch that way. You get to change one letter of a three-letter combination, if we are looking at a single change. It may or may not modify the gene expression, for better or worse, or for, yet again, no change in operation at all. There is no such thing as "more sense".

The blithe comment that there will be a few beneficial mutations and that they will be preserved by natural selection firstly fails to understand the incredible complexity of every living being...

Show us how the incredible complexity of living beings is not taken into account.

...and forgets that natural selection selects individuals, not genes.

Nature may or may not select, at a given time, for individuals expressing the genes (the phenotype).

It can happen in bacteria because they can reproduce every 20 minutes and a single gene can make a difference. They have remained bacteria, however, and not turned into anything else.

Timescale is irrelevant. But enough mutations, and they are different bacteria. And as successful as bacteria are, why would they frequently change so much that they would no longer be bacteria? Nature will tend to select against bacteria with extra baggage in the current environment. Back in the day, however, it only took one or a few bacteria to collect the mutations which separated their genetic material into a nucleus, evolving into non-bacterial single-celled organisms. A single gene can make a difference in any species. HOX? Sickle cell anemia? (Look out, that one is selected both for and against by nature.

A mammal, however, with sexual reproduction and long generation time in addition to the problem of a mutant gene most likely being recessive and needing a mate, just could not cause a new gene to propagate across the population.

Again, time between generations is irrelevant. There is and has been plenty of time. Recessive genes do not disappear - they are passed along as often as dominant genes. Recessive genes do also have an effect, even if it isn't the full effect of being double-recessive, which combination will occur within several generations at the most. If not almost immediately. Animals, in general, do not account for incest.

If that is Haldane's dilemma, I'm suddenly a bit less impressed with Haldane (J.B.S.?), but he is probably a bit out of date at this point, as pertains to this discussion.

In real life the genome is aging and deteriorating, not improving.

You'll need to support that statement. Sounds a bit like one of the Devo (the band) in-jokes.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 19, 2009 2:06 AM

I was going to say that Mr. Olson here evidently doesn't understand the difference between symbolic language and chemical "language", but Owlmirror got there first. And F already pointed out that there's no such thing as "more sense", since evolution isn't directional*. All I can add to that is that what such mutations can do is change the way a chemical reaction happens, with consequences for the protein that is the end-result of these chemical reactions; when the change is detrimental, it is likely to be weeded out of the population; if it's beneficial, it will stay. If it's a recessive gene, it will spread throughout the population the same way all neutral mutations are: 50% of all offspring of this mutant will have it, and they will be as likely to spread their version than the non-mutants are; and eventually this particular gene might become widespread enough that carriers start breeding with each other, at which point their offspring will benefit, and the rate at which it spreads will increase (and if the environment is sufficiently harsh, it might almost completely replace the non-mutant, less beneficial variant)

this is really not that difficult.

*stoopid pie getting in the way of my SIWOTI :-p

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 19, 2009 2:43 AM

It is hard, because if these idiots see it, really see it, then jesus didn't die for their sins and they'll just disappear when they die.

Posted by: F | November 19, 2009 3:22 AM

What is left?

Everything.

Everything that is real. All of the real intimate connections. The connections known, those unknown but were there all along, and the ones that could be.

The stunning, awesome reality of the cosmos. The amazing fact of life itself. The mind-bending experience of consciousness, knowledge, discovery, and communication. For those who believed in creators, the incredible realization that this is all here, with no need for a creator to make it up.

Yes, there is a bit of a hump to get over, like the loss of a dearly loved one for some, like the loss of control and order for others.

I find that what is left is far more than what is left behind.

Posted by: RickR | November 19, 2009 3:36 AM

"I take your point, though I always hope its not that. Why can't God create through evolution?"

If I believed in god, I'd feel the same way. What's the problem? But then, I don't generally have a problem looking at the world as it is. Or I should say, I wasn't taught to be afraid of the world.

I think creationists and (their immeasurably more dishonest ID brethren), throw up a lot of intellectual smoke about their objections to evolutionary theory.

But it's bullshit. It's a smokescreen. Their objections aren't intellectual at all. They're purely emotional.
Anyway, my style is to cut through their pseudointellectual blatherings and simply ask them "why are you afraid of reality?"
IMO, a creationist won't change until they can confront that question.

Posted by: F | November 19, 2009 4:54 AM

Hmm. "Why can't God create through evolution?"

Well, if I'm arguing the existence of gods with someone, I can only point out the flaws in the existing descriptions of the gods.

If I'm arguing evolution, I don't need to bring it up. I just argue against creationisms. Sure, could be gods created via evolution.

386sx

Then of course we would have to account for the "laws of super-dupernature"."

Super-dupernature consists of 42 dimensions folded in on themselves, and imperceptible in our mundane three-dimensional space unless someone lights up a QSO right next to a gravity interferometer. (You have to take measurements really fast.)

Posted by: 386sx | November 19, 2009 11:40 AM

So when are we going to see finches riding the Tour de France?

"Practice, practice, practice." (As Arthur Rubinstein would say.)

Posted by: CJO | November 19, 2009 2:29 PM

In real life the genome is aging and deteriorating, not improving.

"Deteriorating" and "improving" are hopelessly value-laden terms and are completely out of place in the discussion. Try to describe what you think must be happening to genomes in objective terms. You will find yourself making a very bad argument about thermodynamics, and then we can all laugh at you some more.

Posted by: DarkSyde | November 19, 2009 4:13 PM

If a given mutation decreases info, I'm pretty sure a back mutation would have to add it, no matter how info is defined, as long as it was a metric set. If it's not a metric, then terms like more than or less than wouldn't have any meaning anyway.

Posted by: 386sx | November 19, 2009 10:10 PM

I like how it went from...

"To be addressed is your claim that evolution adds information."

to...

"...and see if the result not only makes sense, but makes MORE sense than the original."

I also like the implied "axiom" (or whatever they would call it over there in la-la denialism land) that it can't be new information, or different information. It has to be more information. :P

You gotta watch the kooks, folks. You don't know what kind of crazy "axioms" and "laws" they have going on up thar in their heads.

Posted by: Ross Olson | November 20, 2009 5:56 PM

Since the water is mostly clear of blood, this may be now a black hole in hyperspace, but I will toss out a few more observations concerning the Blogosphere.

I pasted into an entry the introduction I had read at the November 16 Debate. It was of "historic" interest since it was a piece of the event (and the event did indeed remain civil as requested.) But the first comment was, "A copypasta, the sign of a not so great mind, or not so great argument." Apparently reflection is frowned upon. That was something I wrote over about a week, reflecting, revising and condensing. Blogging, I conclude, MUST be off the top of the head -- if not from some other part of the anatomy altogether.

The discussion of information is an interesting exercise in scrambling for something to grab. The chemical language of the DNA is not qualitatively different from the information of human language or computer language. Written words are equivalent to spoken words and can be stored as binary, Morse or non-English translations. The fact that DNA provides a blueprint for the business molecules of the cell, proteins, does not help evolution but provides more places where it can go wrong. But for someone who already is convinced that evolution has taken place, it may sound plausible -- after all, there must be SOME reason.

The increase of information by duplication, as I said, does not help evolution. In fact, there is an "experiment of nature" that shows harm. Trisomy 21 is a condition in which all the normal chromosomes are present and there is one extra. That is "more information" but produces an individual with all sorts of problems -- Down's Syndrome. This also indicates another layer of complexity in the genome because genes interact with each other and changes produce unexpected effects.

To the person who said because evolution is directionless it does not make sense to talk about "better," I remind you that the goal is survivability, which is the evolutionary "better." And "favorable" mutations do not easily spread through a population. Look up Haldane's Dilemma.

Finally, just to see if anyone is still here, I ask you to come up with any evolutionarily based morality other than leaving my genes to as many of the next generation as possible. Dr. Myers' comment that we get morality from our culture is partly true -- it tends to be absorbed without attribution. The problem comes when a basis for it is needed. Right now many people have great compassion for the disabled, but if it becomes too expensive, I predict that the support is shallow and easily uprooted. That is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany.

Now I have your attention!

Posted by: 386sx | November 20, 2009 6:13 PM

Ross Olson, you are the one who is not looking up Haldane's Dilemma. You have to look on other places besides creationist sources!

Posted by: CJO | November 20, 2009 6:26 PM

What 386sx said.

Read this for a good discussion of the non-problem posed for standard evolutionary theory by Haldane's dilemma. Plenty of references for further reading as well.

Posted by: CJO | November 20, 2009 6:42 PM

I ask you to come up with any evolutionarily based morality other than leaving my genes to as many of the next generation as possible.

Why should morality be "evolutionarily based"? Why not based on quantum electrodynamics, or plate tectonics? Evolution is just an explanation for how we got here and for the observed diversity of life on Earth. It's not a religion or an ideology of any kind, and there's simply no more reason why anybody should go there looking for a moral code than there is for any other scientific theory.

Now, if you're asking for a moral sense that is consistent with the fact that humans evolved from highly social primates and remain highly social primates, having taken "highly social" to its logical extension, let me ask you: How could a moral sense not be a concommitant of such an evolutionary sequence? Massive fecundity is not synonymous with what you term "survivability." In some lineages it is, but for large-brained primates with long gestation times and extended period of post-gestation physical and cognitive development, strong altruistic feelings toward offspring and kin, and a desire to promote a stable, safe community to raise one's offspring are necessities, and overbreeding is a burden on parents with an interest in significant investment in raising to adulthood just a few offspring. How many more steps do you need before you see the obvious: that given such an origin, human cultural systems will derive rules of conduct that foster these ends?

Posted by: tresmal | November 20, 2009 6:50 PM

"Finally, just to see if anyone is still here, I ask you to come up with any evolutionarily based morality other than leaving my genes to as many of the next generation as possible."

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 20, 2009 8:09 PM

"Now I have your attention!"

It's called Godwin's Law, and you lose. That's why everybody groaned at the Argumentum Ad Hitlerum at the debate.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 20, 2009 9:03 PM

Right now many people have great compassion for the disabled, but if it becomes too expensive, I predict that the support is shallow and easily uprooted. That is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany.

I didn't know that being Jewish was a disability. Thanks for explaining, Dr. Olson.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 20, 2009 10:34 PM

The ideology of Nazism was based on the evolutionary idea that humanity must be improved by selecting out the unfit.

Natural vs. Artificial selection Ross.

Are you really this dense or is it that you just want so badly for the theory of evolution to be incorrect that you're willing to accept anything that may be perceived as a slight against it even when it is demonstratively not so?

Doing so really shows the anti-intellectualism that is creationism.

Posted by: Ross Olson | November 20, 2009 10:40 PM

Don't you see? Hitler saw the survival of the unfit as artificially interfering with natural selection. Either you are a hopeless nitpicker or intellectually blind.

Posted by: Ross Olson | November 20, 2009 10:44 PM

Prove free will to me in a naturalistic universe.

Posted by: John Morales | November 20, 2009 10:48 PM

Ross @288, your contention has been pre-emptively addressed via evidence (and, I think, refuted) in this thread.

Posted by: kopd | November 20, 2009 10:53 PM

The ideology of Nazism was based on the evolutionary idea that humanity must be improved by selecting out the unfit.

Yes, and the Defenestrations of Prague were based on the gravitational idea that things must fall.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 20, 2009 11:02 PM

Ross Olson, liar, wrote:

The ideology of Nazism was based on the evolutionary idea that humanity must be improved by selecting out the unfit.

If this is the case then you'll have no problem whatsoever linking to a site where evolution is defined (by people who actually know something about it) as a process involving conscious acts by an organism. Go on - I dare you to find one.

If you cannot, please stop lying. You've been told over and over that that's not what evolution is, was or will be defined as. I thought your religion considered bearing false witness to be a bad thing; perhaps you need a reminder.

The problem of the average German, whether they called themselves Christian or not, was absence of moral courage to stand up against evil.

Christians are weak, morally-bereft hypocrites? Yeah, I can't argue with that.

But the bigger problem is that, thanks to their religious convictions, they didn't consider what Hitler was doing to be evil, since they believed him when he told them he was doing the work of the Lord. The Christian god loves genocide - it's right there in the bible! Why would they consider it evil when your god says it's okay?

Now most people of every ideological stripe will say that Hitler was evil.

You'd be a hypocrite if you did - he was only doing what he thought his god told him to do - isn't that how you live your life?

But in a world without God, there is no way to define right and wrong.

In a world with belief in god it's far easier - do what you want and then interpret your holy book in such a way that makes it justify what you've done. Just like Hitler.

What holy authority can atheists use to justify their actions? Oh, that's right - none whatsoever.

Again, the question must be asked: if your god considered what Hitler did to be bad, why didn't he step in and try to stop him? Was your god afraid of Hitler?

In fact, I have not seen anyone come up with a mechanism for free will.

So? This demonstrates the existence of your god how, exactly? We can't explain something, therefore your god exists - are you perhaps familiar with the argument from ignorance fallacy?

Now, of course, that's not what I believe and I think that we are all free moral agents and capable of reason.

Some aren't so capable of reason - or, at least, applying it to every aspect of their lives. We have a word for them - 'believers'. They're fully capable of cognitive dissonance and rationalisation though - as I'm sure you know.

For others it is the intense aversion to the possibility that there is a God to Whom we might be accountable or...

It's not an 'aversion'; I don't have a choice whether or not I believe in your god, any more than I can believe in unicorns or leprechauns or the Easter Bunny. Give me a reason to believe in them - or your god - and I'll believe. But such a thing does not exist.

...like with Darwin, deep hurt because of a loss that seems to be God's fault.

If your god existed, what happened to Darwin was his fault. How could it not be? According to you he created the universe and everything in it, and knew from the beginning what would occur - and yet he did nothing to stop it even though he could have. That's what fault is.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 20, 2009 11:20 PM

Bravo Owlmirror & Wowbagger!

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 20, 2009 11:35 PM

Hitler saw the survival of the unfit as artificially interfering with natural selection.

You can't find Hitler or Nazis making that argument. They did not think of evolutionary concepts, but rather of immunological ones in justifying killing the unfit.

"The state is a whole," Hoche wrote, with its own laws and rights "much like one self-contained human organism which, in the interest of the whole, also—as we doctors know—abandons and rejects parts or particles that have become worthless or dangerous."

Posted by: tresmal | November 20, 2009 11:48 PM

You know who used antibiotics? HITLER! :P

Posted by: 386sx | November 21, 2009 12:02 AM

I was just going to say, if nobody can show me any immunologically based morality other than epidemiology, then, ummmmm, QED, ergo Jesus, or Darwinism, something. (But then Owlmirror posted an immunologically based morality system in comment #300 before I could say it.)

Posted by: 386sx | November 21, 2009 12:14 AM

If nobody can come up with any math based morality other than adding gives you more and subtracting gives you less, then... QED.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 21, 2009 9:53 AM

For others it is the intense aversion to the possibility that there is a God to Whom we might be accountable or, like with Darwin, deep hurt because of a loss that seems to be God's fault....

Oh, fuck. Guys, give it up. He's onto us.

I mean, yeah, that's totally it...

I mean, sure, (i) the arguments for the existence of gods mostly seem to come down to bold, convincing stuff like 'If'n I define it all incredibly vaguely enough, and keep running in hilariously obvious circles long enough, anyone who's onto me won't actually be able finally to completely and formally rubbish the notion, at least (mostly 'cos it pretty much started as rubbish, but whatev)...',

.... and sure, (ii) the evidence for the existence of gods mostly comes down to the fact that if it's not gods inspiring them, we're left with mental illness and a pathological need for attention for the explanations as to why strange, largely incoherent hayseeds develop obsessions about where people urinate, and why marginal 'intellectuals' feel the need to embarrass 'emselves further by posting increasingly hilariously inane apologetics under their own names in blog comments threads...

... and sure, (iii) those apologists for gods mostly seem to store tapioca where other people keep their central nervous system...

But yes, the real reason I'm not buying Olson's shtick is 'cos yes, I do occasionally find myself lusting after women to whom I'm not technically married, and don't wanna have to answer for that to any crazy, bearded desert Djinns who seem to regard even that as a good enough reason to haul out the fire 'n brimstone 'n leather (I'm a dirty boy! Beat me, Jesus! Oooooh! Whip me hard!!)...

... And 'cos when I was 12, God killed my hamster, Kenny.

(/Shakes fist at sky... 'You killed Kenny!...')

Posted by: 386sx | November 21, 2009 1:30 PM

Sounds like a good idea to me. Blame Hitler for Hitler. Gee, there's a novel idea.

Now most people of every ideological stripe will say that Hitler was evil. But in a world without God, there is no way to define right and wrong.

No way at all, huh? Thank you, Mr. "false dilemma". Good thing for simple-headed utterly evident straightforward and obvious common sense in yer face fallacies, or creationists would be outta business! You guys should be thanking the dude who invented fallacies.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 21, 2009 1:53 PM

"For others it is the intense aversion to the possibility that there is a God to Whom we might be accountable or, like with Darwin, deep hurt because of a loss that seems to be God's fault...."

(Quick note: The ellipsis doesn't make you look more profound, particularly after such a ridiculous sentence)

I don't feel any loss. Ditching God was quite freeing. Now since I did it at age 13 or so, I guess it wasn't too cathartic or anything, but then that's also probably because God wasn't there in the first place.

Anyway, Ross, every time I hear someone level the "accountability" accusation, I wonder just what horrible things you think we're doing that we don't want to be accountable for. What do you really think is on our guilty consciences? Stealing? Killing? Lying? I really want to know this.

Or is it just victimless ticky-tack like not going to church every week or not tithing to some corrupt, tax-free organizations dedicated to fairy tales, or having consensual romantic relations with fellow adults that fall outside the rigid, outmoded definitions of Bronze Age tribes, or even thinking about such things? In which case, maybe I'll concede to you, that yes, I would really rather not be accountable to any such cosmic tyrant that would wag his sanctimonious finger at me. But then, I think that any free moral agent capable of reason would too, right?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 21, 2009 3:54 PM

But in a world without God, there is no way to define right and wrong.

Translation: "I cannot think for myself. Therefore, God."

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 21, 2009 4:46 PM

It's like arguing that since there is no free will, how can one define middle C? The capacity to recognise right and wrong or even define it is in no way inhibited by causality. Responsibility for one's actions however...

Posted by: coacholson | November 21, 2009 6:24 PM

I am sorry I must have got here by mistake-- is this the Jerry Springer blog?

What no study yet that shows that ID teachers produce inferior students?-- You know F bombs don't substitute for rational conversation:)

To the poster that said he wanted to know my district so he come and get me fired, What are you going to use for data-- a few F bombs should be impressive.

To Smoogy: What a creative post! What waste of time-- don't you have something worthwhile to do?

To the poster that slammed Dr. Ben Carson. Are you that ignorant? Don't you know what he has accomplished? Of course he understands viruses. Variations in viruses is not macro-evolution!

Posted by: coacholson | November 21, 2009 6:34 PM

I was wondering why Dr. Myers likes to slam Dr. Bergman's CV, but refuses to show his.

Is it really true Dr. Myers has this little to show for writing? Here is a poster in Salon trying to defend him. He sure likes Zebra fish. Not sure why he only has 1 paper published by himself.

From Salon:

Have you looked at his (Myers) CV?

Sipple, B.A. and P.Z. Myers (2002). The Rohon-Beard cell: formation of the primary sensory system of the zebrafish. Submitted, Anatomy and Embryology.

Myers, P.Z (2002) Haeckel’s Embryos, in Icons of Anti-Evolution, D. Thomas, W. Elsberry, and J. Wilkins, eds. Submitted, NCSE.

Dudkin, E.A., P.Z. Myers, J.A. Ramirez-Latorre, and E.R. Gruberg (1998). Calcium signals monitored from leopard frog optic tectum after the optic nerve has been selectively loaded with a calcium sensitive dye. Neuroscience Letters 258:124-126.

Myers, P.Z, B.A. Sipple, T. Hasaka, and H. Qutub (1998) Automated analysis of spontaneous motor activity in the embryonic zebrafish, Danio rerio. J. Computer Assisted Microscopy 9(3):169-181.

Stachel, Scott E., D.J. Grunwald, and P.Z. Myers. (1993). Lithium perturbation and goosecoid expression identify a dorsal specification pathway in pre-gastrula zebrafish. Development 117(4):1261-1274.

Myers, Paul Z. and M.J. Bastiani. (1993). Cell-cell interactions during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone in the embryonic grasshopper. J. Neurosci. 13(1):115-126.

Myers, Paul Z. and M.J. Bastiani. (1993). Growth cone dynamics during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone. J. Neurosci. 13(1):127-143.

Myers, Paul Z. and M.J. Bastiani. (1991). NeuroVideo: a program for capturing and processing time-lapse video. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 34:27-33.

Metcalfe, Walter K., P.Z. Myers, M. Bass, and C.B. Kimmel. (1990). Primary neurons that express the L2/HNK-1 carbohydrate during early development in the zebrafish. Development 110:491-504.

Myers, Paul Z., J.S. Eisen, and M. Westerfield. (1986). Development and axonal outgrowth of identified motoneurons in the zebrafish. J.Neurosci. 6(8): 2278-2289.

Westerfield, Monte, J.S. Eisen, P.Z. Myers, J.V. McMurray, and C.B. Kimmel. (1986). Early neurogenesis in the zebrafish. Proc. I.U.P.S. 16:210.

Eisen, Judith S., P.Z. Myers, and M. Westerfield. (1986). Pathway selection by growth cones of identified motoneurons in live zebrafish embryos. Nature 320:269-271.

Myers, Paul Z. (1985). Spinal motoneurons of the larval zebrafish. J.Comp.Neurol. 236:555-561.

This list isn't terribly long for a research-oriented scientist.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | November 21, 2009 6:43 PM

This list isn't terribly long for a research-oriented scientist.

Really? Perhaps you'd like to show your publication list so we may compare?

But you are correct - it's not terribly long for a research-oriented scientist. Of course, it isn't really a problem, since PZ is - as he will quite freely admit, and does so quite regularly - a teaching-oriented scientist.

Epic fail. Why don't you leave the thinking to those capable of it?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 21, 2009 6:51 PM

I have taught in an Alternative School--

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 21, 2009 7:02 PM

I am a teacher.

My point is Dr. Myers loves to slam Dr. Bergman and Dr. Olson.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 21, 2009 7:06 PM

I am sorry I must have got here by mistake

Obviously. You certainly did not get here by design.

is this the Jerry Springer blog?

No, this is the blog where creationists whine about how upset they are about bad language instead of making any kind of substantive argument.

What no study yet that shows that ID teachers produce inferior students?

Was your teacher an ID teacher? You're obviously an inferior student.

You know F bombs don't substitute for rational conversation

Neither to whiny arguments from authority.

Does adding profanity to your posts increase a score of some kind with Dr. Myers?

Does whining about language increase a score of some kind with God?

Of course you have no proof I stopped learning years ago.

Every comment you post demonstrates that you are incapable of learning. It's kind of sad.

I have taught in an Alternative School-- Your fellow posters swearing on this blog matches the students there. What does that tell you?

That you argue the fallacy of false equivalence, thereby demonstrating that you are incapable of learning and are an inferior student.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 21, 2009 7:18 PM

Coach--While I think Myers is an accomodationist, a splitter, and a panadaptationist*, he performs an important function for evolutionary science. He is a voice to the public. I am an evolutionary biologist with a higher rate of publication than PZ Myers. However, even if I revealed my identity I would bet that no one who reads this blog will have heard of me. I don't want to be part of the public debate. I haven't the rhetorical legerdemain or the stamina to fight the battles with the retards** for as long as Myers has. Hell. I don't even have the balls to use my own name on this blog, lest my conservatively religious provost catches wind, and I get canned. But someone has to fight those battles. The community of evolutionary biologists has enough respect (and I'll venture gratitude) for this important task that Dr. Myers is invited as plenary speaker to international conferences of which participants on average have a better publication record--and love his message anyway.

*Actually, Dawkins is more of a panadaptationist.
**Not trying to insult actual retarded people.

Posted by: coach olson | November 21, 2009 7:21 PM

To: Dr. Nerd of Redhead,
What do you mean that an alternative school in a public school system is not accredited? Get your facts straight. Your Ignorance is showing! You miss my point anyways-- I was comparing their crude language to your fellow posters.

No-- you show me that student performance is affected negatively by an ID believing teacher. It is never been about effectiveness of a teacher it is all about whether you are a card carrying member atheistic/humanist evolutionist with you isn't it. If what you say is true, then it should be easy to prove or just admit you cannot prove it. I gave evidence that students from the same demographics exposed to different origins world views are about the same in ACTs. Explain that -- don't say it is irrelevant.

What do mean "Classic Avoidance" -- answer the charge that Dr. Myers has not published much and he shouldn't be throwing cheap shots at Dr. Bergman.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 21, 2009 7:34 PM

alternative school

You miss my point anyways-- I was comparing their crude language to your fellow posters.

"Classic Avoidance"

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 21, 2009 7:45 PM

Specifically, I mean peer-reviewed literature supporting ID, and more specifically I mean zero. Not much of a stack.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 21, 2009 8:56 PM

I really wish someone in the ID camp would have the balls to propose a legitimate hypothesis of intelligent design. Incredulity at Darwinian evolution doesn't constitute an argument, it needs to be established that there is a legitimate mechanism. You don't hear hoof-beats and conclude unicorns just because you can't see any horses around...

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 21, 2009 9:19 PM

so are you whining about whining??

Your confession that you are whining is noted.

Obviously it is pointless to talk to you as usual.

Your confession that your whining is pointless is also noted.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 21, 2009 9:27 PM

IDC Man does an interview

Q: Is there evidence for intelligent design?

A: Well, stuff looks designed. To me, anyway.

Q: We've heard. How nice for you. This is the same stuff for which people have published some rather detailed phylogenetic trees backed up by sequence data, and the same organisms in which many features look vestigial. Got anything else?

A: Well, the ACT scores at a school where someone said something nice about science and the bible are actually pretty good.

Q: Kay... yes, those look very nice... you must be so proud... but the question was: is there evidence for intelligent design?

A: Also, there's guys who say they buy intelligent design who are MDs.

Q: 'Kay... ummm... right... but, the question was: is there evidence for intelligent design?

A: Also, the guy who runs this blog really hasn't published that much... lately... as first author... on stuff other than zebrafish...

Q: Noted. But the question was: is there evidence for intelligent design?

A: And this guy in the debate who was just so hilariously incoherent and spent three quarters of the night telling us his life story? He actually has lots of degrees. Some from places you may even have heard of.

Q: That's... nice. But the question was...

A: Also, you people say fuck a lot.

Q: Fuck, yes... but the question was still: is there evidence for intelligent design?

A: Just like lots of places where I've worked.

Q: 'Kay... but, y'know, the question was: is there evidence for intelligent design?

A: And you guys should get out more. Clearly, you have no lives, if you're actually wasting time talking to me.

Q: Hard to argue with that, really.... Mebbe I'll check out a pub later. But the question was...

A: And I bet my dad could beat up your dad.

Q: I might mention that to my dad someday... But the question was about intelligent design...

A: Also, this 'Smoggy' guy is very creative and amusing... And these are alien concepts to me, actually... So I'm going to try to imply his mockery is wasted effort, as that's really all I've got, there...

Q: Erm... yes... that *is* terribly original of you... But see, there was this question about intelligent design...

A: And Hitler was inspired by Darwin.

Q: Erm... not so much as I've heard... But anyway, the question was...

A: And evolutionists are meanies.

Q: Right... the question, again....

A: Also, I like cheese.

Q: ... Right... Me too. But, umm, about the evidence...

A: And movies. I like movies, too. Those are awesome.

Q: Right... but about intelligent design...

A: And once, at a movie, a girl french-kissed me...

Posted by: John Morales | November 21, 2009 9:33 PM

AJ Milne FTW.

Posted by: John Morales | November 21, 2009 10:08 PM

Malcolm, a woomeister on another thread introduced me to the word teleonomy.

Posted by: Stanton | November 21, 2009 11:29 PM

Here I am trying to talk evidence for ID, and all Coach Olson can do is complain about others. If you didn't realise, I'm addressing the very issue that ID advocates are pushing for - whether ID is a valid scientific hypothesis. Why aren't you showing the evidence for ID, or even proposing a mechanism by which ID acts? Why are you getting into petty squabbles when science is all about the evidence?

Posted by: John Morales | November 22, 2009 1:25 AM

Kel,

In any case, I'm sure Coach Olson has an inkling of why he's here.

Your charity is commendable, though I question your certitude.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 22, 2009 2:01 AM

Your charity is commendable, though I question your certitude.

...of course I'd be more interested in a scientific hypothesis of intelligent design, and would love to see anyone (Coach Olson or otherwise) bring a testable hypothesis and a valid mechanism to the table. But we can't expect that. It's all "Darwinism can't explain X, therefore design", which makes as much sense as "gravity can't explain planet formation, therefore design" - in other words, the Slartibartfast conjecture.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 22, 2009 6:22 AM

Bergman (I can't call him Dr., it's just too insulting to everyone who has worked hard to earn that title)

To be fair, Bergman has two PhDs. One is from Columbia Pacific University, where the going price for a doctorate was about $2500. But the other is from Wayne State University, which is a genuine, accredited school.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 22, 2009 11:31 AM

So Dembski's ID is one, yet three; three in one. A triune theory, like Dembski's weirdly triune God, or Charles Mingus [obscure reference apology].

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 22, 2009 11:36 AM

@'Tis Himself and Others: We can make fun of a PhD from a degree mill, but a PhD from a good school guarantees only that, as a student, the degree-holder endured many rounds of bullshit, and produced a body of work that would qualify as a dissertation: a coherent research project. That's it. A PhD by itself is not especially impressive.

This much should be obvious when "challenges" to "Darwinism" are produced by jokers like Wells, Dembski, Behe, Bergman and others who hold PhDs but obviously have no ability (or desire, I guess) to reason critically. Any one with the ability to reason can see the holes in their propaganda...it doesn't require a PhD to see that these guys are full of shit.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 22, 2009 1:53 PM

--'Tis Himself...word. It's just a shame when those who have access to good education squander the benefits of it.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 22, 2009 3:34 PM

AJ Milne @342:

Oh dear. That was strikingly similar to Dawkins's interview with Wendy Wright. Are you trying to creep me out?

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 23, 2009 11:06 AM

Shorter Olson:

'Still got nuthin'... So... umm...

'Boy, are you guys ever rude to little ole' lyin' me... Look at me taking the high road... And being hilariously, shamelessly, full of shit, and leaving hilariously limp insinuations all over da floor slimin' up the place, but not actually employing anything composed of four letters my sainted grandma might get th' vapours over, that is taking the high road, right?'

(/As to predictions, I predict Olson will die never having admitting how full of reeking excrement he doth already know so well he is... And that this is so common only makes it slightly more pathetic... To the degree that's even possible.)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 23, 2009 11:10 AM

Gack, in serious need of more coffee. Next to last sentence in #365: And you have presented tno evidence.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 23, 2009 11:32 AM

Is there a point to any of this? You received an e-mail with bad syntax... therefore, what?

Well, I must confess I am mildly miffed about this...

(/But I still sorta figure if I'd ended #342 with 'A: ... and look, an email with mangled grammar!', you lot would have have been all 'Oh come now...')

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 23, 2009 3:23 PM

Ross, how about instead of playing a game of politics you answer questions regarding the scientific nature of intelligent design. When it comes down to it, I couldn't care less who calls the ID advocates morons, or who mock scientists and those who accept evolutionary theory - mocking others is just part of being human...

...what matters in this debate is not which side is the meanest to the other, but where does the science lie? What does the science say? What does intelligent design offer as a scientific hypothesis in terms of explaining what we see in the various biological and other scientific disciplines? And what predictions does it make that other rival hypothesises cannot explain?

Come on Olson, drag this out of the gutter and discuss the science.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 23, 2009 3:58 PM

Dear Brother Ross Olson,

Bless you for demanding civility in scientific dialogue while insisting on comparing apples with small balls of shit. Yours is, in my God-given opinion, one of the best obfuscatory ploys visited by a creationist upon this hellish blog since...um...since...yesterday, when some other deluded liar also attempted to defend the indefensible with fairytales about invisible supernatural beings who can create the universe but don't understand dick about science (or for that matter how the whole effing "creation") actually works. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely on your side and full of admiration for the way you hang in there with your own religious beliefs in the certain knowledge that all the other believers of the many thousands of different religious manifestations are barking loonies who have been deceived and denied your true manifestation of faith. Isn't Jesus good?

As a reward for your faith, would you like a free sample of BIBLE™? My friend Floyd Rubber will deliver it to you personally, and because you are such an evident tight ass he will also fuck you in the bottom, just like Jesus did to the beloved disciple, if you feel you'd benefit from a little bit of loosening.

Yours in Christian suffering
Smoggy

Posted by: Ross Olson | November 25, 2009 12:49 AM

I'm not complaining about bad language (and the bad thinking that goes along with it). I am mourning! I know there are reasonable, civil evolutionists around and I have interacted with many of them. i suspect they would be embarrassed by the quality of discussion that goes on in this blog.

Discussion is possible with someone who is capable of evaluating evidence, regardless of its source and willing to reason.

The mantra "peer reviewed scientific literature" is actually an appeal to authority -- what atheists accuse theists of doing. The point is that there is no academic freedom in the universities or in the journals. ID or Creation favorable literature, as soon as it is sniffed out, is banned. It would be like telling a black man, in the days of segregation, "we will not accept your qualifications unless you graduate from a white school." And of course, he could never get in.

There is a powerful case for ID and actually a lot of it IS in the mainstream literature, but is always covered with a "loyalty pledge" by the author to affirm his continued belief in evolution, and the charge that he has been misquoted if the implications are played out by an ID advocate.

If you read Jerry Bergman's "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing The Careers of Darwin Doubters," you would see the problem, but, of course most of you who frequent this mutual admiration society would not read it.

You have made a philosophical decision that no supernatural is allowed and closed the door to ever being able to find out if you are wrong. That's not scientific nor is it logical. It is sad because it touches on the most important questions in the universe, "Why am I here? What is life all about? etc." And you are left with the conclusion that you are an elaborate accident and the suspicion that you are not even free, but nowhere to go than the bawdy affirmation of like minded fellow travelers.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 25, 2009 1:07 AM

The mantra "peer reviewed scientific literature" is actually an appeal to authority -- what atheists accuse theists of doing.

You have made a philosophical decision that no supernatural is allowed and closed the door to ever being able to find out if you are wrong.

Not that it should matter whether the supernatural exists, after all the question is about how life on earth changed over time. Regardless of whether the supernatural exists, the question still remains of how the designer did it. And this is what I see as the problem of ID - it is so hung up on claiming the necessity of God that all it's doing is looking for any justification it can to include god.

Even if there there is the supernatural, how does that explain anything about how life has changed over time? It doesn't, you still don't have a mechanism of action. How does ID work, how does the designer interact with nature? This is the unanswered question, and until it is answered all you have is a whole argument towards a non-answer.

It is sad because it touches on the most important questions in the universe, "Why am I here? What is life all about? etc." And you are left with the conclusion that you are an elaborate accident and the suspicion that you are not even free, but nowhere to go than the bawdy affirmation of like minded fellow travelers.

In terms of claims of truth, what mechanism does Intelligent Design propose? How does it fit in with all the evidence currently accumulated, and what predictions does it make for the future? Surely these questions can be answered on their own premise as opposed to an appeal to existential consequences. If I'm the product of a deity, so be it. If I'm the product of aliens, so be it. If I'm the product of my parents, so be it. I just want to know how, the why questions should be influenced by the how - not the other way around!

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 25, 2009 1:40 AM

"but nowhere to go than the bawdy affirmation of like minded fellow travelers."

"Bawdy"?! It's like this guy just stepped out of the 1890's.

(I know, I know, he's a Paleyist, barely out of the 18th century)

Back in comment #312, I wondered aloud what transgressions people like Ross think we're guilty of that we don't want to be held accountable for by his god. And now I think I know: it's saying naughty words. What a horribly tiny world he must live in. But then, that's ID for you.

Posted by: zilch to you | November 25, 2009 12:23 PM

I wonder if Evolutionists have any idea or desire to find out if Sex with Monkeys has been the Only Evidence which could have caused men rise from MOnkeys.

This is one area most denied by men, that sex with animals caused so Called Evolution.

The Bible shows that God Believes Sex with MOnkeys could result in Offspring.

So, it would seem that Athiests would choose to disagree with him here also.

If Natural Order is Followed, The result of Sex results in Offspring.

If So, Sex between Animals and People could easily result.

Many Reports and So called Freaks in Circus's have been advertized and even photos published of Could have been Freaks due to such Sex.

It is a Fact that many people of alleged other races Appear to socially be Hunters with Antipathy toward People of western Cultures.

We are much hated by those of Perhaps Mixed Heritage.

Perhaps, sex with animals for Centuries and Eons before Civilization, caused a lack in ability to Africans in the North and South.

It is much denied that they have been slow to develop due to so called Racial Differences.

Perhaps it is limitations due to Inclination, Natural indeed, till this day.

THe Only Thing they may have excelled in if true is Cursing due to knowlege of Cain of Cursing(killing) and so they sowed and so they reaped, amen.

In Cursing, Cain more Pure has neither Decreased in Intensity nor in Cainanites to do the Cursing.

The only decrease in Cain has been in part due to an inclination to Homosexuality.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 25, 2009 1:04 PM

Ross Olson, AIG is religion based, and any relationship to science is purely coincidental. It is not a source for anything in proving creationism/ID is a valid science. That will only be found in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Which, by referencing AIG, you are acknowledging you have no evidence, and all your arguments are religious based. That in no way refutes any science, as only more science can refute science. Category error on your part, lie one.

Darwinists try to hold Hitler at arm's length, if not a 10 foot pole, yet the data is clear. Evolution gave "scientific" justification for Nazi policies.

The above list is not exhaustive, but at least you can't say that ID proponents don't make predictions.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 25, 2009 1:38 PM

If you really want to learn something,

Do you want to actually learn anything? Do you even care what truth is?

It's not lying propaganda that tries to smear a scientific theory by trying to associate it with Nazis.

Say, do you accept the insane religious racism in comment #380, or do you "hold it at arms length"?

Evolution gave "scientific" justification for Nazi policies.

A malicious misrepresentation.

The article will be rejected before it is read because:
a) It is written by the Jerry Bergman

Who is a liar, distorter, misrepresenter, and a quote-miner, and cites other liars, misrepresenters, and distorters, and ignores the fact that Hitler was also an anti-evolutionist.

b) It is posted by Ross Olson

Who has never, ever posted an actual substantive argument either for ID or against evolution.

c) It is anti evolutionary in its conclusions

The argument from consequences is a complete fallacy anyway.

Does Nazi use of germ theory as an excuse make germ theory false?

How many times does this have to be pointed out before you get it? Are you really that mind-bogglingly stupid? Can you do nothing but blather on and on with moronic arguments that have been refuted a thousand times?

d) It is garbage by definition
e) It is contrary to what all intelligent people know, that Hitler was a Christian who was motivated by religious principles
f) It is not published in a peer reviewed scientific journal
g) ID proponents present stuff like this because they have no data for their position

The truth hurts sometimes. But that does not make it false.

The above list is not exhaustive, but at least you can't say that ID proponents don't make predictions.

Sarcasm may be fun, but it is no substitute for actual substance, which you continue to not have.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 25, 2009 3:35 PM

Darwinists try to hold Hitler at arm's length, if not a 10 foot pole, yet the data is clear. Evolution gave "scientific" justification for Nazi policies.

You have a really hard time separating what the theory of evolution describes and what someone may do after misusing said description.

Let me make a prediction based on observation. The article will be rejected before it is read because:
a) It is written by the Jerry Bergman
b) It is posted by Ross Olson
c) It is anti evolutionary in its conclusions
d) It is garbage by definition
e) It is contrary to what all intelligent people know, that Hitler was a Christian who was motivated by religious principles
f) It is not published in a peer reviewed scientific journal
g) ID proponents present stuff like this because they have no data for their position

The above list is not exhaustive, but at least you can't say that ID proponents don't make predictions.

While all of the above are true, the main reason that line of argumentation is bullshit is because a theory is something that ties together observed phenomenon. It makes no moral claims one way or the other. It organizes facts and observations in to a format that allows them to make sense on the greater scale.

Assuming that Hitler used evolution as a justification (which is a really far stretch, no matter what the seriously confused Bergman wants to say) that has exactly zero bearing on the validity of the theory. None.

It's really difficult not just writing you off as a semi-functioning human. Seriously. These are grade school stupid arguments you are making that are full of logical fallacies.

Argumentum ad consequentiam and straw-men galore.

Seriously Ross you can continue pushing this bullshit but all it is doing is exposing what a serious lack of critical thinking skills you employ.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 25, 2009 3:44 PM

I wonder if Evolutionists have any idea or desire to find out if Sex with Monkeys has been the Only Evidence which could have caused men rise from MOnkeys.

This is one area most denied by men, that sex with animals caused so Called Evolution.

The Bible shows that God Believes Sex with MOnkeys could result in Offspring.

So, it would seem that Athiests would choose to disagree with him here also.

If Natural Order is Followed, The result of Sex results in Offspring.

If So, Sex between Animals and People could easily result.

Many Reports and So called Freaks in Circus's have been advertized and even photos published of Could have been Freaks due to such Sex.

It is a Fact that many people of alleged other races Appear to socially be Hunters with Antipathy toward People of western Cultures.

We are much hated by those of Perhaps Mixed Heritage.

Perhaps, sex with animals for Centuries and Eons before Civilization, caused a lack in ability to Africans in the North and South.

It is much denied that they have been slow to develop due to so called Racial Differences.

Perhaps it is limitations due to Inclination, Natural indeed, till this day.

THe Only Thing they may have excelled in if true is Cursing due to knowlege of Cain of Cursing(killing) and so they sowed and so they reaped, amen.

In Cursing, Cain more Pure has neither Decreased in Intensity nor in Cainanites to do the Cursing.

The only decrease in Cain has been in part due to an inclination to Homosexuality.

Ross, you can breathe easy. Someone dumber than you has arrived in the thread.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 25, 2009 6:05 PM

zilch to you,

Sorry, while your use of random capitalization is good and your racism is well presented, your screed lacks exclamation points and is almost grammatical. Please correct these lapses and resubmit.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 25, 2009 9:31 PM

Also, if Hitler told me not to jump off a cliff, should I do it?

Your question presupposes that Hitler was influenced by the Theory of Gravity. Since any theory which influenced Hitler is automatically suspect, it's perfectly safe for you to jump off the cliff.