Ahistorical garbage from the producers of Expelled

lead Darwinist, Richard Dawkins

...and on rhythm Darwin, Al Wallace!!!
on bass Darwin, G.C. Williams!!!!
on drums...

or, no, wait...maybe that's "lead" as in the element Pb, in which case who wants to be the Iron Darwinist?

(by the way, note that the reviewer is in the film school at Biola...as in Bible Institute of Los Angeles. What he really wants to do, see, is direct...)

You're in no danger of starving.

Is that some kind of fat comment, beanpole?

Dawkins can play lead Darwin? Damn, and I thought we was cool for marrying Lalla "Time Lady Romana" Ward! Even more cool points for the good professor!

Is that some kind of fat comment, beanpole?

Not at all. Indeed, you're welcome to gerry if you want him. I think I've about gotten as much entertainment value out of him as I can (although I may have to get the occasional poke in)

There will always be troll treats, my good man. Of that you can be sure.

Indeed, you're welcome to gerry if you want him.

Ugh. There's not enough curry in the world to make his stew tasty.

The hoax known as evolution is about to be exposed to a mainstream audience.

Oh, indeed? It looks like you haven't seen the film either.

Expelled is not about exposing anything as a hoax. Well, it might inadvertently expose "ID" as a hoax.

The film is allegedly about how poorly "ID" theorists have been treated by mainstream science. It might be called a prolonged and extended whine.

But there will be no science in the film. Nothing that explains or defines what "irreducible complexity" or "specified complexity" is, or how either concept can be used to "detect" intelligent design in life.

No one wants to admit that they've wasted such a large portion of their lives on something that turned out to be a complete sham, or laughing stock if you prefer

Indeed, quite true.

That's why the "ID" movement is still continuing at all: None of the principles involved want to admit that they, and their past years of bafflegab, doubletalk, and outright lying, have been a complete waste of time.

Behe is now a laughingstock among biochemists.
Dembski is a laughingstock among mathematicians.
Wells is a laughingstock among biologists.
(and so on)

None of them want to admit it, of course. But their long personal connections to the vacuousness that is "Intelligent Design" Creationism will be their only legacy. They will be remembered as fools who prostituted whatever intellect they had.

Expelled is simply another minor battle in the culture wars. Eventually, it will be forgotten.

Reading this it becomes apparent that name calling and profanity are now regarded as "Scientific".

Not much of an argument.

There are people who have regarded Jonathan Wells as a biologist?

Owlmirror, what are you smoking, and can I have some to fumigate my termites?

Reading this it becomes apparent that name calling and profanity are now regarded as "Scientific".

Not much of an argument.

If the supporters of Intelligent Design and of Expelled actually understood science and actually knew how to present a scientific argument, it would be a whole other story.

But, since the supporters of Intelligent Design and of Expelled are too arrogant to recognize the bald truth that they are not doing science, they deserve all of the names and insults they get.

Not much of an argument.

People who show up wanting to 'debate' evolution without having shown the basic courtesy of actually reading any texts on biology deserve insults and profanity, not arguments.

Try going to the kindest elementary teacher you can find and insisting to her that 1+1=3 and see how long before she swats you with a ruler.

Besides, you guys are the ones who pretend to be courteous while revelling in your fantasy that you'll be sipping Shiraz with Jesus as the rest of the humanity burns in fiery torment.

You've not got a very good grasp on what consistutes 'profane.'

And since you haven't said anything scientific that merits a scientific response (like we're surprised), go fall off a high bridge, you fucking asshole.

Um, Michael Wright, when have the folks supporting EXPELLED *jazz hands* produced any science. Indeed, the topic of this post, so far above, is the fact that the producers flat out lied about Charles Darwin, and about the history of both evolutionary though and European totalitarian movements.

Now, PZ points that out, and the Steinbots come shrieking in, "suppression! Free Speech!" all the while refusing to do any science, or respond to questions by, you know, people who do actual science.

This happens, not just on this post, but on a daily basis.

And then, some creationist nitwit comes back shrieking, "Nasty evolutionists. Swears they do, and insults us. And asks us tricksy questions. And they're mean to us, they are, calling us names and telling us we're stupids. Nasty, tricksy scientists!"

Slag off fuckwit.

There are people who have regarded Jonathan Wells as a biologist?

Did I misspell "laughingstock"?

I was pretty sure that I had read here on Pharyngula that Wells in some fashion had received a Ph.D.... Ah, here's the skinny:

  http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/the_politically_incorrect_gu…

10 points to MAJeff for "Expelled *jazz hands*." I'm still laughing.

10 points to MAJeff for "Expelled *jazz hands*." I'm still laughing.

The sangiovese is kicking in :)

Re: Owlmirror #1012: So, Ichthyic used to hang with Wells, eh? I was actually at Berkeley then too, but I had nothing to do with biology (well, I did take a philosophy of biology class).

Did I misspell "laughingstock"?

I was pretty sure that I had read here on Pharyngula that Wells in some fashion had received a Ph.D...

I'm well aware of the fact that Mr Wells has a PhD, but, given as how he has never done any biological research, and that the very limit of his knowledge in Biology consists of "Darwin was a stupid-head!" and "LOOKATMYDIPLOMALOOKITLOOKITLOOKIT," it would seem obvious that Mr Wells has not done anything to prove that he ever was a legitimate member of the Biological community.

I mean, Trofim Lysenko, and his rival who invented the laughable "Vegetable of the Proletariat" were laughingstocks of the Biological community.

Add Michael Wright to the long and growing list of people who have NOTHING TO SAY. Is that Darwin Day post still on the front page of their blog? Is that why we still keep getting these mouth-breathers trickling in? Do they seriously think we care if they see us as rude?

I would be away from my comp the day the troll comes to play.

very sad.

Thanks for the info about the paper Ichthyic.

I think MAJeff deserves another Molly.

I'm well aware of the fact that Mr Wells has a PhD, but, given as how he has never done any biological research, and that the very limit of his knowledge in Biology consists of "Darwin was a stupid-head!" and "LOOKATMYDIPLOMALOOKITLOOKITLOOKIT," it would seem obvious that Mr Wells has not done anything to prove that he ever was a legitimate member of the Biological community.

I think I see what you mean. If I understand you correctly, for Wells, even "laughingstock among biologists" is too kind of a phrase; there might perhaps be the slight implication that he ever had stock among biologists.

While "laughingstock" might cover notable and abyssal incompetence, it is too forgiving of excesses of malicious mendacity, deplorable deliberate deception, infamous fraud, and general swindling treachery.

Is that what you meant?

Hey Michael! You don't have any predictions that ID makes or maybe some experimental evidence done by the ID camp do you? You see, we ask every one of you who stumbles in here and surprisingly for such a forthright bunch, none of you seem to have anything to say about matters scientific.

I coulda swore ID was about science, right? Nothing to do with you religious affiliation, right? You arn't christian, right? You actually have worthwhile arguments yourself, right?

Wrong...

Hey, do me a big favor Michael, send in someone who knows something. That would be unexpected, as so far you guys are nothing if not perfectly predictable. As a matter of fact, I stated a hypothesis earlier in this thread that predicted you'd do exactly what you did! Science, it works bitches.

So, Ichthyic used to hang with Wells, eh?

*hangs head in shame*

yes.

I had lunch with him several times. He was a nice guy, really, even if he came off as merely a "poor confused grad student".

...then he gave a talk at a museum lunch one time on resolving conflicts between science and "faith"...

Funny how some can turn on being a demented fuckwit at will. I can't recall any of the other hundred or so museum lunch talks I attended where the audience of scientists actually heckled the presenter. He pretty much disappeared into his lab after that debacle, and I never saw him again.

This was back when if you asked me what a "creationist" was, I'd have probably just looked at you blankly and shrugged.

In fact, IIRC, I got a rather stern lecture from my prof. at the time about just how damaging these fuckwits really are.

Sometimes, ignorance IS bliss.

That's very interesting, Ichthyic. Honestly, I feel bad for Wells. Will he really be so deluded about all this that, at the end of his life, he won't look back on his career and regret having been nothing more than the tool of an ideologue?

I have similar feelings about Behe. Dembski and the rest of the UhDuh crowd, well, I don't know. They appear to be devoid of any insight into the validity or integrity of their own motives and methods that I haven't been able to conjure up any compassion for their, ah, their struggles.

I think I see what you mean. If I understand you correctly, for Wells, even "laughingstock among biologists" is too kind of a phrase; there might perhaps be the slight implication that he ever had stock among biologists.

While "laughingstock" might cover notable and abyssal incompetence, it is too forgiving of excesses of malicious mendacity, deplorable deliberate deception, infamous fraud, and general swindling treachery.

Is that what you meant?

Essentially, yes.

That, and look it this way, too:

Those biologists who are familiar with Mr Wells do indeed laugh at him and his uproaringly stupid yimmer-yammer. However, these same biologists will also laugh at Will Ferrell, David Duchovny, and Lucille Ball, but, that wouldn't make any of them "laughingstocks" of Biology, either.

Will he really be so deluded about all this that, at the end of his life, he won't look back on his career and regret having been nothing more than the tool of an ideologue?

If I've learned anything about people like Wells, it is that they are exactly like any dedicated cult member.

regret is simply not in the cards.

Moreover, anything that might even be examined as a potential regret is immediately rationalized and filtered via the conditioning received.

In short, being a tool is immediately rationalized as a positive thing.

Lying to others in the service of the leader of the cult (fictional or real) is rationalized via an "ends justify the means" kind of mentality. Repeated often enough, it hardly even seems like lying any more, so there is little impact on the subject if someone attempts to call them on it. Collateral damage caused by lies are simply rationalized along the same lines. Moreover, Wells is constantly given rewards for his behavior (funding, free publicity for his trash books), which of course only reinforces it.

In short, I seriously doubt Wells has any regrets. Which, btw, is also why I mentioned that pity is wasted on him in the other thread regarding his latest lies. It wasn't meant as a "dis", it is simply a fact.

I understand... Thanks for taking the time to explain your point of view.

I'm frequently struck by how closely the products of those processes, such as the one you describe, mimic organic mental illnesses.

mimic organic mental illnesses.

there may be reasons for that. I recall some studies a few years back that had evidence supporting the idea that there may be similar genetic predispositions involved.

aside from that, diagnosing a mental illness like a sociopathic disorder does end up being similar to diagnosing the long term effects of exposure to cults.

so in that sense, it's hard to differentiate the effects of cults as being distinct from being mental illness. IMO, that should be looked at as a positive thing, as treating the effects of cult-like indoctrination in a similar fashion to mental illness has been shown to be productive is certain circumstances.

It just becomes very problematic where to draw the line, given that the very idea of "cult" implies something where there are very limited numbers of participants, instead of millions.

For example, the "church" of Scientology has many aspects that define it as a cult, under statutes defined in many states in the US. However, there are so many of them now, that trying to pluck an individual out for treatment likely ends up resulting in a major lawsuit.

I'm not sure how many moonies there are these days, but there are probably enough that trying to accuse them of being little more than a cult would have serious repercussions.

interesting read:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/Moon.html

also, even wiki has a decent overview of the history and antics of the moonies.

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

Against my better judgment I thought I'd check back in on this thread to see where it's gone since I left. I see that aside from getting quite long, it really hasn't gone anywhere....

Michael X: "Hey Michael! You don't have any predictions that ID makes or maybe some experimental evidence done by the ID camp do you? You see, we ask every one of you who stumbles in here and surprisingly for such a forthright bunch, none of you seem to have anything to say about matters scientific."

Any skeptics of Darwinism willing to endure the adolescent argumentation that's so characteristic of Pharyngula soon learns that - by the standards of the blog - the following remarks constitute rigorous scientific discussion:

"Slag off fuckwit."

"I got a rather stern lecture from my prof. at the time about just how damaging these fuckwits really are."

"...since you haven't said anything scientific that merits a scientific response (like we're surprised), go fall off a high bridge, you fucking asshole."

"Because Savant is an idiot too arrogant to realize that Intelligent Design never was science to begin with."

"...sice (sic) I care not a whit what a disingenuous faithbot like yourself thinks, kindly go fuck yourself with a pointy crucifix."

"It just sounds SO much like all those demented fuckwits who criticize the God Delusion..."

"Go climb back into bed with your sister, you half-witted yokel liar for Jesus."

"Fuck you, you bigoted assface."

One can only marvel at the unswerving dedication of the PZ Myers amen chorus (like the choirmaster himself) to "matters scientific." With that in mind, I offer the following essay (taken from "The Design of Life," by Dembski and Wells) as both food for thought and a test of the Pharyngula choir's ability to engage in substantive debate rather than resorting to the sneers, jeers, ridicule, and vulgarity that are their forte. The essay presents, in general form, the argument for design from irreducible complexity. Because the argument is intended for general readers, it does not present any of the background research on which it's based. It does not, for example, discuss microbiologist/design theorist Scott Minnich's genetic knock-out experiments demonstrating the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Nor does it discuss any design-theoretic research in areas such as evolutionary informatics, probability theory, and information theory. With that in mind, let's hear it....

THE ARGUMENT FROM IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

In "Darwin's Black Box," Behe argued that the irreducible
complexity of protein machines provides convincing evidence of actual design in biology. Since its publication in 1996, Behe's book has been widely reviewed, both in the popular press and in scientific journals. It has also been widely discussed over the Internet. By and large, critics have conceded that Behe got his scientific facts straight. They have also conceded his claim that detailed neo-Darwinian accounts of how irreducibly complex protein machines could have come about are absent from the biological literature. Nonetheless, they have objected to his argument on
theoretical and methodological grounds. Behe presents what may be described as an argument from irreducible complexity. This argument purports to show that irreducibly complex biological systems are beyond the reach of the
Darwinian evolutionary mechanism and that design provides a better explanation of them.

How does the argument from irreducible complexity reach this
conclusion? The argument from irreducible complexity may be understood as making three key points: a logical, an empirical, and an explanatory point. Moreover, these points reinforce each other in showing that irreducibly complex systems are beyond the reach of conventional evolutionary
mechanisms. The logical point is this: Irreducibly complex structures are provably inaccessible to *direct* Darwinian pathways. Thus, because certain biological structures are irreducibly complex, they, too, must be inaccessible to direct Darwinian pathways. A direct Darwinian pathway is
one in which a system evolves by natural selection incrementally enhancing a given function. As the system evolves, the function does not evolve but stays put.

Thus we might imagine that in the evolution of the heart, its function from the start was to pump blood. In that case, a direct Darwinian pathway might account for it. On the other hand, we might imagine that in the evolution of the heart its function was initially to make loud thumping
sounds to ward off predators, and only later did it take on the function of pumping blood. In that case, an *indirect* Darwinian pathway would be needed to account for it. Here the pathway is indirect because not only do the system components evolve but also the system function changes. Now, in making a logical point, the argument from irreducible complexity is only concerned with precluding direct Darwinian pathways. This is evident from the definition of irreducible complexity where the irreducible core is defined strictly in relation to a single function, namely, the basic function of the irreducibly complex system (a function that could not exist without all the parts of the irreducible core being in place).

In ruling out direct Darwinian pathways to irreducibly complex systems, the argument from irreducible complexity is saying that irreducibly complex biochemical systems are provably inaccessible to direct Darwinian pathways. How can we see that such systems are indeed provably inaccessible to direct Darwinian pathways? Consider what it would mean for an irreducibly complex system to evolve by a direct Darwinian pathway. In that case, the system must have originated via the evolution of simpler systems that performed the same basic function. But because the irreducible core of an irreducibly complex system can't be simplified without destroying the basic function, there can be no evolutionary precursors with simpler cores that perform the same function.

It follows that the only way for a direct Darwinian pathway to evolve an irreducibly complex system is to evolve it all at once and thus by some vastly improbable or fortuitous event. Accordingly, to attribute irreducible complexity to a direct Darwinian pathway is like attributing Mount Rushmore to wind and erosion. It is perhaps imaginable that wind and erosion could sculpt Mount Rushmore, but it's not a realistic possibility. The proof that irreducibly complex systems are inaccessible to direct Darwinian pathways is therefore probabilistic. Thus, in saying that irreducibly complex biochemical systems are provably inaccessible to direct Darwinian pathways, design proponents are saying that the Darwinian mechanism has no intrinsic capacity for generating such systems except as vastly improbable or fortuitous events.

In any case, critics of the argument from irreducible complexity look to save Darwinism not by enlisting direct Darwinian pathways to bring about irreducibly complex systems but by enlisting indirect Darwinian pathways to bring them about (see the previous section on coevolution and co-option). In indirect Darwinian pathways, a system evolves not by preserving and enhancing an existing function but rather by continually transforming its function. Whereas with direct Darwinian pathways
structures evolve but functions stay put, with indirect Darwinian pathways both structures and functions (co)evolve.

How does the argument from irreducible complexity handle indirect Darwinian pathways? Here the point at issue is no longer logical but empirical. The fact is that for irreducibly complex biochemical systems, no indirect Darwinian pathways are known. At best, biologists have been able to isolate subsystems of such systems that perform other functions. But any reasonably complicated machine always includes subsystems that can perform functions distinct from the complete machine. So the mere occurrence or identification of subsystems that could perform some function on their own is no evidence for an indirect Darwinian pathway leading to the system. What's needed is a seamless Darwinian account that's both detailed and
testable of how subsystems undergoing coevolution could gradually transform into an irreducibly complex system. No such accounts are available or have so far been forthcoming. Indeed, if such accounts were available, critics of intelligent design would merely need to cite them, and intelligent design would be refuted.

To recap, the argument from irreducible complexity makes a logical and an empirical point. The logical point is that irreducible complexity renders biological structures provably inaccessible to direct Darwinian pathways. The empirical point is that the failure of evolutionary biology
to discover indirect Darwinian pathways leading to irreducibly complex biological structures is pervasive and systemic and therefore reason to doubt and even reject the claim that indirect Darwinian pathways are the answer to irreducible complexity. The logical and empirical points together constitute a devastating indictment of the Darwinian mechanism, which has routinely been touted as capable of solving all problems of biological complexity once an initial life-form is on the scene. Even so, the logical and empirical points together don't answer how one gets from Darwinism's failure in accounting for irreducibly complex systems to the legitimacy of employing design in accounting for them.

This is where the argument from irreducible complexity needs to make a third key point, namely, an explanatory point. Scientific explanations come in many forms and guises, but the one thing they cannot afford to be without is *causal adequacy*. A scientific explanation needs
to call upon causal powers sufficient to explain the effect in question. Otherwise, the effect remains unexplained. The effect in question is the irreducible complexity of certain biochemical machines. How did the systems come about? Not by direct Darwinian pathways - irreducible complexity rules
them out on logical and mathematical grounds. And not by indirect Darwinian pathways either - the absence of scientific evidence here is as complete as it is for leprechauns. Nor does appealing to unknown material mechanisms help, for in that case not only is the evidence completely absent but also the very theory for which there's no evidence is absent as well.

Thus, when it comes to irreducibly complex biochemical systems, there's no evidence that material mechanisms are causally adequate to bring them about. But what about intelligence? Intelligence is well known to produce irreducibly complex systems (e.g., humans regularly produce
machines that exhibit irreducible complexity). Intelligence is known to be causally adequate to bring about irreducibile complexity. The argument from irreducible compexity's explanatory point, therefore, is that on the basis of causal adequacy, intelligent design is a better scientific explanation than the Darwinian mechanism for the irreducible complexity of biochemical systems.

In making its logical and empirical points, the argument from irreducible complexity assumes a negative or critical role, identifying limitations of the Darwinian mechanism. By contrast, in making its explantory point, the argument from irreducible complexity assumes a positive or constructive role, providing positive grounds for thinking that irreducibly complex biochemical systems are in fact designed. One question about these points is now likely to remain. The logical point rules out direct Darwinian pathways to irreducible complexity and the empirical point rules out indirect Darwinian pathways to irreducible complexity. But the absence of empirical evidence for direct
Darwinian pathways leading to irreducible complexity is as complete as it is for indirect Darwinian pathways. It might seem, then, that the logical point is superfluous inasmuch as the empirical point dispenses with both types of Darwinian pathways. But in fact the logical point strengthens the case against Darwinism in a way that the empirical point cannot.

If you look at the best-confirmed examples of evolution in the biological literature (from Darwin to present), what you find is natural selection steadily improving a given feature performing a given function in a given way. Indeed, the very notion of "improvement" (which played such a
central role in Darwin's "Origin of Species") typically connotes that a given thing is getting better in a given respect. Improvement in this sense corresponds to a direct Darwinian pathway. By contrast, an indirect Darwinian pathway (where one function gives way to another function and thus can no longer improve because it no longer exists), though often inferred by evolutionary biologists from fossil or molecular data, is much more difficult to establish.

The reason is not hard to see: By definition natural selection selects for existing function - in other words, a function that is already in place and helping the organism in some way. On the other hand, natural selection cannot select for future function - functions that are not already present or not in some way currently helping the organism to
survive and reproduce are invisible to natural selection. Once a novel function comes to exist, the Darwinian mechanism can select for it. But making the transition from old to new functions is not a task to which the Darwinian mechanism is suited. How does one evolve from a system exhibiting an existing selectable function to a new system exhibiting a novel selectable function? Because natural selection only selects for existing function, it is no help here, and all the weight is on random variation to come up with the right and needed modifications during the crucial
transition time when functions are changing. (Or, as Darwin put it, "unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing.") Yet the actual evidence that random variation can produce the successive modifications needed to evolve irreducible complexity is nil.

The argument from irreducible complexity, in making the logical point that irreducible complexity rules out direct Darwinian pathways, therefore rules out the form of evolution that is best confirmed. Indirect Darwinian pathways, by contrast, are so open-ended that there is no way to test them scientifically unless they are carefully specified - and invariably, when it comes to irreducibly complex systems, they are left unspecified, thus rendering them neither falsifiable nor verifiable. In making its logical point, the argument from irreducible complexity
therefore takes logic as far as it can go in limiting the Darwinian mechanism and leaves empirical considerations to close off any remaining loopholes. And since logical inferences are inherently stronger than empirical inferences, the argument from irreducible compexity's refutation of the Darwinian mechanism is as strong and tight as possible. It's not just that certain biological systems are so complex that we can't imagine how they evolved by Darwinian pathways. Rather, we can show conclusively that direct Darwinian pathways are causally inadequate to bring them about and that indirect Darwinian pathways, which have always been more difficult to substantiate, are utterly without empirical support. Conversely, we do know what has the causal power to produce irreducible complexity - intelligent design. (end of essay)

Now, whether one finds this argument persuasive or not, it is an argument thoughtfully made that deserves thoughtful responses. Experience, however, suggests that the Pharyngula choir will respond by calling Wells and Dembski stupid ignoramuses who have never done any research (charges that are demonstrably false). The choir will also accuse them of being liars. (By the choir's standard of truth, anyone who says something that they regard as false is a liar. This standard of truth demonstrates the supercilious dogmatism of the choir. Absent that dogmatism, the choir might be willing to concede that people who say things the choir regards as false might simply be wrong, not mendacious.)

My prediction is this: The primary response of the Pharyngula choir to the Myers-Dembski essay will be a resumption of the seemingly endless competition for "The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere" award. My recommendation to the choir is to withdraw from that competition. PZ Myers has a lock on the award. You should simply retire his number and try to argue like adults rather than like adolescent brats.

Now, whether one finds this argument persuasive or not, it is an argument thoughtfully made that deserves thoughtful responses

Jim, not that I condone rudeness or vulgarity as a matter of course, but once again you fail to recognize or acknowledge that what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction of rudeness and vulgarity is a product of years of frustration. You see, when the thoughtful, learned, scientific arguments are ignored for the 1,000th time, what is left to say? Nothing, I suppose.

Kseniya: "You see, when the thoughtful, learned, scientific arguments are ignored for the 1,000th time, what is left to say?"

I've read some two dozen books by ID proponents, Kseniya, and in their books, not one of them ignores the arguments made for neo-Darwinian theory. They instead dispute those arguments (at least, they dispute the arguments made for the theory's macroevolutionary claims; they have no quarrel with the theory's microevolutionary claims). If your concern is that the arguments made here in support of neo-Darwinian theory are ignored by those who are not among the Darwinian faithful, I have to wonder why that would surprise you. The argumentation that is so typical of the Pharyngula choir gives no one who is not already committed to Darwinism any reason to pay attention to them. If one were giving advice to the Pharyngula choir for the purpose of ensuring that their arguments will be ignored by the people they're trying to persuade, he could do no better than to tell them to keep doing what they're doing. Pharyngula serves primarily as a place where the Darwinian faithful can gather in a circle jerk (so to speak). The kind of argumentation that dominates the site makes it irrelevant to the outcome of the evo/ID/creationism debates.

"When fascism comes to America,it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." ~ Sinclair Lewis

This entry brought that quote to mind.

The article being responded to is pure ridiculousness, but you knew that already. I would rather travel 1000 miles and pay out-of-state tuition to take one of your classes than spend seven bucks at the theater watching this tripe.

My school, Murray State University, occasionally hosts what I call Creationist-paloozas. This is a week wherein all of the members of the Christianity fraternity on campus don matching shirts while they observe ludicrous power point presentations in an auditorium. Favorite moments, thus far, include:

* The cartoon drawing of Adam and Eve dressed up like the Flintstones with a generic dinosaur cartoon smiling behind them. The creature is labeled "Behemoth".

* The time that the speaker explained that incest was just fine up until Leviticus. So, "the next time you hear them talkin' 'bout incest on P. B. S., you know the real story!"

* The time that they cut the mic on my favorite, brilliant philosophy professor during the Q&A because they didn't like what he had to say.

Mmhmm, academic freedom in the Bible Belt.

Kudos to you, sir.

Oh, the fuckwit objects to being called a fuckwit! :P

Jim lies:
Any skeptics of Darwinism willing to endure the adolescent argumentation that's so characteristic of Pharyngula soon learns that - by the standards of the blog - the following remarks constitute rigorous scientific discussion:
[a bunch of cherry-picked insults]

Jim, you have to know what you're saying isn't true. Nobody besides YOU has claimed that those remarks "constitute rigorous scientific discussion".

This kind of thing happens in any discussion group remotely related to science or religion. Creationists show up, copy-and-paste a bunch of crap from AiG or the DI, and people who actually know what they're talking about point out where the creationists are wrong. Then, the creationists just keep spewing out more crap, without even listening to the debunking of their ridiculous arguments. They show they are impervious to rational thought, and it just degenerates into insults. Some people keep trying in vain to counter invincible ignorance with facts. Others find it's easier to get their insults in early, before all the good ones are taken. Have you ever heard of multi-tasking? We can point out where you're wrong, and insult you for it at the same time. It's more efficient that way!

Before I try to slog through the essay you quoted, here's an honest, serious question: What is "Darwinism"? I hardly ever hear this word from anyone except creationists using it as a smear, trying to confuse science and religion or substitute personal attacks on Charles Darwin for arguments about evolution. It seems to be a word that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the time.

So, when you describe yourself as a "skeptic of Darwinism", what do you mean? Don't link to the DI's website, or for that matter any definition from any other source. Don't insult my intelligence for asking the question. Just explain what YOU mean when you refer to "Darwinism", and in what way you believe "Darwinism" is distinct from evolution. If you believe "Darwinism" is not supported by evidence, explain how, with examples of what evidence contradicts it.

Jim, unable to provide any scientific evidence for ID, quoted Wells and Dembski (who sadly suffer from the same deficiency):
"By and large, critics have conceded that Behe got his scientific facts straight. They have also conceded his claim that detailed neo-Darwinian accounts of how irreducibly complex protein machines could have come about are absent from the biological literature. "

I'm pretty sure these sentences are misleading, if not outright lies. Not a good start. Most of the people I've heard of criticizing Behe have stated that his "facts" were nothing of the sort, his arguments poorly-stated, his concept of "irreducible complexity" ill-defined and deliberately misleading, and his conclusions unsupported by any evidence.

Wells and Dembski make up distinctions that aren't there:
"In indirect Darwinian pathways, a system evolves not by preserving and enhancing an existing function but rather by continually transforming its function. Whereas with direct Darwinian pathways
structures evolve but functions stay put, with indirect Darwinian pathways both structures and functions (co)evolve."

Does this distinction between "direct" and "indirect" pathways have any relevance outside Wells' and Dembski's own heads?

Wells and Dembski get down to their real business (lying):
"The fact is that for irreducibly complex biochemical systems, no indirect Darwinian pathways are known. "

Now this is either willful ignorance or an outright lie. Pathways for the evolution of systems alleged to be "irreducibly complex" HAVE been identified. The only way Behe, Wells and Dembski could weasel out of this dishonesty is to claim that the existence of such pathways makes those systems NOT irreducibly complex, and therefore admit that their whole argument is circular. To claim that they haven't heard of such pathways would require that they have never read any of the criticisms they are supposedly responding to.
As far as I know, ALL the systems claimed to be "irreducibly complex" have been plausibly explained. Furthermore, the fact that Wells and Dembski have not heard of an explanation (perhaps due to sticking their fingers in their ears) does not mean none exists.

A very telling lie from Wells and Dembski:
How did the systems come about? Not by direct Darwinian pathways - irreducible complexity rules
them out on logical and mathematical grounds. And not by indirect Darwinian pathways either - the absence of scientific evidence here is as complete as it is for leprechauns.

Ignoring for the moment that the remark on the lack of scientific evidence for "indirect Darwinian pathways" is false, the absence of scientific evidence for the "GODDesigner" Wells and Dembski favor is ALSO "as complete as it is for leprechauns".

There really is no point in going further. These people have proven themselves to be liars. They are making claims that they have to know are FALSE. They are falsely declaring that a lack of evidence exists, and then claiming to solve the problem by positing something that is not supported by the slightest shred of evidence.

It's known that Wells is doing this because he has been ordered to by the leader of his cult. He has, in fact, explicitly said so. Dembski's reasons are less clear.

Nice post there, Phantomreader42. If the pattern exhibited in the "Well Lies - Again" thread holds, Jim will come back, re-post the material clipped from his DI sources, and believe he has refuted your refutation of that very material.

Dembski's reasons are less clear.

I refer you to The Wedge Document. The goal is to impose a Christian orthodoxy (in the guise of "design theory") upon science, art, politics, and society in general:

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.

* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Now, whether one finds this argument persuasive or not, it is an argument thoughtfully made that deserves thoughtful responses. Experience, however, suggests that the Pharyngula choir will respond by calling Wells and Dembski stupid ignoramuses who have never done any research

If I may presume to speak for the baritones, the "thoughtful arguments" of Wells and Dembski have received thoughtful, devastating responses again and again and again. Do you really think that it is the job of some motley blog-commenters to repeat detailed science-based responses to every intentionally misleading series of sentences you feel like cutting and pasting? Seriously--if you are truly interested in the science pertaining to these matters (and I know of no ID apologist that is), an hour or two of Googling is all it would take. Do your own fucking homework! The comments to Pharyngula posts are not the place for the kind of done-to-death argument you seems to desire. Intead, this is the place where jerks like you that arrogantly presume to be telling us something we haven't heard a gazillion times before get called "fuckwits." Don't like it? Then go away.

Hey Jim. You said you were leaving. You have nothing to contribute. FUCK OFF.

Do you really think that it is the job of some motley blog-commenters to repeat detailed science-based responses to every intentionally misleading series of sentences you feel like cutting and pasting? Seriously--if you are truly interested in the science pertaining to these matters (and I know of no ID apologist that is), an hour or two of Googling is all it would take

Or, even take a look at the threads where PZ actually reviews their work, and others go at the work itself in those threads. See, there's a search bar above. You might want to check that out.

Indeed, in a post about how the producers of EXPELLED *jazz hands* lied about Darwin himself, evolutionary theory, and the history of European totalitarianism, why aren't you addressing that content? Why, instead, are you complaining about the nasty scientists?

"Why, instead, are you complaining about the nasty scientists?"

'Cause he's a hypocritical douchebag.

"The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere"
"adolescent brats"
"Pharyngula choir"
"circle jerk"

Fuck him.

Rey Fox: "Hey Jim. You said you were leaving. You have nothing to contribute. FUCK OFF."

Gladly. No one in the Pharyngula choir has given me the slightest reason to value what he (or she) says, so why should I stick around? I tried to carry on a conversation here last September ("Wells lies. Again."), but the adolescent sneers, jeers, and ridicule directed my way finally wore me down. I have no interest in repeating the experience. But I encourage the Pharyngula choir (and the choirmaster, PZ) to continue to make sorry spectacles of themselves, with complete confidence that they will. There's nothing that can more surely bring Darwinism (by which I mean modern evolutionary theory) into disrepute than the vulgar, teeth-clenched, wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth defense of it made by people who openly show themselves to be insufferable asses.

By the way, Rey: Do your parents know you're using their computer for on-line conversations?

Jim, there is one thing of which you should take serious note: The decorum of the commenters here has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy or validity of the science behind either the ToE or Design "theory".

The behavior of many ID proponents is no better, frankly. Nothing spells R-E-S-P-E-C-T like William "Fuckin' A!" Dembski dedicating fart noises to a Federal judge. Then there's Wells and his admittedly unscientific, faith-based and cult-funded agenda of discrediting Darwinism, the facts be damned; the dishonest, vacuous blather of Cordova and O'Leary; the shameless censoring of dissenting opinions oh UhDuh by Dembski and that petty martinet DaveScot.

And then there's the constant lying, the constant misrepresentation of the ToE, the constant libelous attacks on Darwin's character, the constant whining about persecution. The entire enterprise is dishonest at its very root.

Ask yourself, which is more reprehensible?

You betray this mindset yourself, by crowing about "bring Darwinism into disrepute" - as if the rudeness of a handful of people can somehow cancel out the overwhelming evidentiary advantage the ToE possesses of ID or any other "competing" hypothesis! So much for respecting the truth. (Small "t".)

Gah... on top of everything else, my proofreading continues to suck!

Please make that: "..the shameless censoring of dissenting opinions on UhDuh..."

and: "...the overwhelming evidentiary advantage the ToE possesses over ID "

By the way, Rey: Do your parents know you're using their computer for on-line conversations?

Posted by: Jim

Oh, Jim, the shear cleverness of your statement. I am sure she shut off her daddy's computer in utter fear. I can see her now, her tears dropping into her dairy as she notes that adults are just so unfair. You have seen through everything and got to the truth of who she is. No wonder you are able to present such a devastating attack on evolution. You are just so clear sighted.

(Janine, not that it alters your point one iota, but I believe Rey is a fellah. Rey as in... Reynard or Reynaldo, perhaps?)

Kseniya, I could be mistaken but I am sure that Rey referred to herself in the feminine. If I am mistaken, I am open to being corrected. But I still contend that Jim's insult shows how clear sighted he is.

"Gladly. No one in the Pharyngula choir has given me the slightest reason to value what he (or she) says, so why should I stick around? "

Still waving goodbye over here. Bye bye now, bye bye!

"The decorum of the commenters here has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy or validity of the science behind either the ToE or Design "theory". "

No, Kseniya, don't devastate his one and only argument!

Janine:
Er, nope. Never once referred to myself as a female. I'm all man. Even if my handle is a fake name. And the funny thing is, I distinctly remember Jim, or possibly someone with a different handle, using that exact same "parents' computer" taunt before. They really shouldn't complain about supposed insults, when, not only do they freely engage in it themselves, but we are SO much better at it.

OK Rey. I stand corrected. Am I forgiven?
Oh, and Jim is still a schmuck.

Ok . . . . all you smug ID haters.

Darwin's black box. Is that intellectual stupidity?

You seem to think anyone who even ventures to even consider ID as a basis for some solutions to clear cut biological problems are stupid #$@@$#@%@#$ (supply your own vitriol).

I think you really have a problem with bio-chemistry, not ID. Bio-chemistry trumps biology. In biology, all you have to do is memorize and sound smart. In bio-chemistry, you actually have to think.

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/074329…

"Darwin's black box. Is that intellectual stupidity?"

Why, yes it is.

Thanks for playing.

Richard,
You've entered the ring, if you'll allow the phrase, and listed a link to a book that many of us have already read. Well done. But the ongoing question for every ID supporter that has ventured here, is 1) Do you have any predictions that ID makes?

As for 2, there isn't a 2. We haven't gotten that far yet.

If we are indeed hating on ID, you can inform us yourself as to why ID is a stronger scientific theory than evolution by providing at least one scientific prediction it makes, yourself.

I'm sure by being a supporter of ID you can provide at least this: the simplest of theoretical predictions of your preferred theory. And I'm sure you'll be willing to do this in light of the lack of horrid vulgarity in my post. Thanks.

Jim,
I doubt you'll get all the way down here, period. People don't like to repeatedly hear arguments shown to be false, and you've peddled in such arguments quite a bit. But let me be the light you've hoped for and make things plain as to the article you've posted.

1) Have you actually read any of the answers to that article? The flagellum? Really? You might as well be quoting the mousetrap argument. It's been refuted for so long now that I'm a little embarrassed that you even quote it. Google is your friend Jim.

As for the article itself, it makes 2 horrid errors. One is that it takes for granted the existence of something (anything) that is irreducibly complex, which as of yet has not been proven true (while all it's examples have been shown to be false), and 2) it has the gaul to assume that simply because biology doesn't have an answer for everything that that somehow works in favor of ID.

Neither of those arguments are true and they are the only arguments put forward in that article.

So Jim, I'll ask you again, what predictions does ID make? By what method do you study it, and by what mechanism does it function so that we may study it? You began your little diatribe by quoting my question. The least you can do is answer it.

As a note to all ID proponents.

1050 comments have been posted on this thread, and not ONE OF THEM has included ANY predictions that ID makes.

@471. I asked Steve for evidence.
@506. I pointed out that I had yet to get any evidence.
@617, I restated the need for predictions. I even decided that no evidence was needed to back them and that the challenge was open to all!
@664. I asked again.
@672. I restated the fact that no predictions for ID had been given.
@630. I restated the need for predictions.
@644. I asked again.
@652 I asked RD to provide some.
@654. I asked again.

@658. I stated my hypothesis that none of you would have any predictions from here on out. (So far so good!)

@678. I restated the fact of no predictions. This time in BOLD!
@808. I came back and repeated the fact that still no predictions had been made.

@867. I took the time to not only point out your hypocrisy, Jim, on insults, but also to restate the fact that no one had provided any predictions. I then made a direct challenge to you. Which as of this post, you have failed.

@966. I pointed out that Savant also had no predictions (or scientific evidence of any kind).
@967. Stanton reiterates the lack of evidence that I echo in 970.
@1020. I ask Michael for predictions.

And @1049, Jim, I ask you again.

Put up or shut up Jim. I've been nothing if not kind, plain and forgiving.

Oh, and I also asked Richard @1048.

Gee, I've done this so many times it's hard to keep track...

But hey, we're all waiting.

I'd also like to mention the fact that Stanton, Kseniya, and many others that I didn't catch as I skimmed over this tread have asked for evidence, predictions, anything, and have been met with silence.

So just what is the deal ID proponents? I hypothesized that you wouldn't even make one prediction. I thought that at least one of you would make one out of spite if nothing else.

Not to mention my disappointment in the fact that I've been waiting for forever to find a worthy creationist with whom I could argue with. Yet, none of you add up. Do me a favor, send someone over who does. If you can find them...

For Michael X: My participation in this thread has been for the sole purpose of pointing out how most of the Pharyngula choir - like the choirmaster himself (i.e., PZ Myers) - come across as insufferable asses in presenting their "arguments." I had no intention of entering a debate on the merits of ID theory (although I do enjoy debating the subject). My posting of the Dembski/Wells essay was to allow the choir to confirm my point about how they present their "arguments." They didn't disappoint. If you'd really like to know my answers to the questions you ask, you'll need to join OriginsTalk at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/

The moderator of the forum allows free-flowing conversation (although at a rather slow rate), but he doesn't allow the kind of adolescent sneering, jeering, and name-calling that dominates and poisons the "conversation" on Pharyngula. Unlike Pharyngula, it's a site for adult conversation. Pharyngula is a place for like-minded people to congratulate themselves on how knowledgeable and smart they think they are, while smearing everyone who doesn't share their faith in Darwinian theory. It's little more than an intellectual (actually, anti-intellectual) circle jerk. Pharyngula clearly doesn't welcome genuine debate.

By the way, I have read "refutations" of Behe's concept of irreducible complexity. When those "refutations" don't make a straw man of the concept (which is Ken Miller's approach), they rely on unsubstantiated just-so stories (such as the tale of the Type III secretory system being co-opted - along with other proteins - to form the bacterial flagellum). I've also read Behe's responses to his critics (have you?). I think Behe gets the better end of the exchanges.

And now, to borrow a phrase used so often here - a phrase demonstrating great wit and erudition - I'm going to "fuck off."

How many times has Jim pompously declared that he is leaving now, every time while accusing us of being "insufferable asses" or variants thereof who call people names? I've lost track.

I don't know, but it should be a bannable offense.

Unlike Pharyngula, it's a site for adult conversation. Pharyngula is a place for like-minded people to congratulate themselves on how knowledgeable and smart they think they are, while smearing everyone who doesn't share their faith in Darwinian theory. It's little more than an intellectual (actually, anti-intellectual) circle jerk. Pharyngula clearly doesn't welcome genuine debate.

Ah, yes, there is nothing like debating the make believe. How very adult of you, Jim. Why don't you join me at my new forum? The topic for this week is, "How many Leprechauns, running on a hamster wheel, are required to power a 900W microwave?"

It's going to be positively riveting.

You should also take a look at this, Jim. While you have been busy mas-debating over childish fantasies, others have actually been getting on with the real work of explaining Flagellum evolution, and pixie dust isn't even mentioned once, I am afraid!

Well, Jim, as I said before, Irreducible Complexity hasn't been shown to exist, derailing the majority of anything ID had to offer. Also, Behe's or Dembski's popular books are no substitute for peer reviewed journal publications on ID. Of which there are none. I would be embarrassed if the only support for evolution came from Dawkin's popular books, though his are much better.

As for Behe's responses to his critics, it isn't about "feeling" that he gets the better of them. He in fact does not. This is science, not the debate team. The only way to win is to show your work. Pointing at unfinished business in biology is not evidence for ID.

Jim, you've missed the point again and again here. People fling poo at you for your attitude while holding zero evidence for your claims and the fact that you have no care to present any. If you wish for civil discourse with scientists, then you have to give them reason to take you seriously. You have failed to do so.

I think most people are missing the point of the movie.
It is a call for the generic scientist to be more open regarding theology, to accept that there are holes in Darwinian thinking and that theology does have facts that support it, just as much as Darwin's theory.
It is a call for respect. Too often the mainstream scientist is "blinded". They forbid even questioning their beliefs, a characteristic they often pin on theologens.
If people would just respect differing views and were capable of discussing them intelligently and without acccusation then many problems that are occuring would not even be a thought.

I implore everyone who reads this to put aside their personal beliefs and to consider all opportunities.
That is what science is really all about: taking in different beliefs and theories to try and discover the truth.
You cannot do this with a closed mind and a hard heart.

Katie, you're a liar. This paragraph gives it away:

I think most people are missing the point of the movie.
It is a call for the generic scientist to be more open regarding theology, to accept that there are holes in Darwinian thinking and that theology does have facts that support it, just as much as Darwin's theory.

Well, liar might be a bit strong. You may be ignorant of the fact that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Exactly which theology would that be?

There are thousands of religions.

Exactly what facts are there for theology?

For post 1050

I did give evidence. I think what is happening is some people are so wrapped up in debunking ID and trying to sound "smart" that they are not paying attention to the answers they are given.

I also think it is strange that even several famous Neo-Darwinists believe in ID.

But I will let the above sentence fester a bit (its been fun watching the neo-darwinists trip themselves up - here is another opportunity to watch them do this again).

"I did give evidence."

Then it should be no trouble for you to do it again.

"I also think it is strange that even several famous Neo-Darwinists believe in ID."

Name them.

Last I recall, Steven evaded all questions asked of him.

Apparently Steven does not realize that the insults that he continues to spew do not count as "evidence."

Would it be too much trouble to scroll back?

I will name the neo-darwinists after this has festered a bit.

As for suppression of theological views, and the apparent consensus of those opposed to ID that there is none, perhaps a reminder should be made of those communist regimes behind the iron curtain that persecuted believers. Of course, they left the older folks alone, but concentrated on the children.

Communist indoctrination declared that "God is dead and religion is for the weak". They put people in prison for years for bringing bibles across the border into their countries. Of course, the younger generations may not be aware of this, but I invite those of you to research this and come to your own conclusions of how this once powerful regime has resounded in our own schools in America.

I think what is happening is some people are so wrapped up in debunking ID and trying to sound "smart" that they are not paying attention to the answers they are given.

The heart of it. Anti-intellectualism. If it's hard to understand it can't be true. And damn those fucking Professors and academics and researchers for knowing more and showing that they know more.

Guess what. KNOWING MORE IS PART OF THE FUCKING JOB DESCRIPTION. Don't get fussy about it, try to learn about it.

"Would it be too much trouble to scroll back?"

Why yes it is. I see you are just going to dodge.

"I will name the neo-darwinists after this has festered a bit."

Put up or shut up.

Would it be too much trouble to scroll back?

Scrolling back doesn't count, given as how you never named any such alleged Neo-Darwinists who support Intelligent Design "theory" to begin with.

I will name the neo-darwinists after this has festered a bit.

In other words, you were lying out of your arse when you made this claim, and you can't think of any names to make up to support your lie.

Of course, the younger generations may not be aware of this, but I invite those of you to research this and come to your own conclusions of how this once powerful regime has resounded in our own schools in America.

I would ask if you had any evidence of this, but, given your current track record, you're just lying about this, too.

I will name the neo-darwinists after this has festered a bit.

I smell a quote-mine operation firing up.

Hey, steve? When scrolling up, I see you saying that Robert E. Lee was running a presidential campaign for the presidency of the Confederacy on the platform of the abolition of slavery.

We know, now, that you got that from a work of fiction that you didn't even remember very well. As in, a story. You were confused between history and something completely made up, and which was acknowledged to be made up by the author.

Before you post whatever crap it is you find, could you do us all a big favor and check the context, and everything else that the person has said?

You do realize that your stupidity and confusion, and lying about your stupidity and confusion, and just plain lying, has made you look bad? You've shamed yourself, and you've shamed Christianity.

Do you plan on continuing the trend?

You do realize that your stupidity and confusion, and lying about your stupidity and confusion, and just plain lying, has made you look bad? You've shamed yourself, and you've shamed Christianity.

Do you plan on continuing the trend?

If Steven had the brainpower to realize that he continues to make a colossal, duplicitous ass out of himself with each and every post he makes, I doubt that he would continue making more smarmy posts that consistently reaffirm the idea that he is a smarmy, duplicitous idiot.

What do you want to bet that Steven is going to present us with Theodosius Dobzhansky's "I am a creationist...." and elide the fact that this half-quote comes from an article entitled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"?

What do you want to bet that Steven is going to present us with Theodosius Dobzhansky's "I am a creationist...." and elide the fact that this half-quote comes from an article entitled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"?

I really doubt it: Steven is the sort of dim bulb who never got through See Spot Run without picking a fight.

Holy crumbling shortcake! Our American Civil War professor is back?

Why, it's dog party! A big dog party!

As one who is both Catholic and a supporter of evolutionary theory, it pains me that the EXPELLED group has resorted to these base ideological arguments when they could have just as easily remained wholly committed to the issue of academic freedom.

As I am sure the author of the blog would agree, even unpopular ideas should have a public forum in a society claiming to be free. I would agree with those who say that these ideas are best left out of the science classroom, but should be given full consideration in philosophy classes (which I think should be introduced at some point in high school anyway).

Both sides of this controversy often proclaim themselves to be the outnumbered and oppressed side, as with all political controversies. Both sides invoke totalitarian regimes to discredit their opponents - if you are a Christian and a creationist, you must answer for Hitler for some bizzare reason. And if you are an atheist and an evolutionist, you must answer for Stalin or Mao.

It is time to stop these petty and childish games and get on board with the task of clarifying and appreciating the respective roles of science and religion in social and intellectual life. Christians must not be hostile to scientific endeavor; scientists must always check themselves to ensure that materialist philosophy and its political corollaries are not directing the whole of their studies and their public statements.

Wow, the thread that keeps on giving.
# 1046:

Bio-chemistry trumps biology. In biology, all you have to do is memorize and sound smart. In bio-chemistry, you actually have to think.

huh? What is that even supposed to mean? Does morphology trump physiology? Does population ecology trump community ecology? WTF? I can only guess that this is a person that took a crappy and easy nonmajors biology course and a difficult biochemistry course in college and thinks that consequentially he understands both fields. ?

# 1061: I think one thing we can all agree with Steven on is that his sentences are, in fact, "festering."
Really, this thread has become a Kreationist Klown Kar...they just keep climbing out and bringing the stoopid.
To quote my childhood role-model, "Fascinating."
And Joe (#1073), I think your heart is in the right place, but really...there is no "controversy." There are scientific conclusions drawn from scientific evidence that bears on scientific questions, and there is the stoopid, 99.9% of it religiously motivated.

Sven,

You wrote:

"And Joe (#1073), I think your heart is in the right place, but really...there is no "controversy." There are scientific conclusions drawn from scientific evidence that bears on scientific questions, and there is the stoopid, 99.9% of it religiously motivated."

No controversy? I respectfully disagree. Clearly "extremists" on both sides have made it their business to create controversy, though I agree, if this is what you mean, that there shouldn't be one at all.

What does a good scientific conclusion "look like"? In my view, it would not contain philosophical pronouncements about the existence or non-existence of God. For instance, Richard Dawkins it would seem has dug himself into a hole, if the EXPELLED documentary has accurately portrayed him - he admits the possibility of design, but by other physical beings, and not a "supernatural" one. Of course he begs the question - who designed those designers, and so on, and so forth, the same question he ironically asks of Christians (who created the creator?). In the end he ends up embarassing the scientific community with these ill-considered ventures into philosophy.

Finally, and again I say this with respect, we should be less interested in "motivations" and more interested in a rigorously objective analysis of all scientific and philosophical claims, using the tools of logic and empirical investigation. Does it really matter what motivates a person to cure cancer, if the cure works? If he or she did it for the money, for the prestige, for a place in history, or out of a genuine desire to save lives and improve the human condition?

but should be given full consideration in philosophy classes

they were. the general concept of intelligent design has been around since there WERE philosophers to debate it.

If you want to limit it to the "watchmaker" analogy, then it's still been around since Paley.

guess what?

not only the scientists have rejected it as a vacuous and illogical argument.
It only has value if we wish to study the sociological effects of misusing information in order to goad group reactions.

Frankly, I think studying Goebbels is sufficient to demonstrate the principles involved.

In my view, it would not contain philosophical pronouncements about the existence or non-existence of God.

And why should your view matter to those who actually do science?

And Dawkins has always said, "Sure, it's possible some alien species planted life here, but it's incredibly improbable, and, were it true, raises further questions." You've been spending too much time listening to the liars who made this ridiculous propaganda film.

Do try to keep up.

What does a good scientific conclusion "look like"? In my view, it would not contain philosophical pronouncements about the existence or non-existence of God.

then you'd be right, as there are no scientific papers that have ever concerned themselves with the existence of deities, in evolutionary biology or anywhere else for that matter. However, Dawkins was not addressing the science itself, but the RESISTANCE to science of religious robots. Something even you I would hope cannot deny.

he admits the possibility of design, but by other physical beings, and not a "supernatural" one.

have you ever heard of an anthropologist, joe?
do you know what one does and how they work?

look it up, and then rethink what you just wrote actually means.

no scientist would reject the very notion that any particular artifact COULD be designed, however you have to take two things into account:

Is there any reason to presume so?
If not, then why do so?

When we look at the evolution of biological and behavioral traits, we simply have no reason to include a superfluous idea that "design" is involved, just like we have no reason to postulate that humans created the Grand Canyon.

It's simply unnecessary to do so.

two, you have to know how any putative designer actually operates within the environment you are trying to study.

In the case of anthropologists, they have an excellent model to work from to hypothesize whether or not any particular artifact or construction is designed by humans.

We keep asking the supporters of ID as "science" why they refuse to delineate how their putative designer actually operates in the world, so we can construct testable hypothesis and predictions to test what might be designed.

guess what?

they simply can't, because they haven't "got a clue" who that putative designer might be. (Hint: that's of course a lie they won't admit).

the best they can do is project from their own "intuition" as to what constitutes something that is "irreducibly complex" and thus, designed.

frankly, it's a childish argument that serves no real purpose other than to politicize religion.

yes, that's exactly what the IDers are doing:

politicizing religion.

just read the Wedge Document sometime.

there IS no science here, there IS no philosophy; there is only sophistry masking a political agenda.

You can think what you wish, of course, but you will find this out for yourself if you simply look a little deeper.

It's not hard.

frankly, the reason ID supporters get so much flak around these parts is because of two things:

they are either too lazy or stupid to figure this out for themselves.

or they are simply lying to promote the same political agenda.

why on earth shouldn't those, especially scientists, who value accurate and logical information NOT poke these monkeys with sticks when they are the ones who are essentially insulting the very ideas of reason and truth with lies and deceit, whether they intend to do so or not.

It is 100% the case that those that fail to understand why we react so vehemently to this idiocy have not even bothered to try to see through it themselves.

the evidence for the political agenda that is ID is as obvious as the nose on your face.

again, just read the wedge document, and you will see it spelled out in black and white.

To ignore the obvious conclusions from that document is to do so willfully, and put yourself on the opposite side from those who utilize logic and reason, and actually care about truthful communication.

Is that where you want to be?

just like we have no reason to postulate that humans created the Grand Canyon.

But... humans did. Although I suppose maybe a Time Lord doesn't count as strictly "human". Although his companions were human, and they opened the door to the Tardis just as the antimatter beam fired, and...

Wait, you mean Doctor Who isn't real history?

Although I suppose maybe a Time Lord doesn't count as strictly "human"

not even close,IMO.

Wait, you mean Doctor Who isn't real history?

Of course it's history. I watched the last season on SciFi.

;)

"And why should your view matter to those who actually do science?"

Why should we have views at all? Why have public discussions at all?

My view might matter since I've studied political philosophy for the past 7 years and have multipule degrees in the field. I don't blow my own horn on a regular basis, but this is actually what I do :)

I'll also remind you that I said IF they portrayed him correctly in my original post, thus leaving room for the possibilty that they didn't. Had you been reading my post instead of reacting to it, you might have stated your information about Dawkins without the acid in your tone.

There's no hostility on my part, except maybe a little towards Dawkins foolish pronouncements. I think his overall approach contributes to ruining any chance there is of a rapproachment between science and religion.

Ichthyic,

I'll read the document, and criticize it even. But no matter what it says, I won't join the Crusade. Mean-spirited ideological polemics are the garbage of my past. I'll either have a civil discussion, or no discussion.

My view might matter since I've studied political philosophy for the past 7 years and have multipule degrees in the field. I don't blow my own horn on a regular basis, but this is actually what I do :)

frankly, I don't believe you.

especially since you seem blissfully unaware of the fact that ID is nothing more than an extension of a specific political philosophy, and hardly needs to be discussed as an example of anything but repetition.

except maybe a little towards Dawkins foolish pronouncements.

which you haven't listed, i notice, but instead choose to rely on them as being "foolish" from third hand sources.

Have you actually read any of Dawkins' books? was there actually some specific point of Dawkins you took issue with?

or is it just the old and generalized: "he's not a theologian, so why is he knocking religion" spiel?

I see your profile:

I may not advocate a return to the "blue laws", but I'm not going to hail as progressive that which I instinctively view as degenerative.

LOL

yeah, you're about as much of a professional philosopher as Casey Luskin is a biologist. Anybody that would even know of blue laws without considering them to be utter idiocy is an idiot themselves. You can just barely miss admitting you actually admire blue laws.

You better quit while you're behind.

But no matter what it says, I won't join the Crusade.

IOW, no matter what the evidence says, you choose to close your eyes to it.

uh huh.

another Vancome Lady.

Science isn't the only area nobody should care about what your opinion is.

nothing so blind as those willfully so.

read and decide, or hide your head in the fucking sand:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

This IS the Discovery Institute.

...and it's a goddamn insult to rationality and reason that deserves nothing less than insult and derision in response. The people who wrote that ARE the problem.

If you think Dawkins is a problem, think again.

I'll also remind you that I said IF they portrayed him correctly in my original post, thus leaving room for the possibilty that they didn't.

Given as how the makers of "Expelled" are known to be liars for Jesus, especially since they were revealed to have lied to Mr Dawkins (as well as to almost all of the scientists they interviewed), it is dead certain that they fully intend to misportray him in a way that either makes him look like a fool, dishonestly make him agree with their agenda, or both.

Ichthyic,

Why the hostility? Because I don't like Dawkins? I used to admire Dawkins, and I DID read his works when I was first studying evolutionary biology. It was when he began making his speeches about religion that I was turned off.

I do recognize that ID has ideological underpinnings. But I think they have a variety of sources, not all of which are some pure desire to impose a theocracy on society.

I think it is important to understand where these beliefs actually come from, how they originate, and why they are so appealing to so many people. Saying "they're all a bunch of morons" isn't the most enlightened way to approach the issue. Maybe its my experience dealing with working class Americans in a political setting, but I'm interested in knowing what their hopes and fears are, and what motivates them to believe as they do. And I realize that there is a gulf between the creators of such documentaries and the people who watch them; even so, we both know that the documentary will definately have appeal. I think the appeal of the attack on evolution can be offset by opening a dialogue between evolutionary theory and religion. This National Geographic article (you know, that right-wing fundamentalist rag) is a good start:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_rel…

That being said, even knowing where the beliefs come from does NOT mean that we have no intellectual obligation to investigate them and test them objectively. An argument cannot be considered false simply because of its source. It might be tempting - believe me, I don't want to spend more time than I have to debunking LaRouche or Alex Jones or any number of tin-foil hat wearers out there. I don't believe ID can be relegated to that category, if no other reason the public weight behind it. I believe in science but I also believe in taking the concerns of the people seriously. So ID should be answered seriously, and respectfully, and only useless pride gets in the way of that approach.

I never claimed to be a professional philosopher, but I hope to be one in the future. And, try not to forget, I accept evolutionary theory. It seems your biggest beef is that I don't hate the ID crowd with the appropriate level of zeal. To me that isn't really an argument.

Neither are arguments that suggest that "anyone" who knew about a would obviously believe b, or be a moron. I like to stick to the basic rules of logic as much as I can when discussing a topic, and such crude generalizations are pretty far removed from those rules.

My view might matter since I've studied political philosophy for the past 7 years and have multipule degrees in the field. I don't blow my own horn on a regular basis, but this is actually what I do :)

In case you don't know this already, political philosopy =/= science.

And as to the acid on my tongue, it's from hearing you parrot the same lies that ID folks put forth. You're bending over so far backward to give them the benefit of the doubt, you don't even realize you've fallen on your face. It's not that you don't despise the ID folks, it's that you're repeating the same old bullshit over and over and over again, and it just gets tiresome.

Joe, regarding your comment on Dawkins a few commments up:

Recognizing the possibility of design is not the same as admitting (let alone insisting upon) the necessity of design. Therefore, it is possible that one species, or entire ecosystem for that matter, has been designed by beings who themselves evolved out of some primordial ooze. The argument to which you allude regresses infinitely only in its creationist form: "A creation implies a creator." Dawkins' remark suggests no such thing.

So ID should be answered seriously, and respectfully,

Actually, it has been. PZ Myers, in responding to "ID" and Creationist nonsense, does answer seriously and respectfully, both in his blog posts, and in his classes.

However, he is serious and respectful towards his audience.

I've noticed that he pours out the vitriol and bile more on "ID" Creationists that he's seen making arguments which he knows they have seen the refutations for.

I've also noticed that books on evolution take the time to rebut common creationist confusion and misunderstanding. They're quite serious, and reasonably respectful.

There's an entire website, Talkorigins, that exists to seriously and respectfully refute the common confusions, misunderstandings, sloppy thinking, and outright lies used by "ID" proponents and other creationists.

There are many other websites that exist to explain biology and evolution in tiny bite-sized chunks, and which examine the various types of Creationists as ideologies, all in a very serious and respectful manner.

Given that there are plenty of resources that explain why "ID" is not a science, and why creationist thinking is simply wrong, and why evolution is an absolutely necessary part of modern biology — what more do you think there should be?

and only useless pride gets in the way of that approach.

Do you not take pride in your own efforts in studying and learning?

Would you swallow that pride in order to pander to those who know nothing about what you've studied, and yet who claim that everything you've studied is false?

Would you continue to swallow that pride if, after explaining for the 3rd time, you see the same old arguments being thrown at you?

How about after the 10th time?

How about after the 50th time?

How about after the 1090th time?

ID has been dismantled in so many ways, so many times, that I don't get how someone can come here and pretend it hasn't.

ID deserves no respect. It's not science, it's not even BAD science. So, for Joe to come here and act like we're somehow closed minded or that Dawkins hasn't looked at ID seriously is silly and insulting.

Whew! Well, I don't think I should post here until people's attentions are divided among other posters again.

Kseniya,

"Recognizing the possibility of design is not the same as admitting (let alone insisting upon) the necessity of design."

I agree - I don't think Dawkins said anything about necessity. But even possibility is a concession of sorts to the ID movement. Once there is a possibility of design, it legitimizes the efforts of those who argue that there is evidence for design. Arguing that there is evidence for design is no the same as arguing that design is necessary, so I suppose it depends on which particular IDer we are talking about.

Owlmirror,

I would answer the claims 1000 times before I resorted to the bitterness and hostility that I've seen eminating from some people here. When you've been in as many of these absurd scuffles as I have, you realize how pointless it is to go into an argument with guns blazing. What do the insults, name-calling, and abuse accomplish? Nothing. They just make you feel better about yourself. They don't change minds, they don't make progress. Until we are fighting in the streets with real weapons, these verbal weapons should be left on the shelf. Diplomacy may yet win the day.

MA Jeff,

Yet philosophy (of all branches) and science have always been related and influenced one another, for better and for worse. Someone has to study the history of science and its relationship with other disciplines. Some of the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century have recognized the need to engage with philosophy, Einstein and Hiesenberg most prominently among them.

I only repeat myself when the point I make is unacknowledged or distorted. If you don't want to hear the same old bullshit, I suggest, perhaps that you try and understand where I am coming from instead of treating this as some sort of bar fight.

This National Geographic article (you know, that right-wing fundamentalist rag) is a good start:

irrelevant.

It's not whether science can coexist with religion in general, it's whether specific religions can coexist with science.

Xianity (to name one general religion - again, you can stretch that to many others) is filled with sects that do not accept the premise that science generates information that is "truthful" if it disagrees with their sect's specific interpretation of a moldy old book, a book that has no science in it whatsoever.

Moreover, they also refuse to see WHY science has replaced religion as a far more effective method of explaining the world around us.

If you want to maintain religion has explanatory power for the world around us, the onus is on you to show that to be the case. Science's track record is crystal clear, hence the standard of living you now enjoy.

as to your point of the vehemence of communication...

I'll just repeat what Jeff said, and basically I said in different words earlier:

And as to the acid on my tongue, it's from hearing you parrot the same lies that ID folks put forth.

as to this:

I never claimed to be a professional philosopher, but I hope to be one in the future

you claimed to have multiple degrees, and had been "studying" related for "7 years". sorry, but you imply you ARE a professional. I have two degrees, an undergrad in aquatic biology, and a grad in zoology/integrative biology. Can't imagine I would bother to mention such without meaning to imply I have a professional capacity in these fields.

I'm still waiting for you to back up the notion you have multiple degrees in philosophy and/or political science, let alone you have done more than rehash your own personal philosophy for however long you claim to have been "studying" the issue.

seriously, when someone uses what obviously is little more than google fu to pull up an obscure article from nat geo, instead of actually looking at the major movers and shakers proposing that there is "no conflict" between evolutionary biology (or science in general) and religion, I see someone who at best has looked at the issue VERY shallowly.

Why not focus on Miller's arguments, or Collins'? Why not focus on the many philosophers who have similar arguments?

instead you chose an article from nat geo...

You wanna know why ID is even supported by any of the general population itself (note: it's not supported AT ALL within any of the publishing scientific community, since there really is nothing to it)?

It's because of people like you, who refuse to even go beyond the most cursory glances at the rhetoric.

...and you wan't us to take you seriously?

hey, I'd be happy to take you seriously, if you actually did spend some time researching the issues you expound on, instead of spew endlessly recycled talking points.

I repeat again, for Joe:

It is 100% the case that those that fail to understand why we react so vehemently to this idiocy have not even bothered to try to see through it themselves.

so far, you are fitting that analysis perfectly.

CAN you do better, I wonder...

Ichthyic,

I mentioned the degrees as a reference to knowledge, not necessarily to indicate what my career was at the moment. I could be a professional, I suppose, but I'm not, because I'm going to be going back to school to study further.

I have two BAs, in sociology and political science, and an MA in political science - my focus was on political theory and philosophy.

I'm not sure what the problem with the NG article is. It was just one example to show that there are scientists who wish to reconcile their beliefs with religion. I didn't realize we were having an academic conference here.

I could also point to the published discussions between Hiesenberg, particularly his exchange with Dirac, and some of his other physicist colleauges on the relationship between religion, spirituality and science.

I don't think I need to read anyone in particular to be able to state an opinion about evolutionary theory in general, which I have read about a great deal and, once again, accept, as well as ID, which I'll admit I haven't read as much on (but am familiar enough with its basic claims and the social movement behind it), and the relationship between the two. Any argument can be boiled down to simple claims, to premises and conclusions. I also read the Wedge Document as you suggested, so in spite of your bitterness here, I thank you for that.

It seems to me that you want to drop names and check credientals in order to avoid having to deal with making an argument, perhaps because you feel this issue is no longer worth debating. In any case, all of the chest-thumping and brow-beating isn't necessary. I'm not on the attack, so why should you be? Do you ever sit down with friends who you disagree with on an issue and have coffee or a beer? How do you treat them? We may not know one another but that doesn't mean hostility has to be the default tone between us.

Ich,

One last thing for now (packing and moving, so I may not be able to respond for a while, though you are always free to leave a comment on my blog, a nice comment of course)

"CAN you do better, I wonder..."

I will read anything you suggest, because I always want to know more. I may modify my opinions as I read. I'm open to changing my mind and seeing things from different perspectives. I wouldn't be where I am now if I weren't.

Owlmirror,

I would answer the claims 1000 times before I resorted to the bitterness and hostility that I've seen eminating from some people here. When you've been in as many of these absurd scuffles as I have, you realize how pointless it is to go into an argument with guns blazing. What do the insults, name-calling, and abuse accomplish? Nothing. They just make you feel better about yourself. They don't change minds, they don't make progress. Until we are fighting in the streets with real weapons, these verbal weapons should be left on the shelf. Diplomacy may yet win the day.

Joe

Joe, what you see here is hardly an isolated incidence. For many of the people here, it is just one more battle with ideologues. And they have been doing it for much longer then your seven years of studies. Also, these ideologues are willing to lie about facts and misquote for backup. And for what purpose? To get the general population ignorant.

Is there anger and bitterness expressed here and elsewhere? You betcha! And it is well earned.

Just so you know, there is a huge difference between claiming that Darwin caused Hitler's genocidal dreams and Richard Dawkins entertaining the notion of panspermia. The first is an concept in which all known evidence must be ignored in ordered to be accepted.(Hence, the need for the general population to be kept ignorant.) The second is a person being open to an idea he thinks improbable.

Is there anger and bitterness expressed here and elsewhere? You betcha! And it is well earned.

Oh come on, just because one calls IDists IDiots, liars, cretins, ignoramuses, theocrats, etc., doesn't mean that we're either bitter or angry.

It's like saying that a sergeant in the army is bitter and angry because he swears at the recruits. Christ, it's just a tactic. I think a lot of us are more tired and impatient with hearing the same old tripe again and again, and we often resort to calling them names because they're as unthinking as the first bunch that we earnestly answered.

What concern trolls like Joe don't know is that people believe lies because they're exposed to them and they don't have to pay social penalties for believing the first set of lies to come along (by contrast, most accept Einstein's claims, despite understanding nothing about them--there aren't churches trying to make anti-Einstein claims legitimate by using the government to intervene). Most of these people are essentially untouchable, as it happens, but there is a large group who know little about science yet who care about looking stupid for being on the wrong side.

You're not going to really "convince" the group of scientific illiterates by using evidence and arguments. You are going to convince them by having science and scientists on our side, by having a few pithy and sharp arguments they can latch onto, and by ridiculing the ignorant anti-science dolts as we would any other believers in pseudoscience. Truly, if we respected the liars and bigots, instead of they're claiming that if we were "so sure of ourselves" we wouldn't use insults, they'd be telling each other that they would be subjected to insults if their beliefs were really so stupid.

It is our duty to treat morons like morons, because most of the public has to judge what is right by the respect given to the various ideas by the experts (and don't forget, for those who are honestly interested in the evidence and arguments, there are a huge number of websites available for their edification). There are plenty of venues and instances where it is not best to insult people (the occasional honestly-seeking creationists included), but the fact is that in general we have to treat pseusciences and their proponents with the disrespect that these people and their ideas have earned.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Diplomacy may yet win the day.

So, then, please explain to us how diplomacy will work on the people who make up the Scientific Creationism and Intelligent Design movement, when these people have demonstrated time and time again that their elite are nothing more than pompous, sanctimonious charlatans and that their followers delight in the fact that they have abysmally poor social skills, and that all of them demonstrate that they have a gross aversion to reality?

Surely, Stanton, we could have a diplomatic discussion of whether we are evolutionists because we're following Satan, or because we're bigoted atheists, couldn't we?

I mean, virtually all of the dedicated creationists/IDiots believe either or some combination of the two. It must be only fair and right if we credit the bigotry with which they tar us from the beginning, you know, so that they can see us as diplomatic Satanists or atheistic bigots. I'm sure that any number of them would be happy to discuss evidence freely and fairly when it is presented by the people they don't hesitate to call God's enemies.

Now out of sarcastic mode, I suppose the only thing that is more amazingly stupid than IDiocy and the other forms of creationism, is the stupidity of concern trolls who think that the servants of Satan and/or atheists who deny ID only due to their biases against religion (as these religious bigots see us), will be listened to freely and openly, if we only would be diplomatic. The concern trolls don't know that the religious have been warned against smooth-talking servants of Satan/atheism.

Well, the fact is that stupidity supports stupidity, and Joe only shows his appalling ignorance both of social forces and of the particulars of US creationism when he supposes that diplomacy is successful with those whose worldview includes the idea that smooth-talking atheist are that way in order to deceive God's people.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

"Well, the fact is that stupidity supports stupidity, and Joe only shows his appalling ignorance both of social forces and of the particulars of US creationism when he supposes that diplomacy is successful with those whose worldview includes the idea that smooth-talking atheist are that way in order to deceive God's people."

Glen,

I have to say, I don't believe ALL ID proponents believe this (and isn't there a difference between ID and "creationism"?). Isn't it getting to the point where SOME of you are pulling the same thing - assuming all critics of evolution are out to decieve the public, "keep them ignorant" and lead them into a theocracy?

I don't think diplomacy is necessarily useful with young-earth Creationists and biblical fundamentalists, but it is my understanding that many supporters of ID are neither of those, and that they are two schools of thought which might overlap but which are not identitical with one another.

All of this anger and rage from you guys is purely subjective. You've had your years of struggles and arguments, you're frustrated, and so you lash out with profanity, verbal absue, sarcasm, and so forth. But your frustration shouldn't be the only thing that determines your attitude. When you lose your cool and result to this, you've admitted that you are, from that point, only interested in garnering a few cheap laughs and cheers from people who already agree with you. Is it worth it?

What I want to know, simply is this - why can't you make your criticisms without the insults and hatred? Why can't you just make them?

I don't think diplomacy is necessarily useful with young-earth Creationists and biblical fundamentalists, but it is my understanding that many supporters of ID are neither of those, and that they are two schools of thought which might overlap but which are not identitical with one another.

All of this anger and rage from you guys is purely subjective.

First off, who cares what you think? You obviously haven't dealt with these people, and you're too damn stupid to listen to those who have. Ooh, anger and rage. You're a fucking liar, jackass. We deal with morons like you in this way because you're too prejudiced and self-righteous to learn.

Secondly, you obviously believe the bullshit that the IDists tell you. Having actually had exchanges with the IDists, it's pretty clear to me that they're every bit as dishonest and ignorant as the creationists are. Indeed, Pharyngula has documented this over and over, but you don't know that, you're just aping the lies of the dishonest.

And really, I think that now I've dealt enought with a dishonest ignorant jackass like you.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

When you lose your cool and result to this, you've admitted that you are, from that point, only interested in garnering a few cheap laughs and cheers from people who already agree with you. Is it worth it?

In this forum, yes.

What I want to know, simply is this - why can't you make your criticisms without the insults and hatred? Why can't you just make them?

See comment #1090 as a starting point. How's about a book like The Ancestor's Tale or Your Inner Fish?

There are a lot of forums for public discourse. Ain't all of 'em gonna look the same. This is but one, albeit one that has developed a particular style and commentariat. And it's one where: 1) we allow ourselves to get frustrated and express that frustration; 2) we have a group of people who are both fairly well known (at least in online aliases) and quite well educated on the topic; 3) people have been dealing with the Creationist/IDiocy for a very long time and are quite well aware, after having delved into the topics, that ID is warmed-over creationism, and both are complete bullshit (get the fainting couch); and 4) we're not particularly interested in making nice with people trying to destroy biology.

MA Jeff,

Do you really think the way Glen dealt with me above is appropriate? Is this how well-educated individuals ought to interact with one another?

For the record, I'm willing to listen and learn. Links, resources, etc. would all be appreciated.

You've had your years of struggles and arguments, you're frustrated, and so you lash out with profanity, verbal absue, sarcasm, and so forth. But your frustration shouldn't be the only thing that determines your attitude. When you lose your cool and result to this, you've admitted that you are, from that point, only interested in garnering a few cheap laughs and cheers from people who already agree with you.

It's the liberal way...shout, insult, call names and use lots of bad words when you can't make an intelligent argument. The loudest mouth wins.

By the way, Glen,

How exactly am I a "liar"? Are you going to tell me you weren't just a little angry when you called me a "fucking liar jackass"? No, its obvious I was WAY off about the anger thing. You epitomize calm, cool and collected.

Watch your blood pressure, ok? I'll check out of here now. I know I'm the hated, reviled enemy of the moment, but I assure you all I will continue to read about this matter, follow it with interest, and defend the theory of evolution from its critics.

It's the liberal way...shout, insult, call names and use lots of bad words when you can't make an intelligent argument. The loudest mouth wins.

Or in other words, it's what IDists and creationists have done since evolutionary theory began, and when we respond in kind to your idiocy--since you're too stupid and/or prejudiced to learn--you blame us for dealing with you in the only manner that you understand.

The fact is that I'm quite willing to deal nicely with people who begin to discourse respectfully (and that means paying attention, not telling lies couched in diplomatic language, as Joe has). I have done so many times, including recently (I responded politely to an apparent Muslim dude not long ago, because although he only had so many exploded PRATTs and nonsense, he at least wrote as if he could be reasonable, and I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt). But when you guys start in with ignorant insults and lies (see Expelled, an IDist movie whose rank Godwinesque nonsense even turns off a number of religious folk), I respond with the language you understand, which is not intellectual language.

I do not fight ignorance and dishonesty with one hand tied behind my back. I tailor my approach, and quite deliberately and without undue emotionality insult the ignorant and dishonest IDiots and concern trolls who come in again and again with the same worthless tripe that we've heard a thousand times before.

Btw, wtf, you're a lying fuckwit. I know that you can't make a case, and only lie about our responses because you're prejudiced, ignorant, and stupid, but that's no excuse. If you were decent and/or Xian in the ideal sense, you would stfu about what you don't understand.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

How exactly am I a "liar"? Are you going to tell me you weren't just a little angry when you called me a "fucking liar jackass"? No, its obvious I was WAY off about the anger thing. You epitomize calm, cool and collected.

You're an inveterate liar because you don't understand our position on this, and even though I spelled it out to you, you still told the same lies that you told previously. Had you even begun to deal with what I had written I'd have responded quite differently, but you have no interest in doing anything but supporting the prejudices that you had in the beginning, when you attacked in your gross ignorance.

Did I say, fuckwad, that I was emotionless in my responses? The fact is that you ignored the context, just like any lying IDiot would. You wrote:

All of this anger and rage from you guys is purely subjective.

I had explained why it isn't "purely subjective" before you repeated your dishonest attack. You simply repeated your lies.

So now, instead of dealing with your grotesque misrepresentations and dishonesty, you shift the goalposts and act as if I had denied that I let my emotions enter into this. And yes, I do, my emotional response to you is that you are a disgustingly dishonest prick, who will shift and turn no matter what to protect yourself from dealing with the fact that you have attacked many here without understanding the situation first, and without honestly dealing with what we have said in the second place.

If you had been honest you'd have dealt with my statement that this is a tactic. And btw, saying that we're not "bitter and angry" is not saying that we are never angry, or at least emotional, because to say that we're "bitter and angry" is something that liars such as yourself and the IDiots use to justify their own attacks, as if we're characterized by bitterness and anger. How stupid are you, Joe, that you would take the various statements I made as if I were saying that emotions do not enter into this, rather than that it is disgustingly dishonest for you to claim that "All of this anger and rage from you guys is purely subjective" and similarly unwitting remarks?

The fact is that you're leaving as stupidly and dishonestly as you began your ignorant and unwarranted attacks. You are what is properly called a facilitator of the attacks and dishonesty of the IDiots and the other creationists.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

I have to say, I don't believe ALL ID proponents believe this (and isn't there a difference between ID and "creationism"?).

Joe

No, Joe. There is no difference between intelligent design and creationism. Take five minutes and learn the tale of cdesign proponentsist.

Btw, wtf, you're a lying fuckwit. I know that you can't make a case, and only lie about our responses because you're prejudiced, ignorant, and stupid

Thus proving my point.

I have to say, I don't believe ALL ID proponents believe this (and isn't there a difference between ID and "creationism"?). Isn't it getting to the point where SOME of you are pulling the same thing - assuming all critics of evolution are out to decieve the public, "keep them ignorant" and lead them into a theocracy?

I don't think diplomacy is necessarily useful with young-earth Creationists and biblical fundamentalists, but it is my understanding that many supporters of ID are neither of those, and that they are two schools of thought which might overlap but which are not identitical with one another.

Do realize that the primary financial backers of the Discovery Institute are various Christian Dominionist leaders who very much wish to see the United States of America turned into a theocratic tyranny, where people would be put to death for not adhering to the Bible enough, and that it would be a crime to not be Christian (enough).

Furthermore, EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Intelligent Design proponents I have argued with have proven to be rude, arrogant, very oily, and have displayed a profound ignorance of even the most rudimentary facts of Biology. Many of them, including one Salvador Cordova, are actually closet Young Earth Creationists, especially since they often resort to clutching debunked arguments used ONLY by Young Earth Creationists, such as when Mr Cordova mentioned that he finds the idea that that all (terrestrial) life are descended from the survivors of Noah's Ark, despite the fact that there is no physical evidence to support this, is somehow more plausible than the theory that beetles descended from scorpionflies 280 million years ago.

It's the liberal way...shout, insult, call names and use lots of bad words when you can't make an intelligent argument.

And yet you consider "liberal" an insult, you steaming pile of hypocritical garbage.!

By the way, Glen,

How exactly am I a "liar"? Are you going to tell me you weren't just a little angry when you called me a "fucking liar jackass"? No, its obvious I was WAY off about the anger thing. You epitomize calm, cool and collected.

Watch your blood pressure, ok? I'll check out of here now. I know I'm the hated, reviled enemy of the moment, but I assure you all I will continue to read about this matter, follow it with interest, and defend the theory of evolution from its critics.

How to put this in words that Joe can understand?

Glenn is hostile to you because you are demanding that he be civil to Intelligent Design proponents, even though every single one of the Intelligent Design proponents who visit this blog are snotty trolls who pride themselves in their lack of social skills. Glenn believes in being civil to people who are civil to him in the first place. For you to demand that he treat such people with respect, even though they make no attempt to earn his respect in the first place, is a terrible breach of Glenn's social protocols.

HENCE HIS BLATANT HOSTILITY TO YOU.

Furthermore, Joe, you refuse to realize that the alleged "critics of evolution" do not demonstrate even an elementary grasp of Evolutionary Biology. Hell, the vast majority of these "critics" do not even demonstrate an elementary school grasp of science.

"wtf":

Thus proving my point

What point? You had no point. You had only a blanket generalization based on a couple of data points.

"The liberal way?" Uh-huh. Ok. I'll tell you what I've seen of "the conservative way.". Conservatives have informed me that it's time to "gun down all the liberals." Conservatives have called me the vilest of names while knowing nothing else about me than that I'm from Massachusetts. Conservatives accuse anyone who disagrees with them about anything of being America-hating terrorist sympathizers.

I could go on.

But why bother? The actions of the few - or even of the many - don't define or predict the actions of all. There are two kinds of people in this world:

Apparently, "wtf", you'd rather smear your own feces on your opponents than go to the trouble of firing up your brain in an attempt to reach an intelligent conclusion. That makes you part of the problem, dude!

Apparently, "wtf", you'd rather smear your own feces on your opponents than go to the trouble of firing up your brain in an attempt to reach an intelligent conclusion. That makes you part of the problem, dude!

Thus, once again, proving my point.

It seems to me that you want to drop names and check credientals in order to avoid having to deal with making an argument

then you are simply projecting, since YOU were the one who dropped your "credentials" instead of making an argument.
Do I need to go back and quote you again?

I was the one who called YOU on it.

this mere fact, that you choose to project the issue of cred dropping on to me, instead of honestly dealing with the issues I presented, tells me you are indeed unworthy of further attendance.

go away, learn something that doesn't come from a fucking "news report" in nat geo, and THEN come back, when you feel you have something to discuss of substance beyond 'attitudes'.

frankly, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

perhaps you will be honest and actually spend some time looking at an issue you felt yourself already versed on.

if you do, feel free to come back and present some arguments of substance, philosophical or scientific, rather than playing the concern troll.

Thus, once again, proving my point.

again, repeating Kseniya, you don't have a point.

you could repeat yourself again, maybe? I'm sure repeating your non-point yet another time will clarify it for everyone.

LOL

Thus, once again, proving my point.

LoL! What an ass. You hear nothing. Understand nothing. Go away. You won't be missed. Troll. Bye!

Christians must not be hostile to scientific endeavor; scientists must always check themselves to ensure that materialist philosophy and its political corollaries are not directing the whole of their studies and their public statements.

I'd love to know from our real live political scientist what the "political corollaries" of "materialist philosophy" are, because for some reason I don't see any ubiquitous political philosophy arising from a commitment to atheism or agnosticism.

I also don't see what the point is in saying that scientists shouldn't be letting them direct their public statements. Should the Dutch astronomer Anton Pannekoek have been prevented, by prior restraint, from publishing anything inspired by his Marxist political philosophy? Should the same thing go for Richard Lewontin? What about Edward Teller, and his right-wing anti-Communism? Or should we shut up Dr. Myers, and his conventional, electoral, Democratic Party-based liberalism? And Peter Kropotkin should have just shut his trap and stuck to geography and geology rather than publishing The Conquest of Bread, Fields, Factories, and Workshops, Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, An Appeal to the Young, Memoirs of a Revolutionist, and so on.

Scientists of any prominence and sometimes of very little have been speaking out about their political and social views for what probably amounts to centuries. Certainly Bronowski, Dobzhansky, Huxley, Sagan, etc. all used their public personas as scientists to advocate for certain views.

As for it influencing their choices of research, that too is inevitable. We don't pick our research interests by lottery. There's a whole background going into what we choose to research at any given moment. Personal history, in the form of experience with the subject or a perceived need to solve a problem that has afflicted oneself or one's loved ones, social considerations, humanitarian considerations, money, etc. all influence various people to varying degrees. Aren't you the one who says that none of this should matter to the public acceptance of a view?

Oh wait...I forgot. That only goes for a view motivated by a belief that you agree with.

LoL! What an ass. You hear nothing. Understand nothing. Go away. You won't be missed. Troll. Bye!

You libs just can't resist proving me right, can you?

you could repeat yourself again, maybe?

That you lefties can't seem to do anything but call people names, throw around profanity and scream at the top of your lungs, rahter than making intelligent arguments and having adult discourse. Oh well...

That you lefties can't seem to do anything but call people names, throw around profanity and scream at the top of your lungs, rahter than making intelligent arguments and having adult discourse. Oh well...

When, and on what topic, have you attempted to engage in adult discourse?

again, repeating Kseniya, you don't have a point.

you could repeat yourself again, maybe? I'm sure repeating your non-point yet another time will clarify it for everyone.

LOL

[I'm using your remarks as a launching point to make general remarkds, Ichthyic]

It goes back to what I wrote previously (and which Joe ignored, except to falsely claim an exception for the IDiots), they only come in to attack and to claim that anyone not creationist is Satanic, a dishonest atheist, or some combination of the two. We can either be smooth-talking evil beings, or we can be angry evil beings, the main point is that they were always certain that we were evil (Joe seems to accept a version of that).

I grew up creationist, I know of what I speak. The "liberal" and "magnanimous" creationists would allow that some evolutionists were simply mistaken, and not deliberately opposed to God.

And it doesn't take long to recognize that this was exactly Phillip Johnson's opening volley of ID criticisms of ID entailed, along with the Wedge Document. Every bit of ID has merely reinforced the notions that we are simply as we are because we're atheists and/or dupes of atheists. They never deal adequately with the large numbers of theistic evolutionists of various religions, mainly because their very "basis" for attacking biological science rests on false notions of a priori commitments to "naturalism" or to "materialism" (I realize that science can be understood in terms of a kind of "naturalism," but such notions are not fundamental to the scientific enterprise).

Indeed, ID typically (I know exceptions can be found, I'm speaking in general) lumps all opposition to ID, all responses to ID's mistakes and false assertions, as coming from essentially atheistic commitments. None of the exceptions or arguments against such stupidity and dishonesty have any effect, for if it is admitted that we do not persecute them for simply being theistic, the whole basis of their attempts to change science so that it includes magical notions such as ID has been destroyed.

The truth is that ID is what has a thoroughgoing prejudice against science, while the creationists have traditionally been opposed to science only in an ad hoc manner (they have picked up some of the generally anti-science arguments of the IDists more in recent years). ID is fundamentally wrong if science is not prejudiced against theists, which is why ID is the version of creationism most completely committed to portraying scientists as prejudiced and dishonest persons.

There is no way that such an ideology can be honestly given any respect.

When, and on what topic, have you attempted to engage in adult discourse?

This question from someone who tells people to "fuck off" when they ask him to support his arguments. Then again, I suppose, in your world, this qualifies as "adult discourse".

You libs just can't resist proving me right, can you?

That you lefties can't seem to do anything but call people names, throw around profanity and scream at the top of your lungs, rahter than making intelligent arguments and having adult discourse. Oh well...

Since when did "liberal" become synonymous with "leftist"? I've often wondered that.

When, and on what topic, have you attempted to engage in adult discourse?

That, and where elephants go to cash their Las Vegas winnings are the two greatest mysteries of the Universe.

I'll repeat my question,

When, and on what topic, have you attempted to engage in adult discourse?

This question from someone who tells people to "fuck off" when they ask him to support his arguments. Then again, I suppose, in your world, this qualifies as "adult discourse".

I haven't used the phrase "fuck off" once, nor am I a liberal, and I'd love to know the answer to that question too. So perhaps you'll answer when I ask...

When, and on what topic, have you attempted to engage in adult discourse?

When, and on what topic, have you attempted to engage in adult discourse?

Every day of my life, on numerous topics.

Ah, now it's going to try and play cute little games because, well, it's a troll who has nothing, who exists for, well, no reason whatsover.

Ta ta now fuckwit. (get the fainting couch ready)

That's not good enough, wtf.

So try it again, this time with evidence of actually having attempted to engage in adult discourse.

I don't think he's capable, Null. Trolls lack depth and a capacity to understand nuance.

Ah, now it's going to try and play cute little games because, well, it's a troll who has nothing, who exists for, well, no reason whatsover.

Ta ta now fuckwit. (get the fainting couch ready)

Thus proving me right ONE MORE TIME! And as a special bonus, we have the making up of a new word "fuckwit". What is that, exactly? Someone who makes clever cracks about fornicatin'?

And as a special bonus, we have the making up of a new word "fuckwit".

Wow, someone hasn't been around here for about oh, say, two years.

Don't like being called one, stop acting like one. Pretty simple. But, for one who thinks that swearing is more important than, say, lying, what should i expect.

Ooooohhh! You use bad words and act like a big mean old poopy head.

Ooooohhh! You use bad words and act like a big mean old poopy head.

Nah, I'm just a bitchy queen.

Don't like being called one, stop acting like one. Pretty simple.

You mean, stop telling the truth about you left-lib types? But then I would have to lie, wouldn't I?

But, for one who thinks that swearing is more important than, say, lying, what should i expect.

I never said that, but then, what should we expect from a liberal? Lies are their stock in trade. They just use more colourful, made-up language to do it.

wtf: You really don't get it, do you? Do you want to know why I responded to you the way I did? Because you came in and made an utterly pointless political generalization based on an argument about science vs. pseudoscience. You get called on it, and you cry victim. As I said, witfee, you're part of the problem. I predict that your next response will prove me right yet again!

Please don't feed the troll.

Look at wtf's record here, starting at #1105: there's absolutely no content in any of his posts. Just ignore him.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, before you accuse liberals of telling lies at the top of lungs, please look at two of the most loud mouths going. That would be Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Funny, thing, they also play fast and loose with the truth.

You see, being a loud liar is not dependant on one politics. And you yelling those points will not make it anymore true.

Hey! I'm prescient. Cool. Witfee posted comment #1136, thus proving me right ONE MORE TIME!

Since when did "liberal" become synonymous with "leftist"? I've often wondered that.

IIRC, it was a deliberate effort on the part of neocons that started in the late 70's, building on efforts to label all things disagreeable "communist" in the 50's.

It's become an often used technique in the conservative toolkit since:

pick a term that is was associated positively or neutrally with your opponent, then associate that term with negative things to artificially redefine it. Swiftboating seems the extension of this to actual historical events.

"Darwinist" being another great example. 20 years ago, not many in evolutionary biology would have thought the label had a negative connotation to it (even if some might have felt it rather inapplicable), but it's misusage and misassociation by creobots and pundits has indeed now been effective in "tainting" it in the public eye.

Brave new world.

meh, I'm sure there are many websites documenting the changes in the usage of the word "liberal".

let's see...

yeah. there appears to be a few out there; try using the search term:

"liberal dirty word"

wtf: You really don't get it, do you? Do you want to know why I responded to you the way I did? Because you came in and made an utterly pointless political generalization based on an argument about science vs. pseudoscience.

Actually, it wasn't pointless, it was true. Just look at some of the comments in this thread. Religionists see that and it only reinforces their belief that scientists are immature overgrown children with no social graces who can't make a reasonable argument.

You get called on it, and you cry victim.

I didn't "cry" victim, or anything else.

As I said, witfee, you're part of the problem. I predict that your next response will prove me right yet again!

And I predict that at least one response to the current comment will prove me right yet again.

So, Joe, please explain to us why we should be diplomatic with nuisance trolls such as "wtf"?

Perhaps you could make a pitch to the Vatican to open dialog with Fred Phelps, a demented old man who, among other things, preaches that the Roman Catholic Church is actually a Satanic organization founded by ancient Egyptian followers of the legendary King Nimrod, alleged first ruler of Babylon?

Please don't feed the troll.

Well, whaddaya know? The leader of the cabal comes in and proves me right, yet again! Go figure.

that's it, I call Shenanigans on wtf.

everybody, get your broom.

How dare we not be nice to neo-confederates, anti-science liars, and general idiots that have come to defend the lies of the Expelled fools, and then who criticize us for not being nice to neo-confederates, anti-science liars, and general idiots.

Damn, we're rotten people for not being nice and giving them the benefit of doubts they don't deserve.

How dare we not be nice to neo-confederates, anti-science liars, and general idiots that have come to defend the lies of the Expelled fools, and then who criticize us for not being nice to neo-confederates, anti-science liars, and general idiots.

False dichotomy, and you know it.

Actually, it wasn't pointless, it was true. Just look at some of the comments in this thread.

I looked over the comments in this thread, and nowhere did I see any identifying information which would indicate that the person speaking was "liberal", "leftist", "centrist", "Communist", "anarchist", "fascist", or any other variety of -ist. Perhaps you could tell me how liberals are the ones who exclusively "shout", "call names", "insult", and how you know for a fact that the posters whom you allege have been doing this are, in fact, liberals?

Perhaps you could tell me how liberals are the ones who exclusively "shout", "call names", "insult", and how you know for a fact that the posters whom you allege have been doing this are, in fact, liberals?

Another false dichotomy. I never said liberals exclusively did these things, just that it is one of the main tools of their arsenal. As to knowing that they are liberals, well, on this thread, they are the ones taking what would be considered the "liberal" position.

Religionists see that and it only reinforces their belief that scientists are immature overgrown children with no social graces who can't make a reasonable argument.

Oh ... so it's scientists you (now) object to.

Or are you (now) claiming that Scientist = Liberal?

Either you're a liar, or you're moving the goalposts. Either way, it's dishonest. Bye. (Again.)

on this thread, they are the ones taking what would be considered the "liberal" position.

the pro-science and historical accuracy position. You know, evolutionary theory is the best explanation we have; the Expelled folks are liars, particularly in tying evolutionary theory European totalitarian movements; the Confederacy was treasonous and the states did secede over slavery.......

I'll take that liberal position any day.

Another false dichotomy.

don't make me call on Inigo Montoya to get medieval on your ass.

Another false dichotomy. I never said liberals exclusively did these things, just that it is one of the main tools of their arsenal.

You obviously don't know what the words "false dichotomy" mean.

And I never claimed that you did say that. However, it must be the case that liberals do this exclusively for your identification of the people here as "liberal" to have any force whatsoever. If it doesn't, then you don't have a point to make at all.

As to knowing that they are liberals, well, on this thread, they are the ones taking what would be considered the "liberal" position.

Which, of course, does nothing to indicate that they are liberals; it only indicates the extent of your ignorance of politics.

Oh ... so it's scientists you (now) object to.

Please learn to read. I never objected to scientists.

Or are you (now) claiming that Scientist = Liberal?

I made no such claim.

Either you're a liar, or you're moving the goalposts. Either way, it's dishonest. Bye. (Again.)

Project much?

Let me put it into simpler language. This is a science blog (allegedly). Religionists (of which I'm not one) read it and think that it is representative of the arguments made by scientists against religion. Seeing the schoolyard-level insults and profanity only reinforces their belief that evolution is evil and all them scientists are out to destroy America. Do you really think calling people "fuckwits" is going to change their minds? If so, go right on doing it. Once we're all living in a theocracy, I'll be sure to thank you.

No, you sad sack of shit, you only claimed the yelling names at the top of one's lungs was a liberal tactic.

And for my last trick, I will prove you are, in fact, a sad sack of shit. You call PZ the leader of this cabal. This is not a cabal. PZ is not anyone's leader. He merely just runs this webpage.

No please go outside. You are stinking up my computer.

As to knowing that they are liberals, well, on this thread, they are the ones taking what would be considered the "liberal" position.

Which, of course, does nothing to indicate that they are liberals; it only indicates the extent of your ignorance of politics.

Hey, that's pretty good. Someone who takes a liberal position isn't a liberal! So I guess that means someone who believes in a god isn't necessarily a creationist, and someone who believes in slavery can also be an abolitionist. And to think all these years I've believed that words had meaning.

I made no such claim.

Liar.

Project much?

LMAO. Please explain how I have either a) lied, or b) moved the goalposts.

Let me put it into simpler language.

Yawn. Another condescending conservative.

This is a science blog (allegedly). Religionists (of which I'm not one) read it and think that it is representative of the arguments made by scientists against religion. Seeing the schoolyard-level insults and profanity only reinforces their belief that evolution is evil and all them scientists are out to destroy America. Do you really think calling people "fuckwits" is going to change their minds? If so, go right on doing it. Once we're all living in a theocracy, I'll be sure to thank you.

And what does this have to do with your original claim?

Oh wait, I know:

NOTHING.

So I guess that means someone who believes in a god isn't necessarily a creationist,

Actually, that's true! (See: Blind Squirrel/Nut metaphor.)

No, you sad sack of shit, you only claimed the yelling names at the top of one's lungs was a liberal tactic.

That is a true statement. As I said, look at some of the comments here. It is a tactic commonly used by liberals, which makes it a liberal tactic (as you have just demonstrated by calling me a "sad sack of shit").

And for my last trick, I will prove you are, in fact, a sad sack of shit.

And you did it again!

You call PZ the leader of this cabal. This is not a cabal. PZ is not anyone's leader. He merely just runs this webpage.

Merriam-Webster Online defines "cabal" as a synonym for group, and defines group as "a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship". So yes, it is a cabal. And since most of the commenters (reflexively?) agree with what P. Z. posts, that makes him a de facto leader.

No please go outside. You are stinking up my computer.

Can't resist, can you?

I made no such claim.
Liar.

Ok, point out where I made the claim that scientist = liberal. Must have been those invisible pixels that I used.

LMAO. Please explain how I have either a) lied

By putting words into my mouth.

Yawn. Another condescending conservative.

Proven right yet again!

And what does this have to do with your original claim?

Only everything, since that WAS my original claim.

Please learn to read. I never objected to scientists.

Typical conservative tactic: Accusing ones opponents of illiteracy instead of actually making an argument.

You:

Actually, [my claim that name-calling is a liberal tactic] wasn't pointless, it was true. Just look at some of the comments in this thread. Religionists see that and it only reinforces their belief that scientists are immature overgrown children with no social graces who can't make a reasonable argument.

... And to think all these years I've believed that words had meaning.

Coulda fooled me.

Thanks, though, for acknowleging that "the liberal position" is reality-based, and that the... other position is... "like, whatever." Sweet!

Yawn. Another condescending conservative.

Proven right yet again!

This running gag is priceless! You've made my night! Don't you GET the fact that I'm lampooning your original claim? Apparently not. I objected to your blanket generalization; why would I be so mindlessly hypocritical as to start making them (seriously) myself? Oh wait, let me guess: because hypocrisy is "the liberal way." Didn't I mention that my best friend is a Republican? No? Oh. My bad.

So. Speaking of reading, why not take a step back and read what I wrote, and not what you think I wrote? I suppose you object to my "feces" comment Well, I apologize for the crude and vulgar nature of the metaphor, but perhaps you missed my point, so let me put it into simpler language, and I won't further insult your intelligence by doubting your ability to identify the metaphorical elements therein: You waltzed in and proceeded to smear and besmirch an entire set of people with a substance entirely of your own making. That, Witfee, is as offensive as any four-letter word you could have pulled out.

Only everything, since that WAS my original claim.

Liar.

Oh, wait. God, I am so dense!

"wtf" is a sockpuppet for Joe! I get it now! Ok, Joe, that was your original claim. So you're not a liar. I take it all back.

However, sockpuppetry is a bannable offense.

Thank you for playing our game. Do stop in again sometime. Or, not.

Oh, goody! The sad sack of shit dissected one of my posts. I feel so vindicated that a person of such obviously sterling qualities deemed to correct me of the errors of my ways.

I am convinced now. The High Lord King PZ and his gang of drooling sycophants has been revealed for who trey truly are. I now have the strength of mind to leave all of this behind.

Thank you so very much, WTF!

WHAT THE FUCK?

Wait! This cannot be. You have used a swear word as your signature. If you cannot trust a loud mouthed repetitive conservative, who can you trust?

"wtf" does not have the same IP as the "Joe" who posted in this thread, but he does have the same IP as "Joe Blow" and "Second Amendment Sister" and "Mental Midget" who have posted elsewhere here.

wtf" does not have the same IP as the "Joe" who posted in this thread, but he does have the same IP as "Joe Blow" and "Second Amendment Sister" and "Mental Midget" who have posted elsewhere here.

wait, so is that MORPHING or SOCKPUPPETRY?

Oh! Well. That does suggest that they are not the same person, and if that's true, then "wtf" is a liar, and our political philosopher Joe is apparently not guilty of sockpuppetry.

Identical IP addresses don't prove anything other than that commenters who share that address are behind the same firewall. In that case, they'd all show the same IP address - the address of the firewall's "outside" NIC - right? So maybe they're housemates, or all work in the same office (at all hours, apparently) or live in the same dorm, or something like that.

But IIRC, Joe Blow claims to be a 30-something working man, so it's unlikely that it's a dorm situation. The hours suggest it's not a typical office (though it could be a 24-hour operation of some kind), and even if we rule that out, we're still left with the housemates scenario.

I wonder if all the "Joe Blow" comments came from the same person. It's a very common name (LOL) and some of the comments submitted by that name have a rather different tone from those submitted by the guy who likes to condemn pretty much everyone who disagrees with him as a "MoveOn.org Liberal."

Oh, wait. Never mind. ;-)

Hey, that's pretty good. Someone who takes a liberal position isn't a liberal!

No, someone who takes something you call a liberal position isn't necessarily a liberal, because you know sod-all about politics. Case in point: accepting mainstream science isn't necessarily a liberal position. Others who are not liberals, like myself, can and do accept mainstream science. There are right-wingers who accept mainstream science as well, although they are being shoved out by doctrinaire idiots from the religious right.

So I guess that means someone who believes in a god isn't necessarily a creationist....

Exactly! In fact, there can be many people who believe in a god and accept evolution as well, e.g. Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala.

And to think all these years I've believed that words had meaning.

You're not behaving as if they have meaning in practice. In fact, I would say that you're blissfully skipping over the actual meaning in order to generate the tortured readings that suit your trollish behaviour.

Not to feed the troll, but to deal with the issues of stereotyping that we get from such trolls, here's the winner of the Templeton prize, at First Things (a conservative religious mag, which has been too friendly to ID for my tastes, but has certainly given much space to pro-evolution articles), pointing out what is wrong with ID and creationism:

Deciphering the Mind of God
By Michael Heller

Monday, March 17, 2008, 6:20 AM
The seventeenth-century German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is my philosophical hero. I am proud (but not quite happy) that I share with this great philosopher at least one feature. He was a master in spreading, not to say dissipating, his genius into too many fields of interest. If he had a greater ability to concentrate on fewer problems, he would have become not only a precursor but also a real creator of several momentous scientific achievements. But in such a case, the history of philosophy would be poorer by one of its greatest thinkers. This is not to say that in my case the history of philosophy would lose anything. This is only to stress the fact that I am interested in too many things.

Amongst my numerous fascinations, two have most imposed themselves and proven more time resistant than others: science and religion. I also am too ambitious. I always wanted to do the most important things, and what can be more important than science and religion? Science gives us Knowledge, and religion gives us Meaning. Both are prerequisites of a decent existence. The paradox is that these two great values seem often to be in conflict. I am frequently asked how I could reconcile them with each other. When such a question is posed by a scientist or a philosopher, I invariably wonder how educated people could be so blind as not to see that science does nothing else but explore God's creation. To see what I mean, let us go to Leibniz.

In a copy of his Dialogus, in the margin we find a short sentence written in his own hand. It reads: "When God calculates and thinks things through, the world is made." Everybody has some experience in dealing with numbers, and everybody, at least sometimes, experiences a feeling of necessity involved in the process of calculating. We can easily be led astray when thinking about everyday matters or pondering all pros and cons when facing an important decision, but when we have to add or multiply even big numbers everything goes almost mechanically. This is a routine task, and if we are cautious enough there is no doubt as far as the final result is concerned. However, the true mathematical thinking begins when one has to solve a real problem, that is to say, to identify a mathematical structure that would match the conditions of the problem, to understand principles of its functioning, to grasp connections with other mathematical structures, and to deduce the consequences implied by the logic of the problem. Such manipulations of structures are always immersed into various calculations, since calculations form a natural language of mathematical structures.

It is more or less such an image that we should associate with Leibniz's metaphor of calculating God. Things thought through by God should be identified with mathematical structures interpreted as structures of the world. Since for God to plan is the same as to implement the plan, when "God calculates and thinks things through," the world is created.

We have mastered a lot of calculation techniques. We are able to think things through in our human way. Can we imitate God in His creating activity?

In 1915, Albert Einstein wrote down his famous equations of the gravitational field. The road leading to them was painful and laborious--a combination of deep thinking and the tedious work of doing calculations. From the beginning, Einstein saw an inadequacy of Newton's time-honored theory of gravity: It did not fit into the spatio-temporal pattern of special relativity, which was a synthesis of classical mechanics and Maxwell's electrodynamical theory. He was hunting for some empirical clues that would narrow the field of possibilities. He found some in the question, Why is inertial mass equal to gravitational mass in spite of the fact that, in Newton's theory, they are completely independent concepts? He tried to implement his ideas into a mathematical model. Several attempts failed. At a certain stage, he understood that he could not go further without studying tensorial calculus and Riemannian geometry. It is the matter distribution that generates space-time geometry, and the space-time geometry that determines the motions of matter. How to express this illuminating idea in the form of mathematical equations? When finally, after many weeks of exhausting work, the equations emerged before his astonished eyes, a new world had been created.

In the beginning, only three, numerically small, empirical effects corroborated Einstein's new theory. But the world newly created by Einstein soon became an independent reality. Yet, in his early work, the field equations suggested to Einstein the existence of solutions describing an expanding universe. He discarded them by modifying his original equations, but in less than two decades it turned out that the equations were wiser than Einstein himself: Measurements of galactic spectra revealed that, indeed, the universe is expanding. In the subsequent period, lasting until now, theoretical physicists and mathematicians have found a host of new solutions to Einstein's equations and interpreted them as representing gravitational waves, cosmic strings, neutron stars, stationary and rotating black holes, gravitational lensing, dark matter and dark energy, late stages of life of massive stars, and various aspects of cosmic evolution. In Einstein's time, nobody would have even suspected the existence of such objects and processes, but nearly all of them have been found by astronomers in the real universe.

Perhaps now we better understand Leibniz's idea of God's creating the universe by thinking mathematical structures through. We should only free the above sketched image of creating physical theories from all human constraints and limitations, and take into account a theological truth that for God to intend is to obtain the result, and to obtain the result is to instantiate it. Einstein was not far from Leibniz's idea when he was saying that the only goal of science is to decode the Mind of God present in the structure of the universe.

And what about chancy or random events? Do they destroy mathematical harmony of the universe, and introduce into it elements of chaos and disorder? Is chance a rival force of God's creative Mind, a sort of Manichean principle fighting against goals of creation? But what is chance? It is an event of low probability which happens in spite of the fact that it is of low probability. If one wants to determine whether an event is of low or high probability, one must use the calculus of probability, and the calculus of probability is a mathematical theory as good as any other mathematical theory. Chance and random processes are elements of the mathematical blueprint of the universe in the same way as other aspects of the world architecture.

Mathematical structures that are parts of the composition determining the functioning of the universe are called laws of physics. It is a very subtle composition indeed. Like in any masterly symphony, elements of chance and necessity are interwoven with each other and together span the structure of the whole. Elements of necessity determine the pattern of possibilities and dynamical paths of becoming, but they leave enough room for chancy events to make this becoming rich and individual.

Adherents of the so-called intelligent design ideology commit a grave theological error. They claim that scientific theories that ascribe a great role to chance and random events in the evolutionary processes should be replaced, or supplemented, by theories acknowledging the thread of intelligent design in the universe. Such views are theologically erroneous. They implicitly revive the old Manichean error postulating the existence of two forces acting against each other: God and an inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent design. There is no opposition here. Within the all-comprising Mind of God, what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation.

When contemplating the universe, the question imposes itself: Does the universe need to have a cause? It is clear that causal explanations are a vital part of the scientific method. Various processes in the universe can be displayed as a succession of states in such a way that the preceding state is a cause of the succeeding one. If we look deeper at such processes, we see that there is always a dynamical law prescribing how one state should generate another state. But dynamical laws are expressed in the form of mathematical equations, and if we ask about the cause of the universe we should ask about a cause of mathematical laws. By doing so we are back to the Great Blueprint of God's thinking the universe. The question of ultimate causality is translated into another of Leibniz's questions: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" (from his Principles of Nature and Grace). When asking this question, we are not asking about a cause like all other causes. We are asking about the root of all possible causes.

When thinking about science as deciphering the Mind of God, we should not forget that science is also a collective product of human brains, and the human brain is itself the most complex and sophisticated product of the universe. It is in the human brain that the world's structure has reached its focal point--the ability to reflect upon itself. Science is but a collective effort of the Human Mind to read the Mind of God from the question marks out of which we and the world around us seem to be made. To place ourselves in this double entanglement is to experience that we are a part of the Great Mystery. Another name for this Mystery is the Humble Approach to reality--the motto of all John Templeton Foundation activities. True humility does not consist in pretending that we are feeble and insignificant, but in the audacious acknowledgement that we are an essential part of the Greatest Mystery of all--of the entanglement of the Human Mind with the Mind of God.

Michael (Michał) Heller is a Polish cosmologist and Catholic priest. These remarks were made at the news conference announcing his reception of the 2008 Templeton Prize.

www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=997

It's just like the name-calling of "atheist" that these dolts usually begin any "discussion" of ID vs. science, the same morons claim that it's "liberalism" as well.

Indeed, if evolution and the rest of science were as constricted as the prejudiced name-calling IDists/creationists claimed, one might have reason to doubt that evolutionary theory were honestly developed. The fact that ID and creationism only have name-calling (which "political philosopher" Joe seems unable to grasp) and misrepresentation tells us what our opposition is, incompetent and dishonest liars.

Of course, don't expect any of our trolls to catch onto anything beyond the dishonest prejudices which whipped them up to attack with insults and lies in the first place.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Of course it should be understood that I would disagree with much that Heller said there. But not too strenuously, because although I tend not to think well of religion, I do think well of dissent and of diversity of thought.

I simply do not see why the outright (if likely denied, in most cases) lies of the IDists and their ilk ought to be treated with anything but contempt.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

{pokes head into room, glances around}
yikes, what mess...were you people feeding trolls in here while I was gone?

{pokes head into room, glances around}
yikes, what mess...were you people feeding trolls in here while I was gone?

Yes, but they're so cute when they try to make with the intellection, science, competence. It's like when a baby is learning to talk, or something like that.

Guess we should have known the messes they'd make would take the edge off their cute little tries to be smart.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Without regarding to intellectual analysis there is a very simple reason why darwinists (and science as a whole) are wrong: anger. All through the posts are a whole array of insults to the people who hold ID ideas. That kind of speech shows a form of anger, and anger is a result of FEAR.

Now on the real question, all the Universe is ONE thing. And that one thing is what has been historically known as "God".

Religion (any religion) has gone off-track by painting and outside-of-the-Universe God, and for lots of other reasons not being the subject now. Although the core message of all religions hold Truth.

Worse is the case of science, whose prejudice is a materialist Universe, and materialism... materialism is death. Soul-less Universe. As an example, marxism-communism is derived from materialism, and those -atheist- regimes who have aplied it have largely demonstrated what hell on Earth is.

Now Darwinism states species evolve randomly adapting to the envoironment. The key point is "randomly", which is a biased picking. Scientists use this concept because they see mutations in response to changing environment which provide better adapting traits.

But as everything is One (athough we perceive multiplicity in an illusory way--our senses betray us) the life forms and the environment are both working as a whole system. Darwinists only consider the life forms, and disregard the environment. Thus, mutation is random. But the environment is equal part of the game.

Imagine species that evolve because a water flood has appeared somewhere as temperatures rise. New life forms emerge, others disappear as the landscape changes. If you isolate life forms in the analysis you only see random events. If instead you consider that the temperature rise, that the consequent water flood, that all other events taking place, and the new species evolution are all the same system, then you see purpose. Why you see purpose? Because in the end we are here. And we are conscious. And we are asking ourselves who we are.

You see?

Wow, I thought this thread would've been allowed to die a peaceful death. Over 1100 posts, and still no predictions form the ID folks, right?

Carry on.

blah, blah, anger, blah, blah, blah, FEAR, blah, blah, blah, marxist-Communist, blah, blah, materialist, blah, blah...

Guess what, this type of tripe gets tiring. But you are welcome to try again when you have something that has not been shot down multiple times. (No anger here. Just boredom.)

"there is a very simple reason why darwinists (and science as a whole) are wrong: anger. "

So are we wrong because we're angry? Or are we angry because we're wrong? I mean, it's completely beside the point, but I wish you fellows would at least stay consistant.

"Now on the real question, all the Universe is ONE thing."

That's not a question. You're off to flying start.

"And that one thing is what has been historically known as "God"."

Not really. Most deities are anthropomorphic (or zoomorphic) beings interacting with the world in which we live. By and large, it's only been since science has been flushing God out of his traditional bolt holes that people have been embracing pantheism.

"materialism is death."

How?

"As an example, marxism-communism is derived from materialism, and those -atheist- regimes who have aplied it have largely demonstrated what hell on Earth is."

Agriculture is also derived from materialism. So is medicine. I mean, as long as we're going to argue from consequences that have nothing to do with the validity of a view.

"our senses betray us"

How do you know?

"Why you see purpose?"

Because you're looking for it.

"You see?"

Yes, I see. You have an inflated ego.

"Because in the end we are here. And we are conscious. And we are asking ourselves who we are."

And you see this as being worth the extinction of 99% of all species that have ever lived?

Anger means that dowsing, witchcraft, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Hitler were all correct. You know, cause if these things were wrong, no one would get angry about them. At least every pathetic dolt without a brain thinks so.

Of course they have to reverse the normal course of things. Somehow, I'd think that intelligent people would normally get angry at charlatans and liars like Domingo. Just inverse how reasonable people should act in your justifications for dishonesty and stupidity, and then you can pretend that reasonable people would not become angry at Nazis, theocrats, IDiots.

Well, it's just so much stupidity, piled on to support the rest of their stupidity. The truth is that many of these people believe so much shit they could never claw their way out of their precious lies, even if they were slightly honest intellectually, and had three lives to try to think of how mendacious and retarded their claims are.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Domingo,
A few remarks.

Angrily spitting that 2+2=4 does not invalidate math. The same could be said for any scientific discovery. Spherical world, heliocentrism, evolution, germ theory, etc. So your entire premise is wrong. To then add that anger only rises out of fear, as opposed to indignation for example, is to simply pour salt on the open, gaping wound that is your premise.

And from there you seem to go downhill.

Frankly my boy, there is tons more wrong in your post in just about every sentence. But I don't have the patience to correct every last dogmatic misconception that you've been fed and you show no possibility of correcting. If you had indeed read all the posts on this thread you would doubtless have stumbled across a vast group of posts that clearly explain how and why ID is incorrect. But, you have ignored all of them, only to spout out your own post of unsupported drivel. Please, refrain from doing so again.

As for myself, I'm wondering if you have any predictions made by ID? The method of its study and the mechanism by which it works? Or have you, like all the rest, arrogantly walked into the domain of science whilst being totally ignorant of it?

Random evolution is so stupid I'm not surprised it is the established paradigm. What a joke.

It states something like by randomly letting fall little stones -each with one letter printed on it- on a kind of running strip, so that they rest in line one after another and repeating this operation continously in time, after millions, or hundreds of millions -or whatever- of years of senseless sequence, given that time "Don Quixote", "War and Peace", and a Samsung video-camera handbook would be readable. Darwinist book-writing.

Sounds stupid? Well, darwinism is even more stupid, because the human body is made by far more letters (atoms) than the mentioned books, and the alphabet is also 4 times bigger (more than a hundred differet atoms vs. 24 letters), and the variety of resulting different living spieces is huge vs. just 3 books, so the possible combinations are far far FAR bigger. Also the intelligence involved in a human body is incredibly more complex than that of the books (no human mind can create a full man, and the books were man-created).

So, in the end, the chances of we being here are... ummm... exactly... cero.

That's what XXI century materialist science has to tell us. That we are a cero chance event. Take that.

Say it with me Domingo "Evolution is not based entirely on chance."

The mutations may be random, which ones are kept is not.
Also, once certain adaptations arise, it makes it easier for other adaptations to arise. The odds do not remain the same.
If you can't figure this out, there is no hope for you.

I'll also add, that you have produced no evidence in support of ID.

But no one will be surprised...

Um... I don't even know what a cero chance event is.

Domingo, you do realize that your description of evolution shows that you have NO IDEA what it is, right?

And you do realize that you can't explain why something is wrong if you don't know what that something IS, right?

"Sounds stupid?"

Yes, you do. You obviously haven't read even the barest information on what evolution actually is, and yet you feel confident in completely dismissing it. Ignorance + arrogance = stupidity.

"I'll also add, that you have produced no evidence in support of ID."

Sure he has! The evidence is that we, like, exist! Doesn't that totally blow your mind?

Michael X, you have the evidence of ID just in front of your eyes. But you don't want to see it. Because your position is biased by scientific paradigms (which always change, by the way, for example we're not in the newtonian billiards-table Universe.

Think for just one second you are a small child, no prejudices, no scientific nor religious nor philosophical stuff in your mind. Just you as you are. Look at yourself in the mirror. And ask yourself how it is that you are.

That's the evidence. But you don't want to see it.

Rey, my mind is so totally fucking blown dude...

Where has Domingo's message of assertion based truth and scientific mastery been my whole shallow, materialistic, evidence based, evil-atheist life?

Domingo, you don't have a TV show that I could send my money to do you?

(No anger here. Just boredom.)

welcome to the world of the anti-scientist.

posting nonsense on internet blogs is about as exciting as it gets for them.

they can't possibly be bothered to see that a million idiots have said exactly the same BS before them, because of course, they came up with the same BS all on their own...

LOL

"Um... I don't even know what a cero chance event is. "

It's "zero" in Spanish. Of course, that doesn't excuse his believing that the alphabet has only 24 letters (in Spanish, there are at least 27), nor his not realizing that there are only 4 "letters" (nucleotides) in the genetic "alphabet", or only 20 amino acids used in body proteins, or that rather few of those "more than a hundred different atoms*" are used in any of those nucleotides or proteins.

* He can apparently read the numbers on the Periodic Table of Elements, I'll give him an eighth of a point for that.

Sounds stupid? Well, darwinism is even more stupid, because the human body is made by far more letters (atoms) than the mentioned books, and the alphabet is also 4 times bigger (more than a hundred differet atoms vs. 24 letters), and the variety of resulting different living spieces is huge vs. just 3 books, so the possible combinations are far far FAR bigger.

Anyone who seriously compares letters with atoms has slipped into the stupid zone. 'Tis what happens when one takes analogy to seriously. But I guess it is the only game you have, you have no facts.

Pushing the tortured analogy bit; how does words not get stuck in my throat when I drink a glass of water?

Evidence of WHAT Domingo? What looney bunch of cultists couldn't use that exact same post of yours as evidence for their beliefs? And how would you try to refute them then?

If I were a totally ignorant fully grown human, I'd want to figure everything out. And how would I do that? How would I figure out which hypothesis were correct?

The scientific method. Paradigms shift because scientists shift them, using the scientific method.

Now, prove to me that you have half a clue about science and provide testable evidence for ID, or please find another group of people to bother.

Michael X domingo, you have the evidence of ID just evolution in front of your eyes. But you don't want to [look in a mirror] to see it.

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work…

Think for just one second you are a small child, no prejudices, no scientific nor religious nor philosophical stuff in your mind. Just you as you are.

Magical. Apparently the only evidence for ID can only be understood from the point of view of complete ignorance.

Domingo, why don't you just run along while the grown-up scientists are busy? They're using the scientific method to cure diseases and all that, and you're telling them that they're misguided. Think about your hypocrisy the next time you take an antibiotic.

Now Darwinism states species evolve randomly adapting to the envoironment. The key point is "randomly", which is a biased picking. Scientists use this concept because they see mutations in response to changing environment which provide better adapting traits.

If I had to invent an ignorant creationist screed to illustrate how creationists persistently misunderstand even the basic concepts of evolution, I doubt I could have done better than the above.

I mean seriously, "randomly adapting"? The whole point of natural selection is that it's non-random with respect to reproductive fitness.

Secondly, scientists do not see adaptive mutations arising due to changes in the environment. That is pure Lamarckism and has been debunked for longer than the Modern Synthesis has existed.

The whole response is an Epic Fail, and Domingo needs to sit down with John Maynard Smith's The Theory of Evolution or Zimmer's Evolution for a basic introduction into concepts which he obviously doesn't understand well enough to critique intelligently.

Because your position is biased by scientific paradigms (which always change, by the way, for example we're not in the newtonian billiards-table Universe.

And how is that wrong? There are always new facts being learned. These changes occur because why know have a better understanding of what is around us. New theories are formed and old theories are changed to fit what we know.

Apparently the only evidence for ID can only be understood from the point of view of complete ignorance.

a bit of an oxymoron, pairing the concept of "ignorance" with "understood", but in this case, it does indeed fit.

There are simply NO supporters of ID that have even a high school level grasp of evolutionary theory, or its application in the field, or even basic biology, geology, physics, etc. that also have contributed to how the theory explains what we observe.

ignorance indeed is all that supports it, and fear of being called out by their peers for being utterly ignorant causes them to huddle together in like-minded masses of jello-heads, looking for a pat on the head from their pastor or priest, or other religious peers, for spouting nonsense as if it were in any way anything other than bullshit.

MichaelX, I put the example of the child image because a totally unbiased mind is needed to INSTINCTIVELY know the Truth. Once you start filling your head with things you're lost. Once you believe in something and THINK on it as true, whatever it is, you don't instinctively know the truth. Because the Truth is not about thinking.

That's what buddhists (and other mysticals from other religions) do. They empty their minds and just know the Truth.

a bit of an oxymoron, pairing the concept of "ignorance" with "understood", but in this case, it does indeed fit.

Ichthyic, you're only saying that because you don't have the proper ignorance to understand the importance of ignorance to understanding. Pretend you are a small child...

I put the example of the child image because a totally unbiased mind is needed to INSTINCTIVELY know the Truth.

ask the same "unbiased" child if the world is flat for us, would ya domingo?

That's what buddhists (and other mysticals from other religions) do. They empty their minds and just know the Truth.

"I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

uh, domingo... I hate to tell ya, but your brains apparently fell out somewhere along the way.

Pretend you are a small child...

Can I have a cookie?

buy me that toy!

I don' wanna go to sleep now!

OK... I'm ready...

The whole response is an Epic Fail, and Domingo needs to sit down with John Maynard Smith's The Theory of Evolution or Zimmer's Evolution for a basic introduction into concepts which he obviously doesn't understand well enough to critique intelligently.

After all these years, I still recommend Futuyma's text ( Evolutionary Biology ) as both a good introduction to, and a good coverage of the ToE and related supporting knowledge.

On a tangent, it still galls me to no end that the place where Futuyma hangs his hat is the same place that serves as home to Michael - I ignore everything that doesn't fit my religious projections - Egnor, and that Stonybrook STILL has not gone on record as disavowing what that fool is saying. Hell, even Behe's uni and dept. has gone on record to document how they point and laugh at Behe.

Janine, there's nothing wrong with changing scientific paradigms except... that you're attacked if you oppose them.

Until they change.

that you're attacked challenged if you oppose them.

there, fixed that for you.

would you prefer to see major shifts in thought that go completely unchallenged?

oh wait, nevermind, forgot who I was asking.

OK, Domingo, I'm still not getting it. Can you give me some more examples of empty-minded, child-like, instinctive Truth®?

All this science has left me so sad and empty...

MichaelX, I put the example of the child image because a totally unbiased mind is needed to INSTINCTIVELY know the Truth. Once you start filling your head with things you're lost. Once you believe in something and THINK on it as true, whatever it is, you don't instinctively know the truth. Because the Truth is not about thinking.

That's what buddhists (and other mysticals from other religions) do. They empty their minds and just know the Truth.

So much wrong, so little time in this lifespan to correct it...

Among other things, Michael, confronting THE TRUTH does very little good to anyone if you do not know anything at all about THE TRUTH when it's breaking down your door so it can inject you with digestive enzymes.

Buddhism does not advocate eliminating bias, nor does it advocate against learning things: hell, Buddhists regard ignorance as one of the greatest sins, especially when committed in conjunction with arrogance, like what you're doing now.

When they say, "clear your mind of thoughts/distractions," they're saying to focus on what you need to think about when you're going to meditate. If you don't have anything to think about when you're going to meditate, you might as well take a nap during meditation time. And the monks will kick you out of the temple if you try to use the meditation chambers as nap time.

Furthermore, meditation is largely useless as a tool if it's not used in conjunction with studying. Ever hear of the term "navel contemplation"?

Domingo, if you are going to attack a scientific paradigm, you better have the facts to back up up your challenge. Revealed knowledge and tortured analogy does not make the cut.

I just happen to know bad arguments when I see them. You best try to play with the bigger fish here over the facts. And you have none. And in this case, I have no pity for the unarmed IDiot. Have fun.

Janine, there's nothing wrong with changing scientific paradigms except... that you're attacked if you oppose them.

Until they change.

It is extremely easy to change scientific paradigms if one has gathered scientific evidence that they are wrong.

Domingo is too dim and too arrogant to realize that people who insisting on changing a scientific paradigm without any evidence will be rightly attacked, shunned and snubbed.

Domingo, you would have a great time discussing materialism and Marxism with Joe, who posted at comment #1073. See, he's a Socialist who follows Marx, but is also a Catholic, and a mystic.

Hammer it out with him on which of you is wrong on the whole Marxism/Communism/Materialism business.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, you're completely confused on the way science works.

Because the Truth is not about thinking.

And how can you know that without thinking about it?

Oh, and while some of Buddhism is as mystical as you say, other schools and branches are very pragmatic, and argue that if any of the teachings of Buddhism are in conflict with the knowledge gained by science, it is those teachings of Buddhism that must be rejected, and not the other way around.

I just happen to know bad arguments when I see them.

Instinctively?

:p

Owlimirror hits it on the head.

Just how can you be so sure that "the truth" is not about thinking? Did you not-think yourself to that answer as well?

I just happen to know bad arguments when I see them.

Instinctively?

:p

Posted by: Ichthyic

No. I do not trust instincts. But than, I find that most of what people call instincts are actually learned.
'raspberry'

"Because the Truth is not about thinking."

Because thinking is hard.

Because thinking is hard.

"Makes me wanna go poopy."

-Lewis Black

Thought (mind) is just a tool, not the real thing. When you consider you are your mind you're identifying yourself with a tool.

Mind cannot grasp the Truth. Because the Truth is using mind. How can a tool know its user?

You are a wave on the surface of Being, but Being is ONE, and thus you're that One. But as a confused wave you think that you're independent from the rest of the waves and also independent from the Ocean below. But a wave is no real stuff, just a pattern.

Trough you the Universe meets itself.

What you're seeing is what you are.

Out of this confusion you try to figure it out. And you think, think a lot, and invent philosophy, and religion, and finally you think you have made it with Science. You think that now you know. But you don't.

An empty unbiased mind can see the Ocean that sustain it, and has no more fear. That's what the Buddha did. That's what Jesus did.

Through thinking and struggling you come back to the isolated poor little wave who can't see the Ocean.

Bye!

The sad thing is, Domingo will continue to hypocritically use all of the conveniences that science has brought him or her, while criticising the people who make those conveniences possible FOR USING THE METHOD by which those conveniences are made possible.

Alleging that the (human) mind is "a tool of Truth" is timecube material.

Domingo, you are a nonsensical moron who wallows in his own ignorance.

Good riddance.

Out of this confusion you try to figure it out. And you think, think a lot, and invent philosophy, and religion,

actually, religion came either before or at the same time, but regardless, they were simplistic mechanisms for trying to explain and predict the world around us.

They failed. miserably.

and finally you think you have made it with Science.

the reason we think that is we actually have independent feedback to show how successful it has been at actually figuring out how things work, and lets us make accurate and useful predictions.

You think that now you know. But you don't.

show us how sophistry leads to a better understanding of the world there, Mr. Guru.

bye!

awww, now we'll never know...

dude, have you like, ever looked at the back of your hand? I mean really *looked* at it?

ROFLMAO

Honestly, gibberish like that wouldn't annoy me nearly as much if it weren't applied in such a patently arbitrary fashion. How do people like this manage to feed and clothe themselves?

"I FEEL hungry, and the clock says it's time to eat, but maybe the Truth is using my mind. I am SEPARATE from my mind, so maybe it's just my mind that's hungry, not me."

"I SEE that the stoplight ahead has turned red, but I don't know whether I need to break, because my mind cannot grasp the Universe. And anyway, Truth is using my mind, so I'll just have to pretend to be a small child, and intuitively guess which pedal is the break and which is the gas."

and etc.

Somehow, the "Being is One" stuff goes out the window when said person recognizes that he or she has tangible interests at stake.

That was so amorphous that it borders on meaningless.

There is a huge difference between proclaiming the truth of evolution and proclaiming The Truth. The former is merely how one aspect of life works. The latter is such a huge concept that is does not bear thinking about.

Oh, yet an other tortured analogy, The Ocean. Guess what, there are many ways one can view the ocean. It can be a pleasant place to vacation. It can be on what you travel on. It where one can find the power of tidal activity. It can be where one finds the cradle of life. It can be where a staggering array of life can be found. It can be where treasure hunters can find their bounty. It can be where marine biologists can find their bounty. It can be where a continent of trash can be found. They are all equally true. And so many more statements about the ocean are equally true. And all of them are more interesting than your idea of the unbiased mind being able to see The Ocean.

And I will end with one of the many statements attributed to The Buddha. If you see The Buddha traveling down the road, kill him.

Buh-Bye!

(...industrial-grade woo...) But a wave is no real stuff, just a pattern. (...more industrial-grade woo...)

Yeah, that made sense.

There was once a mystic who had a disciple. The mystic taught the disciple that all was illusion; himself, the student, the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth below, all animals and plants — everything. They passed from village to village, teaching this, and receiving food pressed on them by those who were impressed by the teachings.

One day, they passed some people running in terror, screaming that a rogue elephant was charging down the road. The disciple just stood there as they ran past, while the thundering footsteps and the angry noises made by the elephant came closer and closer, while the mystic looked for cover. Seeing that the disciple was waiting calmly as the elephant approached, the mystic grabbed the disciple and pulled him behind some think plant growth.

After the elephant thundered past, the mystic asked, "Why did you just stand there?!?!". The disciple in turn responded: "Because you told me that all was illusion! Surely the elephant was an illusion, as is my own body as well! Why did you hide?"

The mystic looked at the disciple as if he was the dumbest person he'd ever seen.

"Because the illusion of one's body being trampled by the illusion of an elephant has the illusion of hurting a fuck of a lot and probably killing you, you moron!"

Oh, yet an other tortured analogy, The Ocean. Guess what, there are many ways one can view the ocean. It can be a pleasant place to vacation. It can be on what you travel on. It where one can find the power of tidal activity. It can be where one finds the cradle of life. It can be where a staggering array of life can be found. It can be where treasure hunters can find their bounty. It can be where marine biologists can find their bounty. It can be where a continent of trash can be found. They are all equally true. And so many more statements about the ocean are equally true. And all of them are more interesting than your idea of the unbiased mind being able to see The Ocean.

I love going to the beach. Skittering to and fro in the surf, looking for molecrabs. I always get a big kick out of finding sand dollars and violet olive shells.

I drove my sister and brother-in-law nuts last summer when I insisted on giving all of the beached moon jellies "funerals at sea." They kept telling me, "it's too late to save them!"

Owlmirror's little parable also reminded me of something Confucius once said:

"Just because a fence has holes in it, that does not mean it does not exist!"

There was once a mystic who had a disciple. The mystic taught the disciple that all was illusion; himself, the student, the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth below, all animals and plants -- everything. They passed from village to village, teaching this, and receiving food pressed on them by those who were impressed by the teachings.

First, there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is...

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/donovan/there-is-a-mountain.html

everybody sing!

... for those that are too young to recall the tune:

http://www.amazon.com/There-Mountain-Single-Version/dp/B00137IG1Ea_moun…

Parting thoughts for Domingo:

When my 4 month old son looks into the mirror, he does not pontificate on The Truth®. He laughs and craps his pants.

You never addressed my questions, you don't have any evidence to back your blind assertions. The Bahá'í people will be happy to take your money. You shouldn't characterize something that you don't use ~ your mind is gathering dust, and it is you who is the tool!

As for your Ocean analogy... *waves goodbye*

hmm, that didn't work...

try this:

http://www.amazon.com/There-Mountain-Single-Version/dp/B00137IG1E

When my 4 month old son looks into the mirror, he does not pontificate on The Truth®. He laughs and craps his pants.

Hmm, I've seen octogenarians do the same thing...

Maybe that IS the "Truth"?

come to think of it, that also reminds me of basically what people like Jonathan Wells do too: Laugh inanely and then crap their pants for an argument, figuratively speaking.

OTOH, when I reach 80+, I think I too might respond to these bozos by laughing and then crapping my pants. Literally.

who knew that Everybody Poops was actually written as a guide to Truth?

:p

Oh, yet an other tortured analogy, The Ocean.

Whew. I'll say.

This may be the first time I've actually witnessed an analogy get water-boarded.

This really is the thread that keeps on giving, isn't it?

{pokes head into room for the first time since #1171, glances around}

AAAAaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!

The Kreationist Klown Kar kontinues!

Ichthyic--I prefer the version on Eat a Peach

This may be the first time I've actually witnessed an analogy get water-boarded.

Posted by: Kseniya

I am against the water-boarding of people. But analogies, fuck 'em.

Sven, it was quiet here for a couple of days. Then a new age wooer showed up. Then the game was afoot.

"First, there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is..."

I'm your only friend, I'm not your only friend, but I'm a little glowing friend, but really I'm not actually you're friend, but I am...

hmm, Is that There Might Be Giants?

...not to put too fine a point on it...

Good thing I'm not the only bee in Domingo's bonnet.

picture time!

I went hiking in the desert this weekend, and thinking of a little birdhouse reminded me of a pic I just snapped on this trip:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/83147904@N00/2345013572/

Don't know which bird made it, unfortunately.

Nice. :-)

Ichthyic, the nest may have been made by a wild rat or mouse. Some American desert rodents build nests inside of cactus thickets to evade predators, such as coyotes or snakes.

Ichthyic, the nest may have been made by a wild rat or mouse. Some American desert rodents build nests inside of cactus thickets to evade predators, such as coyotes or snakes.

like wood rats?

hmm, I suppose it's possible, it just looks much more like a bird nest, with the traditional cup-like shape. Moreover, it had a lining of medium-sized white feathers (you can see some of them perched on the outer edge, towards the bottom).

again, that doesn't preclude a rodent entirely, but I don't recall ever seeing a rodent nest lined with the same kind of feathers before.

do you know of some examples I could compare against?

thanks.

I want to say "cactus mouse," Peromyscus sp, but at the moment, all I'm going on is a scene from a Nova documentary on the American Southwest, where they had a mouse crawling on the tips of cholla cactus spines, into its nest, which was deep within the bowels of that cactus thicket. And googling up "cactus mouse" brings up a species that burrows in the ground.

Serves me right for thinking too much at night.

This is the kind of think i was thinking of wrt to wood rats and cholla.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~asa/joshua_tree04/joshua_tree04-Pages/Image…

However, support for what you were thinking here:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-541X(194001)4%3A1%3C37%3ALHNOTB%3…

One nest was constructed partially of feathers.

I'm still thinking it more likely to be something like a cactus wren nest.

@508:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/ahistorical_garbage_from_the…

"Clubbing the troll?" Is that what the kids are calling it nowadays?

"Bozo", "Idiot", "Wanker", "Moron"...now THERE'S a scientific way to retort. Good job! You must be the smart one because you can constantly insult someone. Of course, you're only proving the point of his movie. You think that you're so smart that anyone with a different view is an idiot. Wow - I can't believe it was that easy for him to get you to prove his point for him.

Hey! Hey you guys!
Somebody left a troll alive in here!!!
Hey! Get back here and clean up this mess!
Guys?

He has no point.

He's doesn't understand evolution and he believes in a creator.

Plus the guy is an asshole and a liar.

The way that the IDiots behind the Expelled movie are whining about not having their pseudo-theory taught in the classroom is like complaining that French class doesn't teach children Chinese. The way the name of the same old tired idea continues to change every time US Courts say "NO!" to teaching "In the beginning..." as science shows the dishonesty of the IDiots and just how empty their idea has always been. You can put a new fancy label on a box full of crap, but it is still a box full of crap. So long as people try to be as rational as their ability allows, there will be foolish nonsense to bury. Expelled deserves to be expelled.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

I can't believe that those people who are supposed to discover the origin of the humanity behave so uneducated, insulting, offending, being arrogants and showing angriness but no arguments at all. A monkey would behave better than all most of you who I suppose are studing high level education. So if seems that you are showing by your acts that evolution is wrong as it seems that a monkey would perform a better job. Shame of all of you and poor of the humanity that will be infected by your ideas.
But perhaps, why should I waste my time on educating you. You are just flesh, dust that one day will turn to dust again.

But perhaps, why should I waste my time on educating you. You are just flesh, dust that one day will turn to dust again.

And you're different how?

ashes to ashes
dust to dust
asskicks to assholes

What exactly will you teach Ivan?

How to be a self righteous ass?

You are just flesh

ZING!

I am so totally convinced now, of whatever it was you were trying to get at.

News flash! This just in: Skeptical, atheistic bloggers found not behaving like Jesus!

Unbelievable!

Funny that Ivan doesn't address anything from the post or provides any evidence for what the Expellers said, and instead focuses on our style instead of our substance. Imagine that.

no arguments at all

So, did you read the thread and decide to lie about its content, or did you not bother, and just decide to bullshit? Enquiring minds...don't really give a toss either way, actually.

News flash! Skeptical, atheistic bloggers found not behaving like Jesus!

Wait, what about Ivan himself? I spotted lack of education, insults, offensiveness, showing anger, and of course, for the complete set, no actual argument whatsoever!

News flash! This just in: Concern troll/creationist found behaving like a hypocrite!

Just another concern troll who wouldn't know biology if it burrowed into his empty head to lay eggs in it?

*sigh*

For a moment, I thought steve came back.

Darwin Day???...wasn't his mother a singer called Doris?

Here's a poser: Barack Obama vs Hillary Clinton...what sort of Darwinism is going on here? Is this qualitative adaptation or the extinction of a species?

Here's a poser: Barack Obama vs Hillary Clinton...what sort of Darwinism is going on here? Is this qualitative adaptation or the extinction of a species?

Option c) an inane question from a fool.

Well, it is April fools day. So I guess we can give him a pass. Just for today.

Jeff, I think it's more of a claymation thing, actually.

I just love the qualitative adaptation that is going on here. Seems like we've all evolved into cyber space morons.

Huzzah for good old Darwin! Perhaps if he had wifi on the Galapagos and read our moronic comments, he would never have written Origins...

Perhaps if he had wifi on the Galapagos and read our moronic comments, he would never have written Origins...

I don't know about that, but if he'd had a Wii, he almost certainly wouldn't have.

DARWINISM and ATHEISM: UNSCIENTIFIC & MYTHICAL

I think if Darwin had wifi in the galapagos, he'd have just patented that and lived off the proceeds. And if he'd used it to read our comments, he would have published his discovery of time travel instead.

And I also think that PROFESSOR X and his evilution non-facts are unscientific and mythical, unlike evolution and atheism, which are both pretty much the definition of the opposite.

I bet that PROFESSOR X's entire argument revolves around the fact that HUMAN MUTANTS such as those who have telekinesis, control over the weather, wings, control over thermodynamics, superfast healing powers, telepathy, teleportation (and blue skin and a prehensile tail), strength and agility (and blue fur), the ability to walk through solid matter, the ability to transform one's body into a strong metallic substance, control over magnetism, the ability to change shape to exactly mimic anyone, super-speed (huff, puff), AND SO ON AND SO FORTH are obviously the special creations of a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and loves to see his creations KICK EACH OTHERS' ASSES.

Go, Patrick Stewart Professor X! Show that atheist Ian McKellan Magneto who's boss!

I think what the kooks mean by "pessimism" is their confusion of evolution and atheism -- the latter being pessimistic in not believing in a life after death. (Never mind the Sumerian afterlife: everyone's shadow, regardless of faith or works, goes to the permanently dark underworld to eat mud and live in depression for all eternity.)

One of my housemates, a christian, does not believe in evolution, and yet most of the time appears to be perfectly intelligent. Religion has a lot to answer for...

It's called ignorance.

2) The purpose of life over all is to strive to survive and reproduce.

Show me that there's a purpose. I bet you can't. I think "what is the purpose of life" is a wrong question, like "why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi".

who argue that universal healthcare is "socialized medicine"

Hey, they're right.

How can you possibly condemn something as socialist, point to functioning examples, and then claim that socialism has failed?

It's called ignorance.

------------------------

Jim, are you the one who once said the Intelligent Designer was ineffable?

Anyway, you said "Darwinian philosopher". That's a contradiction in terms. Biology is a science, not a philosophy.

these people don't really mean what they write, they are just challenging you.

No, they really do mean it -- for quite understandable reasons.

Because, believe me, if you express an opinion which has some merit, even if people might disagree, you won't get that many insults.

Where "merit" is a synonym of "evidence".

You seem to be a well educated person who is searching for answers.

That's nice of you. To me he seems more like a poorly educated person who believes he already has all answers, and doesn't even get the idea that he might not have all of them. -- But, Jim, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

I am shocked that this is still such a heated issue... Evolution is a theory, but a theory in science is the closest you can get to a fact (theory of gravity). Evolution has been shown to occur in countless peer-reviewed articles covering all kinds of life. Some of the best examples though are the ones used by Darwin, the domesticated animals and plants. Another example is antibiotics putting a strong evolutionary pressure on microbes, which eventually can become an immune population if a few organisms were immune. Darwinism is not evolution. Social darwinism is not a good belief system because of injustices and inequalities. And social darwinism has been used by racists and others to justify their belief system. But, that doesn't mean that evolution is a racist theory. The pessimistic thing is ridiculous, too. Intelligent design is not in the realm of science, because it can't be tested, repeated, or observed. To treat it as a science is ridiculous.

Of course all the these thoughts aren't my own, but are coming straight from this month's elitist Big Science newsletter...

Hi, I realize I'm coming into the discussion late, but I still look forward to seeing the film. Of course, the premise (I think) isn't to slam Darwin's theory, but to allow other scientists and philosophers to be heard. As it is, no matter what we believe, we still have the issue of origin.

Personally, I always doubt the existence of a god-- it makes no sense to me scientifically. However, the entire universe's creation makes no sense to me scientifically, either. If there is evidence that goes in another direction that wasn't available years ago when it was inappropriate to disavow the concept of a god, so be it. I still want those scientists to be taken seriously if they have something serious to say.

I've been in academia long enough to see the bias which, as you must admit, exists. The entire universe is filled with mysteries and things beyond our understanding that will most likely remain beyond our understanding throughout our lifetime. Opening up the debate to include others' findings doesn't harm current science-- it enhances it, I believe. It's not a waste of time, it's a necessity. Furthermore, the actual idea of god is no more outrageous than the actual existence of the universe and it's very many mysteries. It's size is beyond our comprehension. It's origin is beyond our comprehension (do not think big bang-- think before big bang). Everything about it is as mysterious and strange as the idea of a god.

If there is any evidence pointing in some new direction that differs from the general consensus, so be it. It's worth listening to, as far as I can tell, and it's worth presenting these ideas if the research is worthy and falls within scientific guidelines. To ostracize others that disagree with the status quo or currently accepted science is the antithesis of scientific inquiry.

There are many many findings (as you must be well aware) that already cause holes in Darwin's theory. These findings have no business being suppressed or ridiculed because they do not "fall in line" with what is commonly accepted. And, that's what's going on here.

Everything about it is as mysterious and strange as the idea of a god.

If you've truly been in academia as long as you would have us believe (which I doubt), then you'd know that no viable scientific theory such as the Theory of Evolution is remotely comparable to the idea of a supernatural God.

And, that's what's going on here.

Posted by: kendra | June 5, 2008 12:42 PM

And, no it's not. If you had any powers of observation, deduction, and common sense at all, you'd have recognized by now that both the movie and its premise are quite indefensible. (I'd list the reasons, but they're already listed in many threads on this site and others, and I assume you know how to read. But hey, thanks for trying anyway.

Ohhhh kendra,

the premise (I think) isn't to slam Darwin's theory, but to allow other scientists and philosophers to be heard.

Just change this sentence please. The purpose was to equate naturalism with Hitler, and push non-naturalistic ideas into science where they don't belong. I hope you'll see this after you view the film.

If there is evidence that goes in another direction that wasn't available years ago when it was inappropriate to disavow the concept of a god, so be it.

See, there isn't. There's no new evidence for their side. That's what we keep saying. If we were dealing with this stuff for the first time, we wouldn't be so annoyed and tired of it.

Of course, the premise (I think) isn't to slam Darwin's theory, but to allow other scientists and philosophers to be heard.

Perhaps you're only vaguely acquainted with the film; you've heard some things, but have not really investigated it in depth.

There are plenty of reviews out there, but perhaps you've avoided them.

Well, we can't force you to read up and understand. But please note that the posting at the Expelled web site that this post is in response to was a deeply dishonest comparison of the characters of Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln. That isn't even a criticism of Darwin's theory; it is a direct ad hominem attack. It is not about allowing other scientists and philosophers to be heard; it is about smears and innuendo.

If you are actually interested in reading and understanding about the other dishonest claims and outright lies made in the film, and why they are false or irrelevant, you might try using this website as a resource.

  http://www.expelledexposed.com/

There are many many findings (as you must be well aware) that already cause holes in Darwin's theory. - kendra

a) What do you mean by "Darwin's theory"? What is actually in Darwin's works, or Modern Evolutionary Theory?

b) Name some. With references to peer-reviewed publications.

I've been in academia long enough to see the bias which, as you must admit, exists.

Ooh, and argument from authority and an argument by assertion in the same sentence.

(Followed by a display of gross ignorance that makes you obviously clueless, compounded by the stupidity to make pronouncements as "someone in academia" on a subject you know less about than most of the people your'e speaking to---many of whom are accomplished scientists.)

If you've been in academia as long as I have, you won't be surprised when I say:

Kendra, you ignorant slut!

Little joke there. I'm kidding about the slut part.

Frankly, I'm very skeptical that you're actually an academician. (Maybe "Kendra" is "Kenny's" evil twin sister?) I'm pretty certain you're not a biologist.

Credentials, please.

But seriously, do check out the site OwlMirror linked to.

The definition of truth:

4. Righteousness; true religion.
[1913 Webster]

Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. --John i. 17.
[1913 Webster]

Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.
--John xvii.
17.
[1913 Webster]

One would think serious scientific study would welcome all theories. How interesting that the theory of extraterrestrial intervention would be given more play and consideration in explaining the existence of the universe than would creationism or divine intervention.

Seems logical enough. The former poses no imposition on our actions, on our egos or on our consciences. The latter, of a divine intelligence, on the other hand, suggests accountability for all three.

You cannot hold back the dawn. But, you can spend your lifetime trying.

One would think serious scientific study would welcome all theories. How interesting that the theory of extraterrestrial intervention would be given more play and consideration in explaining the existence of the universe than would creationism or divine intervention.

Seems logical enough. The former poses no imposition on our actions, on our egos or on our consciences. The latter, of a divine intelligence, on the other hand, suggests accountability for all three.

You cannot hold back the dawn. But, you can spend your lifetime trying.

What you and many seemingly like you fail to grasp is that Intelligent Design Creationism has been given the opportunity to prove itself on par with the best science available, and it has failed. Miserably.

And you are putting more weight on the Alien thing that is honest.

Come up with the science or stop complaining.

No one's complaining.

Those suggesting creationism have simply pointed out that science cannot disprove the theory, anymore than creationists can prove the existence of an intelligent designer.

The irony is that darwinists, as scientific thinkers, cannot bring themselves to even consider the mere suggestion of intelligent design, whereas creationists can and do include darwinism in their theories of creation.

Of course, your interpretation and dismissal of my earlier post as a complaint, actually proved my point.

No. Actually the mere suggestion of creationism bears the burden of providing evidence for itself. What evidence that they have provided has been utterly destroyed when put under the scrutiny of modern science. There is no reason to consider it.

Do you also wish to give consideration to the possibility that the Norse creation story being considered?

What about Chinese, Aboriginal Austrailian or other creation myths?

The irony is that darwinists, as scientific thinkers, cannot bring themselves to even consider the mere suggestion of intelligent design, whereas creationists can and do include darwinism in their theories of creation.

The creationists hedge their bets by including evolution because the evidence is so strong for it. There is no evidence for any Intelligent Design.

And you are wrong when you say "darwinists" do not consider the possibility of a higher power being involved. Give Dr. Ken Miller a look see. There are many like him. The difference is they know to separate supernatural from evidence based science. Evolution is evidence based science, Intelligent Design Creationism isn't even science.

Actually, I'd venture to say that "magi" is probably correct--most biologists would grant the hypothesis of life on Earth having been seeded here from space (with or without the involvement of intelligent aliens) a higher probability than the alternative hypothesis that the Judeo-Christian god did it. That's because we know that outer space exists, that there are stars out there similar to our sun, and that some of those stars have orbiting planets--these are direct observations or very strong inferences. What evidence is there for the god(s) of your choice? Zero. Zero reliable direct observations; zero inferences of any confidence. Intelligent-design proponentsists infer the existence of an "intelligent designer" from their observations of "design" (and then make the unsupportable leap in logic to conclude that the "intelligence" is the god of their choice). But we know that natural selection occurs (direct measurements, lots of them), and a theory of evolution by natural selection predicts the same sort of "design" in a much simpler and internally consistent way.
No hyptheses are being dismissed out of hand. The evidence is simply all pointing in one direction.

[Zombie thread, raised from the dead!]

Those suggesting creationism have simply pointed out that science cannot disprove the theory, anymore than creationists can prove the existence of an intelligent designer.

This is exactly why creationism is not science; you have precisely described why it cannot be science, in any way. It is religion.

And religion is just mythology and superstition.

The irony is that darwinists, as scientific thinkers, cannot bring themselves to even consider the mere suggestion of intelligent design,

"Darwinist" is a pejorative term used in the propaganda of superstitious creationists. You probably mean "philosophical naturalists", but that's no doubt too hard for you to remember and type.

That having been said, why should scientific thinkers even consider the suggestion of what is so obviously mythology and superstition?

Darwin said:

The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

That wasn't racist. The key word is "civilized". Uncle Chuck was referring to levels of civilization, of culture, of society. Yeah, he over-generalized a bit in classing entire groups into civilized-or-not. But what he was trying to say, I'm sure, was that in the future, when we all have flying cars, and all the other apes are extinct, the gap between our Floating Cities and a pack of baboons will seem incredible.

Seriously, the present difference in life-styles between a troop of chimps and a tribe of pygmies isn't so great from the point of view of, say, an over-sophisticated New Yorker. Now imagine a thousand years from now, when all mankind is light-brown and living off latte' foam in glass domes orbiting Mars, and the last living monkey scrabbles through a garbage pile over what was once the South Pole. The differences will seem greater. That's what Darwin meant--no racism involved.