I love Edward Currant. He's proof positive of Poe's Law; there have been some Xians on youtube who have taken him seriously, and applauded him for his unflagging defense of cretinism and IDiocy.
I don't think God approves of soul patches. Edward must be a heretic. (Or a satirist!)
Really, though, the flat cross on the wall appears to be made of two pieces of construction paper. Edward should have dug up a more substantial prop.
I do, however, like the use of earth tones throughout the scene. Very churchy. Nice throwaway line on Big History and the Sumerians, too. We all know that Elmer invented glue, not the Sumerians!
He does manage to walk that fine line that a true Poe's Law candidate needs to tread, doesn't he? It's brilliant work; I think this is one of his best yet, since it perfectly parodies the circular nature of creationist arguments and "evidence". It's rare that satire achieves this Juvenalian level anymore.
I couldn't get more than a minute in. I hate, hate HATE people who smack their lips with every breath they take when talking.
"Well, *smack*, I posted to some evolution forums, *smack*, and the responses I got, *smack*..."
I have walked out of seminars where the speaker is smacking right into the microphone. I refuse to believe I am alone in feeling this way.
Dear everyone, but especially Ed Currant: Please pay attention to how you are saying things, particularly if speaking is a big part of your job or hobby. For fuck's sake, PLEASE pay attention.
Even though I knew it was a piss take, that was kind of hard to watch. Probably because I knew I could easily find tons of people who would argue those views seriously.
But then I couldn't even get through 'Thank You for Smoking'. I gotta get some boundaries or something.
Mockery and strawman: the classic substitutes for reason used by empty minds. Historically, have been used to mischaracterize points of view by those who wish to inspire bigotry against them. Appeal only to those too ignorant and/or dogmatic to understand another point of view. Carry on.
Which brings me to something I've wondered since I started reading this: PZ, have you ever thought about implementing a ratings system for comments? Does Seed give you that option?
Mockery and strawman: the classic substitutes for reason used by empty minds. Historically, have been used to mischaracterize points of view by those who wish to inspire bigotry against them. Appeal only to those too ignorant and/or dogmatic to understand another point of view. Carry on.
Posted by: ungtss | April 25, 2008 8:40 PM
Whining about imagined persecution: a classic substitute for reason used by people whose ideas are so flimsy and ridiculous that they can't be supported on their own merit. Historically, have been used by people in the majority who wish to protect cherished beliefs from criticism from uppity minorities. Appeals only to those whose unfounded dogmas are so deeply cherished that the mere idea someone might mock or criticize them feels like unbearable persecution. Carry on.
BoS: 'Tain't a crucifix, it doesn't have the Corpus Christi* on it.
What kind of computer is that? Is it really an ancient laptop or some weird mockup of one with wheels?
"there have been some Xians on youtube who have taken him seriously, and applauded him for his unflagging defense of cretinism and IDiocy."
Or are they faking it as well? We're through the Looking Glass! I think his tone becomes a little too sarcastic at times, but the wide-eyed look is pretty genuine.
* Now there's a town I'm glad I don't live in. Not because it's a bad town, I've never been there, but because of the name. Ick.
That was real slick. Great stuff. The more of this available on the interweb the more impossible it will be for the real cretins to get people to listen to their message. Eventually, we could start spreading a vicious rumour that the DI is in fact a hoax site created by some wiley geeks.
Minimalist,
I'm not being facetious when I suggest that you might have hyperacusis (the soft sound variant). Do you have a problem with people chewing as well?
(I'm not even going to ask what happened to my comment...or why only the first letter of it posted...weird...probably something went awry with my attempt to be 'cute')
That was hilarious. I have seen his video about how masturbation is evil, but this one takes the cake. Poe's Law Strikes again! Satire really is one of the best ways to rationally refute your opponents ideas.
#15 is right. Good thing creationists and ID proponents never use mockery or strawmen.
Also fortunate that none of those same people have ever used similar arguments.
Way to call that video for what it was: completely baseless mud slinging!
Ad hominem argumentation: the third classic substitute for reason. "Ah yes, some creationists are ignorant and bigoted; therefore it is not only funny but okay for us to drop to the level of the lowest of our opposition."
Never mind that there are ignorant, bigoted people on every side of every issue. Never mind that the presence of such people is totally irrelevant to the potentially meritorious views of those with more subtle, intelligent analysis.
Like, I don't know, those who respond to links between evolution and Nazism with the argument that bigotry is neither necessary nor sufficient for belief in common descent.
Mockery and strawman: the classic substitutes for reason used by empty minds. Historically, have been used to mischaracterize points of view by those who wish to inspire bigotry against them. Appeal only to those too ignorant and/or dogmatic to understand another point of view. Carry on.
Yeah, but unfortunately the mockery is pretty much the same as the things it's mocking, and the strawmen are simply replicas of the strawmen created by the actual proponents of the "theories" being mocked. (Okay, admittedly that second part was kind of weak in the syntax department. Sorry.) Hence Poe's Law
When a sad, ignorant enemy has been debunked by subtle, intelligent analysis repeatedly and their potentially meritorious views have been shown to have no potential and no merit, its ok to do some gloating.
Whining about imagined persecution: a classic substitute for reason used by people whose ideas are so flimsy and ridiculous that they can't be supported on their own merit. Historically, have been used by people in the majority who wish to protect cherished beliefs from criticism from uppity minorities. Appeals only to those whose unfounded dogmas are so deeply cherished that the mere idea someone might mock or criticize them feels like unbearable persecution. Carry on.
Mischaracterization of another person's argument: Hear someone say that a particular satire merely mocks and mischaracterizes a point of view, and lacks any logical or factual merit whatsoever. Mischaracterize that statement as a persecution complex.
In fact, ignorant people misrepresent the point of view of others on all sides of every issue. Identification of that habit is not a persecution complex, but a call for people to grow up.
Mockery and strawman: the classic substitutes for reason used by empty minds.
I'd point out that watching and enjoying mockery is not the ONLY way we respond to creationist claims. In numerous threads on this site (and elsewhere), people have attempted patiently to use reason against creationist claims. It's generally quite futile as creationists really are "too ignorant and/or dogmatic to understand another point of view," but that hasn't stopped us from trying.
Sometimes, however, you need to take a break from the (admittedly not terribly intellectually taxing) debate and just have a laugh. Sure, maybe it's a bit childish and unconstructive, but as John Grier said, "You are only young once, but you can be immature for a lifetime." (Thanks to a fellow pharyngulite for posting that in the "crash the poll" thread.) Just because sometimes we sit back and have a laugh at creationists' expense doesn't mean we lack the reasonable arguments to refute their claims. It just means that sometimes, we get a little tired of throwing reason at those who are willfully blind to it.
When a sad, ignorant enemy has been debunked by subtle, intelligent analysis repeatedly and their potentially meritorious views have been shown to have no potential and no merit, its ok to do some gloating.
Perhaps. But it's not okay to mischaracterize your opponents. It hardens their views, because it gives them hard, objective reason to believe that atheists either do not understand them, or deliberately choose to ignore what they are actually saying.
It's mere selection bias to characterize an entire viewpoint as the worst of those who hold it. Yes, there are wacko, ignorant creationists. There are also wacko, ignorant evolutionsts who use it to justify racial purges. So what?
Unfreaking believable! I have a new monitor on the way, so I had to restrain myself from putting my fist through it! Is this that insane moron Planet Killer in disguise? The absolutely incredible crap he ranted was boiling my blood with each insane comment. Did he say Ben Stein is a great Stinker? How could glue be discovered before the world was born? I listened and watched the whole painful crap to its end and sat there for a few seconds trying to comprehend that I actually heard this moron spewing his deranged crap with all the veracity of established facts. This insane crap is starting to effect me to the point that even a mild believer in religion is just so much fodder for my extreme hatred of all irrationality. I still can't believe that this moron was speaking to us and not to his fellow idiots! Good grief, where does tolerance end retribution begin for this spreading muck of insanity?
Historically, have been used to mischaracterize points of view
I'm genuinely curious: how would *you* correctly characterize the POV of ID proponents? What are their real arguments that are being mischaracterized here and in other satire videos?
Am I the only actor on this site? This can be better even if it's good. And I'm sure he wants it to be. Not to mention, if he does clean up the presentation, he could be a top notch satirist. And who doesn't want that?
Eddie: Don't smack your lips. Minimalist isn't crazy, It can be distracting. If your whole bit is centered around your talking, then focus more on making it clean.
Cut more often so that you don't have to look at your "laptop" (that is a perfect prop by the way) or take pauses to get your flow back. Also your presentation will tighten up if you do so, shortening the clip, keeping those with the attention spans of 3 y.o. children with you.
I also have to admit the odd fact that I think the shirt was my favorite subtle part. It's so very... christian. Brilliant ideas all around my man. Keep em coming!
That's one big arse crucifix he's got on his wall. My heavily catholic grandmother would salivate if she saw that.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | April 25, 2008 8:31 PM
Actually, us catholics like our crosses properly done, like with a dude nailed to it. What the hell is the point of an empty cross? Those flimsy protestants...
There are also wacko, ignorant evolutionsts who use it to justify racial purges.
Three words: Gott Mit Uns. German-English translation: God with us. Worn on the belt of Wehrmacht soldiers. Maybe Hitler got some of his inspiration from Darwin (the veracity of even this is questionable), but most of what he used to justify it, and what allowed his deranged worldview's spread throughout Germany, was not 'Darwinism' as Stein claims, but rather religion.
Wow, this may be classified as "lethal" irony. Eddie has poed this subject so successfully that I'm sure many fundies will repeat his arguments as their own and never understand why we're all laughing hysterically.
Burning strawmen shackled by angst. Reputed defenders nonetheless missing the crux of the interlocutory sarcasm. Free-style prose substituting for constructive dialog amongst the bukakke enthusiasts. Carry on.
I don't think this is ID vs. atheists... I think it's people in tune with science, and people out of sync with reality. Who exactly in the ID camp is not a wacko, ignorant creationist?
I'm genuinely curious: how would *you* correctly characterize the POV of ID proponents? What are their real arguments that are being mischaracterized here and in other satire videos?
There is not one such point of view. There are a spectrum of ID points of view, with a spectrum of different beliefs. There are those who believe that God intelligently engineers life through the process of evolution. There are those who believe that life on Earth is the result of terraforming. There are those who don't claim to know much at all about the designer, but leave open the possibility that one exists.
Holbach! Take a deep breath, man! Relax.
I know, I know, I had to surpress rage at first too. But his bad acting gave it away pretty quickly. That and he finished with "Have a nice day" instead of "God bless".
Now, find your happy place... deep breaths... in... out...
There is not one such point of view. There are a spectrum of ID points of view, with a spectrum of different beliefs. There are those who believe that God intelligently engineers life through the process of evolution. There are those who believe that life on Earth is the result of terraforming. There are those who don't claim to know much at all about the designer, but leave open the possibility that one exists.
You concern has been noted. It is bullshit but it has been noted. Now run along and defend the holocaust deniers and the flat earthists.
Another application of Poe's law: the failure of fundy evolutionists to realize that this statement was a satire, engineered by the Expelled crew, to illustrate the consumate arrogance displayed by some on your side of the fence.
I love Edward Current. The only channel that comes close to that level of Poe's Law embodiment is Red State Update. Despite those guys being a regular feature on salon.com and CNN and popping up at the Democratic YouTube debate, the most rabid of neocons still insist on humping their legs.
ungtss,
You've mentioned theistic evolutionists and deists (and some odd thing about terraforming). But you have yet to define what ID proponents have already said is their point of view. I'm beginning to think you don't know or care what they actually believe, but that you believe it's close enough to your belief that you feel the need to defend it.
There is not one such point of view. There are a spectrum of ID points of view, with a spectrum of different beliefs. There are those who believe that God intelligently engineers life through the process of evolution. There are those who believe that life on Earth is the result of terraforming. There are those who don't claim to know much at all about the designer, but leave open the possibility that one exists.
Fair enough, but the ones we're typically debating -- the ones who are most vocal on the internet and in the public arena, eg, the makers and fans of Expelled (who are the ones explicitly being mocked in this satire) -- are those who not only believe that maybe there is a designer, but think that this belief is scientific and should be researched and taught.
I don't see how this belief can be characterized as anything but ignorant at best.
Anything ID is by definition not science. You've also described theistic evolution, which is not ID. I have the feeling you're just coming up to speed on this issue, but you will learn soon enough that there is no weight to intelligent design. I hypothesize you've just been taken in by all the care they've taken to make up science sounding words and warp and twist existing science, in addition to their intricately planned persecution and martyr complex. But hey, ungtss looks like he might be a fence sitter, so thats all the more reason to rope him into the land of critical, rational thinking.
Holbach: "This insane crap is starting to effect me to the point that even a mild believer in religion is just so much fodder for my extreme hatred of all irrationality."
Dear Holbach, I'm being completely serious here. You appear to have strong emotional issues with the topic of religion that border on the unhealthy. A good percentage of your posts reveal a reflexive anger that does neither yourself nor the cause you wish to support a beneficial service. I think most people here politely ignore you because of your behavior. Please consider seeking some help in this area so we can engage with you on a calmer level.
Anything ID is by definition not science. You've also described theistic evolution, which is not ID.
To be fair, until recently (eg, Expelled manufactroversy) I wasn't aware that theistic evolution and ID were different things, and likely some so-called ID proponents/sympathizers aren't aware of this either. This understandable confusion is probably why the DI picked this name for their so-called "theory" (Wedge Document, much?).
Minimalist,
I'm not being facetious when I suggest that you might have hyperacusis (the soft sound variant). Do you have a problem with people chewing as well?
I do. It drives me batty. I have no clue why - I'm sure my eating habits are no better. It's just one of those odd noise things that gets under my skin. I try to ignore it because I know it's petty and stupid to complain about - but dang! Can't people chew quietly...., er, um. I mean, carry on!
Ungtss -
Science isn't about "points of view". If any of those people can put together any actual evidence to form a Theory that can be falsified and provides testable predictions then the scientific community would be happy to listen. I for one would be absolutely thrilled if someone could show real evidence for God or even better terra-forming of Earth by outside intelligences. Really, I'd jump up and down with joy if someone could point to proof of extraterrestrial intelligence and you couldn't imagine my how ecstatic I would be if someone could prove beyond doubt that I have a soul.
However, until those formal theories are presented and are shown to stand up to scrutiny then they are just fantasies. They fall into the realm of religion, philosophy, or straight-up insanity.
Fine. Not all IDers are kooks. Some atheists and "evolutionists" are kooks. These are both relatively uncontroversial claims. What's your point? That satirizing the IDers who *are* kooks -- or laughing at such a satire -- is to paint all IDers with broad kook-strokes? No, it's just a bit of light-hearted fun at the expense of those who really are kooks. The fact that some IDers are not is completely irrelevant. Perhaps your point is that it's immature? Indeed, in order to be mature, one must be very, very solemn.
Yeesh. Relax, and let us have a laugh at some harmless fun.
I don't care what "degree" of IDist you think needs respect.
ID is bullshit. If someone accepts evolution than there's no issue and I'm sure they understand who we're mocking. It would be silly for them to be offended.
But the majority of people who call themselves IDists(creationist in a bad disguise) or actual creationists deserve every bit of arrogance and mockery they get. If they're too lazy to understand the science, well it's their own damn fault they get mocked.
Satire yes, but it could easily have been the Planet Killer, Stein, and so many others. We know that there are real videos of real creos spouting this crap to real deranged audiences. The satire is not so much lost on me as is the real portent of its content to real wackos who do believe this insanity and perhaps take this video as the real stuff, and as someone has noted, satire will be lost on them. I need a relief. I'm going to purge my brain of this portentious satire and watch Volume 2 of W C Fields who has a different brand of satire to offer without pissing me off, even in jest. I quoted this by W C the other day and there is definitely no satire intentioned.
"Wouldn't it be terrible if I quoted some reliable statistics which prove that more people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol?"
The statistics are true W C; believe me!
On second thought, that IDers are not all kooks *is* controversial. If they insist on claiming that their claims are scientific, then they are kooks. And an awful lot of them -- er... all? -- seem to claim that, don't they?
I just wanted to clear the confusion, because there is an important distinction. Mainly, theistic evolution means evolution with God never conflicting with science. Its a concession by religion that allows scientists and teachers to do their jobs. ID is the opposite, having God step in at certain points to work miracles. Theistic evolution lets people step away from the protest line and teach children science, and ID leads to people wanting Of Pandas and People as the de facto source of children's knowledge.
Watching the educational video was, my friends, nearly as enjoyable as the olives accompanying my Friday night martini. Gin, of course. Thank you PZ for lifting my spirits...the other type...I seem to be handling the liquid type just fine.
But it's not okay to mischaracterize your opponents.
your barking up the wrong tree.
You should be yipping that noise over on the blog for Expelled, straight to Ben Stein, Mark Mathis, and then on to the Disinformation Institute.
what you keep seeming to miss is that this vid is satirizing the VERY THING you seem to dislike so much.
It's satirizing the fact that the strawmen and mischaracterizations have all been invented by the IDiots themselves.
We've asked countless times for the so called "intelligent" ID supporters to even define their concept to the point of a testable hypothesis. Hell, the Templeton Foundation (you know who they are, right?) even offered them a fucking grant to do so, if they would but apply.
ten years later...
*crickets chirping*
there IS no honest other side to the issue of evolution; it's nothing but political wankery on the part of the conservative right in order to utilize it as a hot-button issue amongst the fundies.
at it's very core, it differs little in strategy and application from the attacks on homosexuality in this country.
It's a fucking manufactured controversy, and WE DIDN'T START IT.
Mainly, theistic evolution means evolution with God never conflicting with science...ID is the opposite, having God step in at certain points to work miracles.
Well put. IOW, I'd classify ID as "trying to twist science to fit religion," whereas TE is "trying to twist religion to try to fit science." Since in my view religion is pretty twisted as it is, I have much less of a problem with the latter than the former :).
One of the big theistic evolution arguments is that the Genesis story is not literal, but is a pre-scientific era allegory for the creation of the universe, earth, and life over the period of billions of years (rather than the literal 6 days described in Genesis). (I believe this argument was used famously in the Scopes Monkey Trial, at least if my Inherit the Wind-based knowledge of the trial is correct.)
Personally I think this sounds like a stretch, but to my knowledge theistic evolutionists have never asked that this interpretation be taught in schools, so I'm fairly apathetic about it.
Heck, if ID'ers were just saying that they thought that life was irreducibly complex, and they saw evidence of design and divine intervention in the process of evolution, I wouldn't really care that much. It's the fact that they want these irrational views to infiltrate our scientific education and research institutions that bothers me.
I agree with Dennis N.
It is an important distinction. The people we are fighting are only those that would replace science with religion in the classroom. Destruction of ignorance is our goal, not necessarily the destruction of faith. There are a lot of foaming-at-the-mouth atheists around here and it doesn't do our side any good for convincing the middle-of-the-fencers to reject the creo-fundi-extremists.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Nietzsche
I used to allow for that possibility, but in 5 years of carefully examining all the movers and shakers behind the ID movement, I really cannot with any precision or accuracy agree with that statement.
There is not a one among them that isn't a kook.
Now, I've met emeritus biology profs who I also would call kooks, but they are a tiny minority.
nope. In the fantasy advertising world of ID, there really exist nothing but kooks.
I always have fun when someone actually tries to prove that statement wrong, and finds out they really can't.
We've asked countless times for the so called "intelligent" ID supporters to even define their concept to the point of a testable hypothesis. Hell, the Templeton Foundation (you know who they are, right?) even offered them a fucking grant to do so, if they would but apply.
And that's not even mentioning all the private funding the DI has given ID 'researchers' to perform experiments to demonstrate ID. Strangely, despite all this funding and alleged, no evidence has emerged.
Better start praying harder....
ID'ers are trying to sneak their superstitions into the scientific arena, but they have absolutely no understanding of or respect for the scientific method. Ben Stein actually probably put it best, in an interview with Christianity Today: "Anyway, I couldn't give a [profanity] whether a person calls himself a scientist."
[[The "profanity" censor was put in by CT, not me.]]
Holbach,
What is so brilliant is that he dismantles his argument as he goes. He refutes each point by supplying the reason it is false and all with a reasonably straight face. Planet Killer isn't sharp enough to even get the satire, he's all bluster and bullshit.
Aw dammit, this is a perfect example of "if you have to explain the joke..."
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
Giordano Bruno (Il Nolano) 1548 to 1600
Victim of the Venice and Roman Inquisitions
Destruction of ignorance is our goal, not necessarily the destruction of faith.
True, but I think many on this blog would argue that faith is ignorance.
I'm somewhat on the fense on the issue myself. For me to have religious faith would require (willful) ignorance on my part, given the way my mind works, but I'm not certain this is true for all religious people. People who simultaneously understand & accept the scientific method and have religious faith don't seem to be ignoring everything. In their minds, the obvious conflict I see is not something they have to ignore; it just doesn't exist at all for them.
(Keep in mind, though, that I am trying to argue on the behalf of people whose entire worldview I neither accept nor can truly comprehend, so maybe this isn't an accurate representation.)
When I wrote "People who simultaneously understand & accept the scientific method and have religious faith don't seem to be ignoring everything," I actually meant "People who simultaneously understand & accept the scientific method and have religious faith don't seem to be ignoring anything" (correction in bold).
I actually agree with you. I had spoken too soon. See my edit a couple of comments later -- though that edit still doesn't do justice to my own beliefs re: ID.
I haven't done much research into ID's movers and shakers -- with the exception of Behe, Dembski, and some of the more obvious characters -- but, for now at least, am happy with more general support for the claim that they *are* all kooks. There is a fundamental irrationality involved in "faith" that, when imported into the science world, can't help but lead to abject kookery.
(Parenthetically, some some drive-by flattery: I always enjoy your comments -- just the right balance of insight, intelligence, antagonism, sarcasm and humour. It's always a pleasure. =))
, despite all this funding and alleged, no evidence has emerged.
nor could it, given the fact that beyond the fact they refuse to even identify precisely which "designer" they are talking about (IDiots forget, or lie, or never knew, that "aliens" are as much a part of ID as the Judeo-Xian "god"), none of the large list of potential "intelligent designers" is known at all, let alone to sufficient depth to actually form a hypothesis about how they might act in the world.
It's nothing but vacuous nonsense piled on top of fiction and lies.
As evil as the purported "creators" of ID are to push this nonsense (the Wedge document is just like the PNAS website; merely a signpost on a road of lies and corruption and rationalization), that itself doesn't make me nearly as concerned as the fact that so many apparently eat this bullshit up in this country as if it were mana... from heaven.
It hardly surpises me that BushCo. was elected not once, but twice.
I suggest that people take a look at the "excuses" that ungtss has come up with (read: pulled out of his ass) in respect to how endogenous retroviruses might not be evidence for common ancestry, on his blog.
Here is just a taster:
"This argument rests on a number of key unstated assumptions:
3) These viruses weren't intentionally inserted into our DNA. We use retroviruses to perform genetic engineering. Who's to say the Designer didn't use them to genetically engineer us? This is especially interesting, given the fact that some (many) ERVs are indispensible (sic) to life."
He's right. I guess that we were unfairly characterizing ID supporters. Hmmmn. Anyone?
True, but I think many on this blog would argue that faith is ignorance.
I have no problem with faith as a philosophical concept.
However, I've never met ANYBODY who actually had it.
In fact, all religious people I've ever met in my whole 43 years of living have required some material justification for their faith (even unto seeing Jebus in a coffee cake).
Not saying it isn't possible to have real faith in something, I just have concluded that if it exists, it's far too rare to concern oneself about.
no, ID does not arise from faith. It arises from LACK of faith. It's supported by those who fear (really KNOW) that they lack faith, and are looking for some crutch to utilize in support of a faith that doesn't exist.
It's nothing but a rationalization formed to support a delusion, and utilized as a tool to motivate the faithless and fearful.
In short, it's absolutely pathetic. It's what's beyond "turtles all the way down".
These viruses weren't intentionally inserted into our DNA.
man, there's so many things wrong with that, I have to make a list:
-that's called "assuming the premise".
...and it's complete abandonment of logic.
...and a perfect projection on the part of "ungst", since HE is the one inserting the assumption into his argument.
...it's also a great example of how moronic creobots so often shift the burden of proof, and think they are being smart.
...at it's most basic, it boils down to the argument about how god could have made everything in the last 5 minutes, and just fooled us all into thinking it's billions of years old.
Hence Poe's Law
Seriously, look at The Banana: The Atheist's Worst Nightmare. You want to believe this is satire/mockery/a strawman, but no. These people are serious.
You should check out my favorite response to Ray Comfort's banana video. (I personally think that that video deserves way more views than it has.
Comment #55 by deerjackal
I love Edward Current. The only channel that comes close to that level of Poe's Law embodiment is Red State Update.
I think this guy walks the Poe's Law line very well.
I've said it before in a different thread, but I'll repeat it here. I think that the Expelled movie just might be a big gag. Its just about the worst possible movie on its topic that was possible, i guess, having never seen it.
Ya know what would make a lot of sense, but ID proponents and religious apologists will never say, doesn't everything make more sense if your God can't just do anything and everything? Why would God need retroviruses to make us? Can't he just poof us into existence? Why doesn't God stop evil? Well maybe he can't do everything. I think that would answer about 90% of the objections we have to their crap. But they'll never go there.
...the Wedge document is just like the PNAS website; merely a signpost on a road of lies and corruption and rationalization
Oh, you did *not* just go there.
But I do agree re: PNAS. One of the worst things to come out of this ID manufactroversy, IMO, is that sometimes I think scientists feel a need to put up a unified front, as though there's no corruption, petty politics, etc within the scientific community. Nothing could be further from the truth....
This argument rests on a number of key unstated assumptions:...
3) These viruses weren't intentionally inserted into our DNA. We use retroviruses to perform genetic engineering. Who's to say the Designer didn't use them to genetically engineer us?...
Ummmm...seriously? Ever heard of, say, burden of proof? Or occam's razor? Let's see: either ERVs arose through naturally occuring infections of germ cells by retroviruses (which we know can happen) or an intelligent designer (whom many assume to be omnipotent, I might add -- point of interest) decided to do some retroviral mediated gene transfer experiments on his/her/its creations.
Yeah...not much of a contest there. The ID hypothesis obviously wins. /sarcasm
But hey. For that matter, who's to say that the fossils weren't intentionally inserted into the various strata of rocks? Who's to say that radioactive isotopes weren't intentionally distributed to make the earth appear billions of years old?
I think ungtss unintentionally illustrated my point: cDesign proponents are mockeries and strawmen of themselves.
I'm not sure that we are "in no position to comment on faith". Two questions:
First, I'd ask what exactly you mean by faith. I take "faith" to be a flouffy PC term for "religion". Faith works much better in that nice, happy little multicultural ideal than religion -- makes it less threatening, less controversial, if you don't see through the facade. I suppose this, in itself, is a comment on faith but I'm wondering why faith reserves some special place, immune to comment.
Second, I'm not sure why coming to an issue with an opinion already formed -- rather than, I suppose, as a blank slate -- would make us so biased that it wouldn't be good for us to comment on it. I rarely -- if ever -- come to an issue without an opinion and equally rarely ever think that I can't, by virtue of holding that opinion, comment on the matter. Why do you think that we are too biased really to comment on faith?
As I watched the video and not knowing of Ed Current, and furthermore, since the resolution on my laptop is better than my retina such that I missed the props, I started keeping track of logical fallacies. The speaker made all of the creo errors we've come to know and luv. I'm thinking, is this Planet Killer, then, this can't be real, then at. . ."bend over and take it where it hurts" the reality (hilarity) of Poe's law struck home. SOOOO very well done. Big History, Summerians and glue, not enough- remember T. rex and coconuts?
Ya know... I should learn to use that handy-dandy little preview button. Sometimes, my comments just sound asinine.
What I take to be the interchangability of "faith" and "religion" is in the political context. I know that faith and religion are *not*, strictly-speaking, interchangable.
Remember 'Carlos' spelled sideways is slo arc. Atheists love reason, science, logic and not lies, deception, corruption and abuse. The latter qualities unfortunately characterize far too many christians- You can tell they are christians by their hate(TM).
Wow, that was funny. Not really. Now we have to resort to this kind of bagering. If you are a scientist I really hope you have something better to do than to make some kind of stupid mock video of some retarded satire.
We get it, you think people who are religious are stupid. Now do something constructive with your lives. Instead of patting yourselves on the back.
I have no problem with faith as a philosophical concept.
However, I've never met ANYBODY who actually had it.
In fact, all religious people I've ever met in my whole 43 years of living have required some material justification for their faith (even unto seeing Jebus in a coffee cake).
I hadn't ever met such a person until recently, but I'm fairly certain (from the lengthy discussions we've had on the subject) that one of my friends actually has genuine, bona-fide faith. It's a little strange, because it's something I can't really wrap my head around. I was religious, once, but I was also literally psychotic (I don't think that all god-belief is a psychiatric disorder -- the acceptance of a widely held irrational belief entails a different psychological process than the invention of a highly individualized irrational belief -- but for me it was). You're probably right about it being too rare to practically need to concern one's self about, but it's a philosophical/psychological oddity that I'd really like to be able to understand.
Now we have to resort to this kind of bagering. If you are a scientist I really hope you have something better to do than to make some kind of stupid mock video of some retarded satire.
boy you really like attracting attention to yourself, dontchya?
I bet even you can count the number of things wrong with your statement, but here, let me help you:
bagering[sic]: where?
what makes you think a scientist made this video?
what makes you think scientists never have free time?
please define how this video is "stupid"
who are you to judge what is a good use of one's time?
carlos is right, we should all stop enjoying life and go back to suffering like the miserable, sinful mistakes his God tells us we are (unless you're a Mormon (I think)). Why did you come here if you don't like the video? Youtube has its own comments section. The bottom line is some religion is actually stupid. Stone cold stupid. If it makes testable predictions, those predictions fail (see faith healing), and you still believe them, chances are I'll think you're stupid. Meanwhile, me and deism are buddies, and we hang out sometimes.
who are you to judge what is a good use of one's time?
Obviously, a good use of one's time is making semi-coherent comments criticizing (a subset of the population of) scientists/atheists for a) enjoying satire and b) apparently being universally guilty of committing the grievous sin of self-love (because it is a sin, you know).
Carlos, you appear deluded. I would be quite surprised if anyyone here considered religious people 'stupid.' But I would be very surprised if many people here did not consider many religious people as deluded or undereducated in the biological sciences, or science in general, or all of the above.
Oh, and since none of us fall for the goddidit BS, we are responsible for our lives, our happieness, try to bring joy to friends and help others. I am quite happy with my constructive life thankyouverymuch.
but it's a philosophical/psychological oddity that I'd really like to be able to understand.
why?
Hmmm....good question. I suppose because it *is* an oddity, and a way of seeing things that is utterly contrary to the way I think. I guess that just by virtue of the fact that I can't understand it, I want to.
Don't misunderstand me -- I don't wish I could have faith. I'm quite happy with my rational, naturalistic worldview, and think it allows me to lead a much more meaningful existence than religion ever could. But I have, for as long as I can remember, always been fascinated with the idea of getting to truly live as someone else for a day -- seeing the world through the eyes, mind, etc of someone else. It's the reason I love to read fiction -- the chance to glimpse the world from the psychological POV of someone else. We have probably about 80 years to live, yet we're limited to one point of view, and that's really frustrating to me. In lieu of actually getting to have the subjective experience of anyone else, I try to at least intellectually understand the way others see the world...but on the level of 'faith', I fail utterly.
I suppose because it *is* an oddity, and a way of seeing things that is utterly contrary to the way I think.
I'd be interested if it had practical application, but have yet to find faith in a fictional being to have such.
but hey, maybe that's just me.
Why not have this person break down exactly what they think "faith" does for them on a daily basis, and compare those things to the same things without faith in your own life.
I think you'll find you do just fine, yes?
reality needs "faith" like science needs god.
which of course, is what the religious always seem to miss.
Atheists don't need a deity in order to lead a happy, productive life, and science hasn't needed god to explain anything for hundreds of years now.
so, while it might be a curiosity to you at first glance, i think you will find when you start breaking it down, "faith", even in it's purest, philosophical form, is rather superfluous.
"faith" disguising ignorance and fear is downright dangerous.
I imagine you'll be told that faith is comforting. Its like a nice soft blanket, in what is a beautiful but harsh world. I don't think the truth of their faith is as important to an atheist as it is to a theist.
back up 30 feet or so, I actually meant to write PNAC, not PNAS.
I was gonna say. That's like writing Einstein when you meant Ben Stein.
Etha Williams @96
But I do agree re: PNAS. One of the worst things to come out of this ID manufactroversy, IMO, is that sometimes I think scientists feel a need to put up a unified front, as though there's no corruption, petty politics, etc within the scientific community. Nothing could be further from the truth....
I don't think that means that the manufactroversy doesn't warrant a unified front, however; despite any faults in science, pseudoscience still needs to be dealt with effectively. There are petty politics and corruption in any human endeavor, but at least in science you're expected to be honest: misconduct in research, even once, is a career killer.
In that, with what I'm told is a "radically naturalistic" worldview, I occaisionally -- though rarely -- have moments of an almost crippling sense of insignificance and meaninglessness, I may wish that I was a woman of "faith". Then I think of the things that we know about the world through the various factions of biology, physics, philosophy, etc... And I realize that I have the worldview that makes the most sense though all the questions may not yet be conclusively answered. This realization is far more comforting to me than the delusions of "faith" that (barely) comforted me in the past.
so, while it might be a curiosity to you at first glance, i think you will find when you start breaking it down, "faith", even in it's purest, philosophical form, is rather superfluous.
You'll get no argument from me on this one. I guess what I wonder is, why do people need/want/decide to hold superfluous views? This has always puzzled me about Deism in particular, which seems to be the ultimate form of utterly superfluous religious belief. Perhaps it's a way for people to resolve their ability to recognize the nature of observable reality with their inability to completely let go of traditional, long-held, widely-accepted, but unfounded beliefs. Some people resolve it by finding in themselves the ability to let go of these beliefs (non-theists); some people by being willfully ignorant of certain aspects of reality (IDiots, among others); some people don't resolve it, and probably live an uncomfortable philosophical existence (a large majority of religious scientists, I'd imagine); and some people, probably a small minority, use faith. I don't know. Just thinking out loud, really.
"faith" disguising ignorance and fear is downright dangerous.
Quite so. And it's a very, very poor disguise, but one that is all too often accepted without critique.
That's like writing Einstein when you meant Ben Stein.
an apt analogy.
worst typo I think I've ever made from a substantive standpoint!
I'm glad Etha caught it, even in context of a presenting a tangential but important point about how scientists hardly march in lockstep on just about any issue one can name.
I thought the satire was right on. My favorite part was the "experiment":
"I did a little experiment. As an intelligent design supporter, I pretended to be a real scientist, and I got on some university discussion boards, and pointed out the holes in the mere "theory" of evolution. I showed those biologists some things they couldn't explain in perfect detail, and suggested that if they just admitted that God is responsible for life on earth, their questions could be answered - over night. Well, what do you think happened? That's right. My comments were deleted, and I got blocked - proving that Ben Stein is right. Intelligent Design really is being kept out of serious academic discourse. It was incredible, the reaction. These people, they acted as if a guy like me didn't even belong on a discussion board for post doctorate researchers! Typical elitists! Hey, this is a free country! But they said that all scientific theories are built on decades of "hard work" by scientists who came earlier. That evolution is supported by 150 years of research across "multiple disciplines" (whatever that means), and that you can't just force a new theory into science without performing any "actual research" to support your ideas. Well, that's where they're wrong..."
I love that line. "This is a free country!" People with no background in a scientific field are just as good as those with expertise, and are likely to come up with things the experts haven't even thought of.
In that, with what I'm told is a "radically naturalistic" worldview, I occaisionally -- though rarely -- have moments of an almost crippling sense of insignificance and meaninglessness,
I've been told by a friend, "You're the most rigorously rational person I know, in all things." It was quite a complement.
re: insignificance and meaninglessness: I take the existentialist tack, ie, that there is no intrinsic meaning or significance to our lives, so we must create that meaning for ourselves. And with all the sources of wonder and avenues for human betterment offered by a naturalistic worldview, I think that's a liberating and exciting (though sometimes overwhelming) ethical obligation to have. Certainly better than having a prescribed purpose and meaning delineated by an out-of-date set of myths and moral codes that is constantly being re-interpreted in an increasingly difficult effort to keep pace with modern times.
Fine. Not all IDers are kooks. Some atheists and "evolutionists" are kooks. These are both relatively uncontroversial claims. What's your point? That satirizing the IDers who *are* kooks -- or laughing at such a satire -- is to paint all IDers with broad kook-strokes? No, it's just a bit of light-hearted fun at the expense of those who really are kooks. The fact that some IDers are not is completely irrelevant. Perhaps your point is that it's immature? Indeed, in order to be mature, one must be very, very solemn.
Yeesh. Relax, and let us have a laugh at some harmless fun.
It's not harmless. Creationists react the same way to this bullshit and evolutionists react to the Darwin-caused-the-holocaust bullshit: by shutting you off as the ignorant bigots you appear to be. Look at some of this other guy's videos -- there's one where he misquotes a Bible verse as meaning poison won't kill you, then dies, then his estate suggests that all believing Christians drink poison too. It's not harmless. It's not even funny. It's old-fashioned bigotry. It's mocking what you hate without understanding. It's cheap shots at a straw-man. It's why Christians killed atheists in the Inquisition 600 years ago and why Atheists killed Christians in the Purges 60 years ago.
I don't care what "degree" of IDist you think needs respect.
ID is bullshit. If someone accepts evolution than there's no issue and I'm sure they understand who we're mocking. It would be silly for them to be offended.
But the majority of people who call themselves IDists(creationist in a bad disguise) or actual creationists deserve every bit of arrogance and mockery they get. If they're too lazy to understand the science, well it's their own damn fault they get mocked.
Like I said. Your concern is bullshit.
And that's why you just proved Poe's law for fundamentalist darwinists -- you're quoting a satire intentionally. Congratulations -- you follow in a long line of bigots and dogmatists and bigots who thought everything outside their own pov was bullshit, and couldn't tell when people were satirizing them.
@Ichthyic. I did conflate the issue. Wading into deep waters of speculation (and this moth may be fish food) at one level, I see people who function normally in most areas of their lives and in society, but are irrational and disfunctional in another area. Such individuals in conduct appear as people I have seen with 'delusery parasitosis.' These people I take to be suffering from an actual mental illness. Certainly there are some people who are in fact 'stupid' (cognitively deficient) and such individuals are likely not internet users. There are also certainly undereducated, yet intellegent persons who have never had the time or access to information to free themselves from the fraudulent world view they've been force-fed.
At another lever, and you are quite right, there is a bulwork against rationality set up, the ignorant and proud of it mentality. I see this as group identification and fostered by religious organizations. It is Orwellian.
At yet another level, televangelists, Bushies, it is simply corruption, taking advantage of the vulnerabilities of others- which is not to say that this does not take place at the church/organizational level as well.
Poor Carlos, I do not know where he fits, I was hard on him as he appeared here in full-on troll mode.
People with no background in a scientific field are just as good as those with expertise, and are likely to come up with things the experts haven't even thought of.
I swear, all of these IDiots should take a class in probability sometime.
Just because it's *possible* for a rank amateur with absolutely no relevant knowledge of a given field to come up with a unique insight, doesn't mean it's *probable*.
However, with 6 billion of us on the planet, I can very nearly guarantee that some complete idiot out there who has never taken a single class in physics or chemistry has already solved the issue of a cheap, effective, alternative energy source.
they just don't know it.
oh yeah, there's that "random chance" thing again, combined with "huge numbers".
I swear, if I had a dollar for every person I've ever met who doesn't really grasp how big a "billion" is, I wouldn't be sitting here writing this post; I'd be sailing on my 50' yacht.
I've sometimes joked to my friends that the only reason there are YEC's is that some people just cannot grasp numbers that are larger than "thousands". Being stuck in such an unenviable place, they simply rationalize it away as being a good thing in the artificial context they build for themselves.
"If you can count higher than 10,000, you must be evil!"
I hadn't seen that article; thanks for the link. The stuff about children's (and adults') intuitive (mis)understandings of the scientific world was particularly interesting.
From the article: "In particular, both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense intuitions about the physical and psychological domains."
Demonstration of this principle, from an interview with Ben Stein on Glenn Beck's show: "But when I talk to people who are Darwinists or evolutionists and say, 'Well, how did life begin' -- they're...they don't have an answer. I mean, they have an answer, but it's a BS answer. It's an answer that wouldn't make sense to a small child."
Yes. Well, apparently, this is also a problem with any answer that involves people living on a spherical earth ("Children's belief that unsupported objects fall downward, for instance, makes it difficult for them to see the world as a sphere--if it were a sphere, the people and things on the other side should fall off. It is not until about 8 or 9 years of age that children demonstrate a coherent understanding of a spherical Earth"). (Not to mention other more obviously counter-intuitive theories...bet a small child would be terribly confused about time dilation and length contraction in Special Relativity, for instance.)
This article almost makes me want to be a parent, just to bring children in the world who will be able to think about things in a rational way and not make the mistake of believing that counter-intuitive = false. Almost.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
~ Isaac Asimov, column in Newsweek (21 January 1980)
It's not harmless. Creationists react the same way to this bullshit and evolutionists react to the Darwin-caused-the-holocaust bullshit: by shutting you off as the ignorant bigots you appear to be.
1. There's a difference between mocking a group of people for thinking unscientific things (and perhaps exaggerating those claims in order to make good satire -- but not exaggerating by much; if it weren't for the "big history" and "take the logic where it hurts" comments, this probably wouldn't have been recognizable as satire) and blaming a group of people, in all seriousness, for the mass murder of millions of people.
2. ID advocates ignore us no matter how we approach this issue. I can't count the number of times when I've seen a creationist post their "arguments", get links to scientific findings clearly refuting these arguments (observed instances of speciation, etc), and just utterly ignored those posts despite the posts being completely reasonable and free of bigotry.
It's why Christians killed atheists in the Inquisition 600 years ago and why Atheists killed Christians in the Purges 60 years ago.
No. "Atheists," by which you actually mean Stalinist communists, killed Christians in the Purges ((70 years ago)) because the state had replaced their dangerously irrational, dogmatic religious beliefs with an equally dangerously, dogmatic irrational political beliefs (Cult of Lenin/Cult of Stalin...there's a reason they're called 'cults').
I really hope this bullshit gets settled in a logical fashion, and soon.
I do appreciate the entertainment value of the videos they constantly churn unto the web but I'm a little afraid this will end badly for western culture.
It would take a lot of effort, but I've been tempted to masquerade as a creationist on one of these comment threads just for the sheer hell of it, seeing how far I could push people before losing it myself. Every now and then I think some of the 'trolls' appearing here and elsewhere are really just performance artists tweaking the self-assured. If nothing else, the mere possibility of such occurring should keep everyone on their toes.
These people I take to be suffering from an actual mental illness. Certainly there are some people who are in fact 'stupid' (cognitively deficient) and such individuals are likely not internet users. There are also certainly undereducated, yet intellegent persons who have never had the time or access to information to free themselves from the fraudulent world view they've been force-fed.
When I took my first college level psych course, the section involving "mental defense mechanisms", has really come in handy in rapidly identifying and explaining the behavior of most creationists.
when you see tremendous amounts of denial and projection, you just know there is something fubar underneath.
What really bothers me in this country specifically (I haven't seen it as bad in others), is that when one recognizes obvious signs and symptoms of an underlying mental health issue, there is tremendous peer pressure in this country to reject it out of hand.
It's quite remarkable how much people tend to denigrate mental health care as "not applicable to me". As if a mental health issue were somehow more "denigrating" than a physical one.
I've never fully understood where this attitude came from, but it's yet another contributing factor to why the size and scope of religious cultism in the US has actually been INCREASING over the last few decades, while other areas have shown much more progress.
It also has a rather dramatic and practical negative effect on funding for mental health care, as well.
for example, I live in an area where approximately 500 thousand people are served by two local hospitals.
One of those hospitals had a mental health care facility, which they closed due to lack of funding about 3 years back.
so, essentially, if you have issues requiring a mental health care professional, you're shit out of luck.
now this is an area, OTOH, that boasts some of the best cancer research and treatment centers in the entire US.
To add a quote from my personal favorite sci-fi writer to the mix: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K Dick)
Asimov rocks. I meant for that quote to immediately follow Sastra's dead-on comment as a sort of "p.s." - but I was too slow. (As usual.) It's so prevalent these days...
Etha:
I can't count the number of times when I've seen a creationist post their "arguments", get links to scientific findings clearly refuting these arguments (observed instances of speciation, etc), and just utterly ignored those posts despite the posts being completely reasonable and free of bigotry.
Exactly! We're seeing the same pattern on the "Freshwater" thread:
Scott: Speciation has never been observed
EvoProponent: Sure it has. [link to t.o.]
Scott: I still don't buy it.
Sigh. And on, and on, and on...
I've often been frustrated by another phenomenon that was mentioned a few comments up: the tendency of some people (good old common folk, dontcha know) to reject counter-intuitive science. These are good, intelligent, educated people, but if it's outside their field of expertise (and most science is) and it doesn't "feel right," they'll question it. This pattern wears me out after a while.
What kind of computer is that? Is it really an ancient laptop or some weird mockup of one with wheels?
I believe that's a Macintosh PowerBook 100 (circa 1991) -- the giveaway is the funky flipdown feet on the side (that are flipped up in the video). You can see where the original rainbow Apple logo has been blacked out.
I had a used PB100 for ages. It ran like an old VW, not fancy but practically indestructible.
re: Etha and others at several places regarding the PNAC/PNAS slip by Ichthyic bsck a ways in the thread.
I really had to chuckle - as grad students we called PNAS(against the preponderance of evidence of course): "P(robably) N(ot) A(cceptable) S(cience) for the relatively lax review policy (like none), and the bowing to authority that was implicit in the idea that submission by or through the agency of an Academy member was a sufficient guarantee of quality.
And ughtss- you can make up all the b.s. you want, but they're just masturbatory fantasies unless you've got some evidence. And that's why there's no reason for anyone to seriously engage the ID ravers. So STFU. Please.
It's not harmless. Creationists react the same way to this bullshit and evolutionists react to the Darwin-caused-the-holocaust bullshit: by shutting you off as the ignorant bigots you appear to be.
1. There's a difference between mocking a group of people for thinking unscientific things (and perhaps exaggerating those claims in order to make good satire -- but not exaggerating by much; if it weren't for the "big history" and "take the logic where it hurts" comments, this probably wouldn't have been recognizable as satire) and blaming a group of people, in all seriousness, for the mass murder of millions of people.
One is indeed satire and one is not; however, both misrepresent the views of their opponents in equally viscious and ignorant ways.
As to whether it would be "easily identifiable as satire," that depends on the degree to which one's understanding of fundamentalism is sophisticated. A number of people here couldn't tell the difference between satire and reality. However, their failure to distinguish satire from reality is a consequence of their failure to understand the reality.
The inability of people to distinguish between reality and a joke should not be used to equate the reality with the joke.
ID advocates ignore us no matter how we approach this issue. I can't count the number of times when I've seen a creationist post their "arguments", get links to scientific findings clearly refuting these arguments (observed instances of speciation, etc), and just utterly ignored those posts despite the posts being completely reasonable and free of bigotry.
Absolutely. And some ignorant darwinists have been known to do the same. I stumbled across a video of Dawkins completely misrepresenting how radiometric dating operates -- arguing that to date a fossil, you find an igneous rock in the same strata and date the igneous rock; which is simply not true. You can't date rock strata from the age of igneous rock found in the strata. And he's supposedly a leading scientist.
It's why Christians killed atheists in the Inquisition 600 years ago and why Atheists killed Christians in the Purges 60 years ago.
No. "Atheists," by which you actually mean Stalinist communists, killed Christians in the Purges ((70 years ago)) because the state had replaced their dangerously irrational, dogmatic religious beliefs with an equally dangerously, dogmatic irrational political beliefs (Cult of Lenin/Cult of Stalin...there's a reason they're called 'cults').
Similar reframing could be worked on the Inquisition; it wasn't really Christianity vs. Atheism; it was actually the "cult of the Pope." Whatever you call it and however you frame it, it involved atheists killing Christians because Christians were Christians. None of them said "
We are killing these Christians because Stalin is our god." They said they were killing the Christians because they viewed religion as an oppressive force opposed to the progress of the atheistic, socialist state. The Inquisitors had made reciprocal arguments just a few years prior.
re: religion and mental health...there are several levels to it.
Interestingly, in the DSM, the definition of delusional disorders specifically excludes an irrational belief that is widely accepted within one's wider social group (eg, religion). For a while this puzzled me and I thought it was psychology's way of pandering to religion, but I think there is actually some justification to this. The psychological process involved in adopting an individually concocted, unshared bizarre irrational belief is much different than buying into a widely shared and reinforced set of beliefs that are considered acceptable and even intuitive (God/faith just "makes sense"...or so I'm told), so I don't think it would be correct to lump them as the same thing.
That said, I think a lot of the defense mechanisms listed in the DSM *do* apply to religious people, particularly ID proponents, YECs, etc. For example:
Denial - A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, used to resolve emotional conflict and allay anxiety by disavowing thoughts, feelings, wishes, needs, or external reality factors that are consciously intolerable.
Projection - A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously (see unconscious), in which what is emotionally unacceptable in the self is unconsciously rejected and attributed (projected) to others.
Rationalization - A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, in which an individual attempts to justify or make consciously tolerable by plausible means, feelings or behavior that otherwise would be intolerable. Not to be confused with conscious evasion or dissimulation. See also projection.
Repression - A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, that banishes unacceptable ideas, fantasies, affects, or impulses from consciousness or that keeps out of consciousness what has never been conscious.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I went through a period where I was quite literally psychotic (my mental health has not always been all it could be...) and had a religious conversion experience. When I emerged from my insanity, I tried to cling to the belief for a while, and during that stage repression and denial were my best friends. Fortunately, I was self-aware and rational enough to realize what I was doing, and couldn't tolerate having to constantly fight back undesirable thoughts, so I was unable to continue in my religiosity much longer. So much for that....
On another note, re: Ichthyic's 152...the state of mental health care in this country is truly abysmal. Besides being a patient/consumer/whatever you want to call it in the system, I interned in the psychiatric ward at my university (University of Chicago) for a while, and it was really horrifying to see what passes for mental health "care". Not to mention the philosophical attitude towards mental illness, which puts an emphasis on being "better" and more able to take care of yourself than those crazy people, such that you want to reject mental health out of hand...the mentally ill are painted with such broad strokes, too, that it's easy to think "oh, well I'm not *that* bad...I obviously don't really *need* help..." and even "other people are so much worse off than me; I don't *deserve* help".
Okay, I'm done ranting now. I really should go home...I've been sitting around at my lab office for hours after my Western finished, responding to comments and what not...damn Pharyngula for reinforcing my already extant internet obsession!
"P(robably) N(ot) A(cceptable) S(cience) for the relatively lax review policy (like none), and the bowing to authority that was implicit in the idea that submission by or through the agency of an Academy member was a sufficient guarantee of quality.
oh yes, but I didn't want the connection between ID and PNAC to be lost in the discussion of good journals/bad journals.
That's the only reason I wanted to stress the error so much.
I think we've even had a discussion about PNAS's peer review policies on Pharyngula before, have we not? Not that long ago IIRC.
ungtss@138,
You do realise that you are writing on science blogs? If you wish to persuade scientifically-minded people, you will do much better with facts than rhetoric. The more your hand-waving your argument needs to be convincing, the less impressed your audience will be. By definition.
I personally couldn't care less what anybody else believes, but I hate it when people lie to get legislation enacted which impacts on what people learn in schools.
As an example, Expelled, full of lies from start to finish, was shown to the Florida legislators so that teachers can feel free to disparage evolution. Since the bill would leave it to the teacher to decide what is science, a teacher can talk about discredited notions such as a lack of "transitional fossils" to tear down established science. By the way, who needs a fossil? Isn't an egg-laying mammal enough to prove the point?
The biggest lie in Expelled was the association of Nazism with Darwin - Nazism was full of patriotic Christian fervour. Luther, and Paul of Tarsus before him, fuelled anti-semitism, it's ridiculous to pin it on Darwin.
It is not up to scientists to understand religion. But it is up to scientists to defend science and science education against lying lunatics.
Okaaaaay. Now to debunk the slightly more substantial bits of the post that you chose to quote in its entirety...
Neat. You don't think it's harmless. I do. See, e.g., Etha's post on why you and I might differ in opinion, here -- she has said it far better than I can at the moment. Aside from begging the question against one another on whether or not the vid PZ posted is harmless, care to deal with my other suggestions (esp., e.g., that your claims, in large part, are completely irrelevant)?
A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.
~ Saul Bellow
* * * * * *
And...
counter-intuitive = false
There it is.
I wrote a comment on another blog in which I attempted to address this, making the argument that "common sense" doesdn't really exist, and that what we think of as common sense is really a semi-conscious process of assessing information in the context of what we already know - therefore, "common sense" was only as reliable as a person's knowledge base. After all, it's common sense, in the absence of greater knowledge of the world, is what tells us the earth is flat and the sky is a dome.
(With this in mind, it's great knowing that for the past 7 years we've had a President who thinks with his digestive tract. And we all know what the final and inevitable product of that is...)
My goal, which sadly I was unable to completely accomplish, was to get my readers to recognize that counter-intuitive findings in science or social science should not be casually dismissed. It frustrated me; I felt I wasn't being taken completely seriously because many of my readers had children who were older than I was... LOL... serves me right foe tryin, I suppose.
anyone who uses the term fundamentalist darwinist is a fucking troll and an idiot.
Anyone who labels a person as a fucking troll and an idiot because they use a particular term is a fundamentalist darwinist.
Er... No. Just no. Anyone who uses the term "fundamentalist Darwinist" knows neither the meaning of fundamentalism nor of Darwinism. More importantly, such a person is ignorant of the fact that modern evolutionary biologisits use Darwin as a starting, rather than an ending, point. I would recommend, dear Ungtss, a remedial biology course.
It is not up to scientists to understand religion. But it is up to scientists to defend science and science education against lying lunatics.
It is also up to scientists to recognize their own philosophical and religious assumptions, and to avoid imposing those assumptions on others in the name of science that neither proves them nor depends on them. If they did that, maybe there wouldn't be reactionaries out there fighting back.
I remember being taught by teachers like PZ, who don't understand the difference between science and atheism, and were convinced it was their duty to teach both.
And some ignorant darwinists have been known to do the same.
source.
I stumbled across a video of Dawkins completely misrepresenting how radiometric dating operates -- arguing that to date a fossil, you find an igneous rock in the same strata and date the igneous rock; which is simply not true.
source.
and an addendum:
Dawkins is a philosopher of science, not a scientist (at least for the last 30 years), and does indeed occasionally misfire.
OTOH, creationists can't even get the fucking car started.
Er... No. Just no. Anyone who uses the term "fundamentalist Darwinist" knows neither the meaning of fundamentalism nor of Darwinism. More importantly, such a person is ignorant of the fact that modern evolutionary biologisits use Darwin as a starting, rather than an ending, point. I would recommend, dear Ungtss, a remedial biology course.
Fundamentalism is a belief in the infallibility of an idea, and the belief that all those who disagree are not only ignorant but somehow morally deficient.
Darwinism is belief in common descent and philosophical naturalism.
Fundamentalist darwinism is belief in the infallibility of the doctrines of common descent and philosophical naturalism, and the belief that all those who disagree with it are not only ignorant but somehow morally deficient.
This discussion is not in the realm of biology; it's in the realm of philosophy. You don't learn this stuff in biology class. You learn it through philosophy.
Isn't there a law, and if there's not (please name if after me), there should be: Any cdesign proponentsist who uses the term Darwinist, Darwinism, evolutionist, evolutionism, "kind", or random selection after being corrected automatically loses the argument.
Fundamentalism is a belief in the infallibility of an idea, and the belief that all those who disagree are not only ignorant but somehow morally deficient.
evidently, you are very insistent on describing yourself tonight.
project much?
Darwinism is belief in common descent and philosophical naturalism.
then there are no "Darwinists".
you can't just make shit up, and use it to project your own ignorance and expect you are saying anything intelligent.
you really should quit while you're behind, if you ever want people to actually visit your blog.
well, that don't go there to poke sticks at the poo-flinging monkey, anyway.
Hey ungtss, you cant falsify naturalism. Also, its fundamental to all science, not just evolution. It is ignorant of you to not know that. The main point I gather is that you are opposed to naturalism in science, by extension you want to extend it. Shades of Behe in Dover. If this is what you want, how far do you want to expand it?
One can never go wrong with an Asimov quote. . . or story. Two favoite (and germane to this discussion) stories from his 'Winds of Change' collection are: The Last Answer- one of the more rational examinations of god, and Winds of Change- which explores the scenerio of ideologies replacing the free examination of ideas in modern society.
Fundamentalism is a belief in the infallibility of an idea, and the belief that all those who disagree are not only ignorant but somehow morally deficient.
evidently, you are very insistent on describing yourself tonight.
The old "I'm rubber you're glue" routine. Impressive.
In any discussion of atheism (skepticism, etc.), the probability that someone will compare a vocal atheist to religious fundamentalists increases to one.
Umm ... I read his blog. He sees atheism as the scientific point of view. Explicitly.
You don't read so good then. Try reading the parts where he says he does not bring religion or the lack of it into the classroom. That's (partly) what the blog is for.
Ah yes I knew that one in the back of my head. Thanks for the reminder. I like my addendum too. Maybe throw in "just angry at God" as a footnote for future generations to read.
To quote the article ungtss provided:
The term Darwinism is often used in the USA by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement to describe evolution. In this usage, the term has connotations of atheism. For example, in Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism?, Hodge answers the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism." Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief. Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools.
This has been said before, but I say it again: many religious people feel the need to see movements as a charismatic, cult-of-personality, dogmatic thing. Plus see projection.
That's actually not what "Darwinism" is. For that, read the Origin of Species. Plenty of it is off the mark, plenty of it isn't. Like I said, modern evolutionary biology only uses Darwin as a starting point. Get with the programme.
Look, mate, if you're not going to give us anything new, buzz off.
In anticipation of you droning on with the typical creobot BS... G'night. No time for this.
Case in point on the not reading so good issue, your vaunted wikepedia entry on Darwinism:
"Darwinism is a term for the underlying concepts in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection. Discussions of Darwinism usually focus on evolution by natural selection, but sometimes Darwinism is taken to mean evolution more broadly, or other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin."
I.e., it's a completely plastic definition that changes depending on who uses the word. Like ID apologists with a fondness for repeated brick-induced cranial trauma.
The article is about darwinism. A darwinist is one who ascribes to the premises of darwinism.
You seriously don't understand the linguistic link between an "Ism" and an "Ist?"
You fail to realize that the vast majority of people who accept that the theory of evolution accurately describes how the diversities of life came, and are coming to be, do not call themselves "Darwinists," nor do any of them refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism," because the theory of evolution has been expanded upon and revised so much since Darwin's day.
The only people who refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" are Creationists who attempt to malign scientists as being evil, devil-worshiping atheist/cultists.
Kseniya: I wrote a comment on another blog in which I attempted to address this, making the argument that "common sense" doesdn't really exist, and that what we think of as common sense is really a semi-conscious process of assessing information in the context of what we already know - therefore, "common sense" was only as reliable as a person's knowledge base.
I do believe you have hit upon a great truth there. If I ever have children, one of the things I feel is very important will be to give them as much experience about the world as possible as soon as possible.
It's interesting that we live in an information age of global communication, and yet a huge swath of the population is, by and large, just as dumb and superstitious as ever. I don't know how this anti-investigative mindset got started, but I do know that religion, with its emphasis on faith, is a big part of the problem. It's like a creeping fungus threatening to cover the country in stupid, and it goes all the way to the top!
Although an incredible amount of information is just a google click away, so is an incredible amount of information within the specific area of knowledge that one limits oneself to. (Like religion, or 150 channels on TV--that include science and history--and a lot of people watch MTV and soap operas.) It's no wonder that science, is in many ways, counter intuitive to them.
That's why it is so important to get knowledge out there, work it into the social consciousness, confront the creationists and anti-science panderers head on, and argue big and loud--with multiple approaches to reach as many people as possible.
You're jumping to conclusions, Ungtss, no doubt due to your relative inexperience with this blog. Dr. Myers has made it abundantly clear that he quite intentionally leaves religion and atheism out of his biology classes. You might also note that when he blogs on peer-reviewed science literature here, the same principle applies. The only exception in recent memory was when a paper with an obvious creationistic slant was presented.
"Fundamentalism is a belief in the infallibility of an idea"
Please demonstrate ANY EVIDENCE that the people on this blog believe that scientific explanations (let alone Darwin's theories) are INFALLIBLE. Do that now, or get labeled as a fucking troll and idiot.
The only people who refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" are Creationists who attempt to malign scientists as being evil, devil-worshiping atheist/cultists.
Yeah, Stanton, but that's because they've accepted the Gospel of pseudo-Darwin as a canonical text.
Pffffft. Whatever. This Ungtss douchebag is all about talking about irrelevancies. He knows he doesn't have a damn leg to stand on when it comes to the substantial bits of our posts. Typical freakin' creobot. Just peruse the replies we've made. He responds to nary a one.
One is indeed satire and one is not; however, both misrepresent the views of their opponents in equally viscious and ignorant ways.
Hmmm, I hold a pretty high opinion of rationality (and a pretty low opinion of willful ignorance), but even I would say that satirizing someone as being irrational and willfully ignorant isn't quite as vicious as blaming a scientific theory for the deaths of millions of people. But maybe that's just my skewed atheistic values....
However, their failure to distinguish satire from reality is a consequence of their failure to understand the reality.
Okay. Please explain to me the *real* argument for why ID should be considered as a scientific theory. But if it involves arguments like endogenous retroviruses coming from a designer who likes to perform retroviral gene transfer experiments on his designs, rather than from retroviruses that infected the germ lines of our ancestors, prepare for me to laugh at and possibly satirize it. Then you can tell me I'm doing it because I don't understand the *reality* of your argument, and we can return to square one.
[I wrote]: ID advocates ignore us no matter how we approach this issue....
[You replied]: Absolutely. And some ignorant darwinists have been known to do the same.
Now here's the difference: when I wrote that statement, I clearly said "ID advocates." Referring to them as a collective group. All of 'em. You qualified your statement "some ignorant darwinists."
I stumbled across a video of Dawkins completely misrepresenting how radiometric dating operates -- arguing that to date a fossil, you find an igneous rock in the same strata and date the igneous rock; which is simply not true. You can't date rock strata from the age of igneous rock found in the strata. And he's supposedly a leading scientist.
Firstly, this is not at all an analagous situation; if Dawkins was indeed wrong about this (and I have some doubt here), it is still not the same as ID advocates willfully ignoring refutations to their claims. In that video, Dawkins gave a description of radiometric dating, and that was that; there was no instance in which an audience member argued rationally that his description of radiometric dating was wrong and he proceeded to willfully ignore the argument. Someone making an incorrect claim doesn't mean they're being willfully ignorant; someone making an incorrect claim and then not listening when people present evidence counter to that claim is.
As for the actual accuracy of his statement -- I will first admit that I am far from being an expert on radiometric dating. However, based on this talkorigins page on radiometric dating, it seems that what he is saying about using igneous rock (in conjunction with multiple other things) for radiometric dating is accurate, if a bit simplistic, and your claim that the location of igneous rock in strata is useless for dating is not. (I'd also add that Dawkins is rather out of his field of expertise within the field of evolutionary biology, namely molecular genetics.)
Whatever you call it and however you frame it, it involved atheists killing Christians because Christians were Christians. None of them said " We are killing these Christians because Stalin is our god." They said they were killing the Christians because they viewed religion as an oppressive force opposed to the progress of the atheistic, socialist state.
But the dogma that motivated those killings was not atheism. It was communist/Stalinist dogma. Atheism had nothing to do with it, other than being part of the dogma. Atheists were killing Christians because Christians were Christians (and thus enemies of the people); but Christians were not being killed by atheists because atheists were atheists. They were being killed by atheists because those atheists also happened to be communists.
(Interestingly, Stalin later reinstated the Orthodox church during WWII, realizing its power to mobilize people in wartime.)
Also, FTR, I somewhat disagree with atheists such as Dawkins who call religion the "root of all evil", in that I think we are quite capable of finding excuses to kill people and do barbaric things without religion as an excuse. All people really need is some kind of dogma that people will blindly accept. Religion is handy, but any number of other dogmas -- George W's brand of patriotism (which often but not always is accompanied by fundamental Xianity), communism, etc -- will do just as well. Ridding the world of religion won't necessarily lead to a peaceful, violence-free world, but ridding the world of dogmatic thinking and leading just might....
And that's why you just proved Poe's law for fundamentalist darwinists -- you're quoting a satire intentionally. Congratulations -- you follow in a long line of bigots and dogmatists and bigots who thought everything outside their own pov was bullshit, and couldn't tell when people were satirizing them.
So then please explain to us why we should regard Intelligent Design "theory" as being a serious, solemn science, when all Intelligent Design researchers and supporters have demonstrated that not a single, solitary one of them even have a rudimentary interest in doing any sort of scientific work with or about Intelligent Design "theory" since the Discovery Institute introduced it in its present form almost two decades ago?
RamblinDude, you've made an excellent point. We constantly point out that they don't accept reality, but its more that they live in an alternate reality. Sometimes I try to take a walk on their side; I listen to fundie podcasts, creationwiki, going to church. In their reality, evolution doesn't have evidence. I doubt they have fossils or DNA sequencing at Bible Universities. If you don't know what fallacies to look for, it can almost sound convincing. It makes it all the more scary.
Also, I've heard Dawkins explain that he didn't want to name it the "Root of All Evil?", because he doesn't think its the root of ALL evil. He compromised with the studio by insisting on the question mark.
It's amazing to me how all the substance of my comments is ignored, in favor of semantics about whether "darwinism" and "darwinists" actually exist.
Diverting attention from the substance of the matter in favor of irrelevant side issues. Another classic tactic.
Maybe we're dismissing what you think is the substance of your comments is because your comments have absolutely no substance at all to begin with.
All of your rhetoric in your arguments is recycled from previous creationist material that has been debunked over and over and over again.
Also, your admonishments and shamings are empty, if not totally wrong and based on the grossest untruths.
I would say that we would take you more seriously if you were to go out and actually read about the Theory of Evolution, and not listen to what your spiritual handlers have lied to you about it, but, the typical creationist, like yourself, is trained to think that learning is the Devil's Hobby.
I'd take a stab in the dark and say Dawkins doesn't mind using Darwinist because Darwin's legacy hasn't been attacked for decades across the pond (no sizable population of fundies), and so thus doesn't have the stigma that creationists have attached to it.
I believe that's a Macintosh PowerBook 100 (circa 1991) -- the giveaway is the funky flipdown feet on the side (that are flipped up in the video). You can see where the original rainbow Apple logo has been blacked out.
Yes, my initial snarky thought while watching that video was "1992 called: they want their laptop back." I was only off by one year. :)
Maybe you should read that Wiki article you linked to, this time for comprehension.
"A notable example of a scientist who uses the term in a positive sense is Richard Dawkins. Outside the USA, the term carries no negative connotations."
You may have heard of one person who refers to himself as a "Darwinist." His name is Richard Dawkins. You can read about it here if you like.
Ungtss, man, you've got really try reading the stuff you cite. Nowhere in the interview does Dawkins actually use the word Darwinist. Here's where it does appear:
In the first essay of the collection, you say that as a scientist, you're a Darwinist, but as a human being, you feel it's important to recognize that natural selection is unpleasant and fight against it. Could you explain this in more detail?
That said, I don't doubt he said it, but I also think it's irrelevant for reasons cited earlier in reference to the wikipedia article you also apparently failed to read. Which post did address one of your claims. So fuck off already with the "Darwinist" schtick and start droning about something else you don't understand or something you do but want to misrepresent. Jesus.
I'd take a stab in the dark and say Dawkins doesn't mind using Darwinist because Darwin's legacy hasn't been attacked for decades across the pond (no sizable population of fundies), and so thus doesn't have the stigma that creationists have attached to it.
He's said just that on many occasions.
of course, the issue isn't how Dawkins uses the term, it's how "ungst" has made up his own definition for it, then projected it onto everyone who knocks his idiocy.
What's really funny is that even though it's been pointed out to him several times, he simply is unable to comprehend that this is what he is doing.
I guess he really has never heard of Inigo Montoya, so at this point I have to add the punchline for him:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Dennis: "I'd take a stab in the dark and say Dawkins doesn't mind using Darwinist..."
Except, in the interview cited by Ungtss, it's the interviewer who uses the term, not Dawkins himself. After a flurry of searches, I haven't been able to find any quotes by Dawkins using that actual term (not that I'm asserting one doesn't exist, but it's hardly a label that matches with his own words.)
Even still, the loose construction 'Darwinist' is hardly a precise term that evolutionary biologists throw around in actual journals. So its supposed definition is mostly clung to by creationists, in the same manner that conservatives use the term 'elitist' (despite many of them being elitist or worse in real life).
Since you have never taken a class with Myers, where is the assertion without evidence coming from again?
Umm ... I read his blog. He sees atheism as the scientific point of view. Explicitly.
Firstly, regarding PZ's views on science and religion, please read PZ's own post, What should a scientist think about religion?. While this asserts that atheism is *consistent* with the scientific worldview (and theism is not) it does not say that you must be an atheist to be a scientist, or that a scientist must be an atheist.
Further, you shouldn't conflate what PZ writes in his blog (which includes stuff about atheism) with what he teaches in class (which I very much doubt includes atheism). Believe it or not, many people are able to show admirable restraint and refrain from expressing their religious beliefs in the classroom.
I haven't been able to find any quotes by Dawkins using that actual term (not that I'm asserting one doesn't exist, but it's hardly a label that matches with his own words.)
oh he uses it often enough, and has used it in his writings as well, and has defended its usage many times, even while recognizing the problems the creobots have made for those who use it in this neck o the woods. Hell, even 15 years ago it wasn't much of a problem, so long as you were hanging around with people who knew that the ToE had moved on in the 150 years since Darwin proposed natural selection as a mechanism.
like i said, it isn't the issue here.
It parallels the usage of the word "liberal". Coming from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh, it's an insult. The actual definition of the word and historical usage however, is quite a bit different from how it's been spun by the hard-right.
same thing.
poor ungst has just swallowed the lies and spin, and appears to have lost the ability to differentiate reality from fiction any more.
If it makes him feel any better, in this country he is far from alone.
of course, the issue isn't how Dawkins uses the term, it's how "ungst" has made up his own definition for it, then projected it onto everyone who knocks his idiocy.
What's really funny is that even though it's been pointed out to him several times, he simply is unable to comprehend that this is what he is doing.
As an amateur psychologist, I would say that this is the key to truly successful projection (and to successful use of other defense mechanisms): the ability to utilize another defense mechanism, denial, in order to forcibly ignore the very fact of one's own irrational defense mechanisms. Really skilled people are even able to successfully deny denial....
My bigger issue is that when corrected, and told Darwinist is a not the term by which we go by, there is a refusal to change. Watch it in any creo-evo debate. The intelligent people will go to lengths to correct them, to say please use the term evolution, and they will keep it up, and just say it and say it and say it. Whether the term is right or wrong, the denial of letting someone self-identify is a disingenuous rhetorical tactic.
One is indeed satire and one is not; however, both misrepresent the views of their opponents in equally viscious and ignorant ways.
Hmmm, I hold a pretty high opinion of rationality (and a pretty low opinion of willful ignorance), but even I would say that satirizing someone as being irrational and willfully ignorant isn't quite as vicious as blaming a scientific theory for the deaths of millions of people. But maybe that's just my skewed atheistic values....
I'm not interested in which is worse. They're both bad.
However, their failure to distinguish satire from reality is a consequence of their failure to understand the reality.
Okay. Please explain to me the *real* argument for why ID should be considered as a scientific theory. But if it involves arguments like endogenous retroviruses coming from a designer who likes to perform retroviral gene transfer experiments on his designs, rather than from retroviruses that infected the germ lines of our ancestors, prepare for me to laugh at and possibly satirize it. Then you can tell me I'm doing it because I don't understand the *reality* of your argument, and we can return to square one.
I'm not here to debate with you. I'm here to tell you that if you want to effectively get your message across, then deliberately misrepresenting your opposition is counterproductive.
[I wrote]: ID advocates ignore us no matter how we approach this issue....
[You replied]: Absolutely. And some ignorant darwinists have been known to do the same.
Now here's the difference: when I wrote that statement, I clearly said "ID advocates." Referring to them as a collective group. All of 'em. You qualified your statement "some ignorant darwinists."
Yes. You generalized to an entire group. I qualified my statement, recognizing that there are some extremely intelligent and rational darwinists in the world -- I've met a few on wikipedia and pandasthumb over the years. But apparently you feel confident enough to generalize to the entire group.
I stumbled across a video of Dawkins completely misrepresenting how radiometric dating operates -- arguing that to date a fossil, you find an igneous rock in the same strata and date the igneous rock; which is simply not true. You can't date rock strata from the age of igneous rock found in the strata. And he's supposedly a leading scientist.
Firstly, this is not at all an analagous situation; if Dawkins was indeed wrong about this (and I have some doubt here), it is still not the same as ID advocates willfully ignoring refutations to their claims. In that video, Dawkins gave a description of radiometric dating, and that was that; there was no instance in which an audience member argued rationally that his description of radiometric dating was wrong and he proceeded to willfully ignore the argument. Someone making an incorrect claim doesn't mean they're being willfully ignorant; someone making an incorrect claim and then not listening when people present evidence counter to that claim is.
That's a fair distinction -- he's obviously speaking out of ignorance, but not necessarily willful ignorance. I guess it strikes me as odd that he wouldn't understand such a simple concept as radiometric dating, the basis for our interpretation of the fossil record. Radiometric dating of igneous rocks measures the time since the lava cooled -- not the time since the sediment was laid. That's simple, indisputable fact. Here's the Dawkins video if you're interested.
But the dogma that motivated those killings was not atheism. It was communist/Stalinist dogma. Atheism had nothing to do with it, other than being part of the dogma. Atheists were killing Christians because Christians were Christians (and thus enemies of the people); but Christians were not being killed by atheists because atheists were atheists. They were being killed by atheists because those atheists also happened to be communists.
But why did those atheists who were also communists think that Christians were enemies of the people? Because, of course, atheism was seen as true and right, and Christianity was seen as false, and wrong. Marx's writings are clear on that point. And Marx was not a member of the "cult of Stalin." He was just the atheist who developed communism.
(Interestingly, Stalin later reinstated the Orthodox church during WWII, realizing its power to mobilize people in wartime.)
Yes, after he devastated it, I suppose he did use some of its trappings to serve his own ends. I'd hardly call that being permissive of religion.
Also, FTR, I somewhat disagree with atheists such as Dawkins who call religion the "root of all evil", in that I think we are quite capable of finding excuses to kill people and do barbaric things without religion as an excuse. All people really need is some kind of dogma that people will blindly accept. Religion is handy, but any number of other dogmas -- George W's brand of patriotism (which often but not always is accompanied by fundamental Xianity), communism, etc -- will do just as well. Ridding the world of religion won't necessarily lead to a peaceful, violence-free world, but ridding the world of dogmatic thinking and leading just might....
I'm with you 100%. Dogmatism of all stripes is the real enemy. That's what I was initially trying to communicate. Everything else will take care of itself, if people keep their minds open. Videos like the one above are extremely destructive toward that goal.
he shoots himself in the foot a number of times. especially at the end when he pokes fun at the idea of "poofing" into existance. it's almost as if he doesn't recognize the tenets of his own doctrine.
I would say that this is the key to truly successful projection (and to successful use of other defense mechanisms): the ability to utilize another defense mechanism, denial, in order to forcibly ignore the very fact of one's own irrational defense mechanisms. Really skilled people are even able to successfully deny denial....
that's about the size of it alrighty.
you might have noted I mentioned a database of over a thousand entries?
yeah.
I still get a kick out of seeing it in action though. Like watching a favorite wind up toy do its stuff.
The actual definition of the word [liberal] and historical usage however, is quite a bit different from how it's been spun by the hard-right.
Though to be fair, the actual historical usage/definition of the word is also somewhat different than the meaning most modern-day liberals have imparted on it.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are probably two of the most ill-defined words in modern political discourse. Both words are hurled as insults by the other side, neither word's historical meaning is widely understood by those who self-identify with it, and even the current meaning of each word is unclear.
@Icthyic and Etha, thank you for the link and information, respectively.
@ungtss, when the flat earth falls off the stack of turtles, is there a 'people-side' down rule? Just thought I would construct a statement with as much intellectual heft and gravitas as yours.'
At the basis of science there ARE assumptions such as: there is a reality and, we can observe this reality, and based upon our observations we can predict what other more general aspects of reality might be like. There, done with the assumptions. Gee, god was an unnecessary 'hypotheis.' Science is evidence based.
Darwinism is a creo/IDiot term. No such concept exists in science, just as there are no Newtonists in physics, Mendeleevists in chemistry, Dobsanskyites in genetics, or Pasteurists in medicine. There is a thing called evolutionary theory. One of its' driving mechanisms, natural selection, was first proposed by Charles Darwin.
My bigger issue is that when corrected, and told Darwinist is a not the term by which we go by, there is a refusal to change. Watch it in any creo-evo debate. The intelligent people will go to lengths to correct them, to say please use the term evolution, and they will keep it up, and just say it and say it and say it. Whether the term is right or wrong, the denial of letting someone self-identify is a disingenuous rhetorical tactic.
Look -- if you have a name you'd rather go by, name it. Commondescentist. Evolutionist. Materialist. Modernsynthesisist. Whatever. The name you use is mere semantics, and is irrelevant to the fact that there are certain people who behave as fundamentalists with respect to the ideas of atheism, materialism, and common descent. That's what I said above, but you were careful to ignore.
This article almost makes me want to be a parent, just to bring children in the world who will be able to think about things in a rational way and not make the mistake of believing that counter-intuitive = false. Almost.
This was a very common thought of mine as my own son was growing through his first couple of years. I have the unlucky position of being the only vocal atheist in my extended family (surrounded by layers and layers of godbots), and was damn sure that my own child would learn logic and reason from the moment he was able to comprehend my words...
It's been quite funny to hear the things that come out of his mouth, and I get a warm glow every time he states something that should be obvious to the grownups around him. At Easter, he told me that the Easter Bunny came to his school, but that the Easter Bunny wasn't real, just some lady dressed up in a bunny suit. He's four.
When we've been talking about why people believe in gods, he asked about who Jesus was, and he got quite the odd look on his face when I said that he was just like Santa Clause...
BTW, I must say, I am very happy that a number of the new commenters here have stuck around. I mostly lurk here (for 4 or 5 years? I don't even remember how long it's been...), but your comments have been a very nice improvement to the place.
Though to be fair, the actual historical usage/definition of the word is also somewhat different than the meaning most modern-day liberals have imparted on it.
true, to a point, but that only serves to reinforce the point I was making.
btw, there is a specific history to how the word "liberal" has been twisted by the right since 1950.
In fact, if you look into it, you will find many of the same people involved in the anti-science issue (or their direct descendants) as you will in the demonization of the word liberal.
Radiometric dating of igneous rocks measures the time since the lava cooled -- not the time since the sediment was laid. That's simple, indisputable fact.
Not so simple; not so indisputable. Have I misunderstood you, or have you gotten it almost exactly backwards? Radiometric dating of sedimentary layers depends heavily on radiometric dating of igneous rocks found in the layer.
The other thing to note is that Ungtss likes to pick and choose who and what he will respond to and thus which responses "count". He'll then later claim "no one" addressed this or that or the other thing, when in fact he chose not to address the addressing.
At the basis of science there ARE assumptions such as: there is a reality and, we can observe this reality, and based upon our observations we can predict what other more general aspects of reality might be like. There, done with the assumptions. Gee, god was an unnecessary 'hypotheis.' Science is evidence based.
Your first sentence contains assumptions essential to science. Your third one is not. Your failure to differentiate between the assumptions of science and your own philosophical inferences is the foundation of the problem here.
Darwinism is a creo/IDiot term. No such concept exists in science, just as there are no Newtonists in physics, Mendeleevists in chemistry, Dobsanskyites in genetics, or Pasteurists in medicine. There is a thing called evolutionary theory. One of its' driving mechanisms, natural selection, was first proposed by Charles Darwin.
The other thing to note is that Ungtss likes to pick and choose who and what he will respond to and thus which responses "count". He'll then later claim "no one" addressed this or that or the other thing, when in fact he chose not to address the addressing.
this relates to the usage of denial as a psychological defense mechanism.
I swear, if I ever end up teaching basic psych, I'm going to use creobots to illustrate basic principles of psychological defense mechanisms.
I believe the proper term for someone who believes in evolution is scientist. At least it is 99% of the time.
Actually no. If you go around calling everybody who believes in evolution a "scientist" you won't get far. There are many people who believe in evolution who are not scientists. Lawyers, doctors, schoolteachers, and bums. Try again.
I don't get the obsession with "ist" and "ism" words. They're used so inconsistently they're often rendered useless for discussion purposes.
But, let's stick to science.
So, while a physicist certainly "believes" in physics, what it really means is someone who does physics. Same with Chemist, Biologist, etc. So, if we're sticking to the usage common in the sciences, Darwinist out to mean someone who does Darwinry. I have no idea what the hell Darwinry would be. Probably involves barnacles and possibly pigeons.
I believe the proper term for someone who believes utilizes in evolution[ary theory] is scientist. At least it is 99% of the time.
sorry, that needed some precision added.
those of us who actually perform experiments testing a hypothesis based on a particular aspect of theory have no need (nor want) to "believe" in it.
belief is entirely irrelevant.
again, belief is projected by the religious onto everyone around them. They then live in denial of the fact that not everyone needs to believe in something for it to have pragmatic use, or even to test against.
It's like watching someone who lives in a darkened room tell us how wrong we are about color.
@#234 ungtss (in blockquoted segments, my arguments are in italics):
One is indeed satire and one is not; however, both misrepresent the views of their opponents in equally viscious and ignorant ways.
Hmmm, I hold a pretty high opinion of rationality (and a pretty low opinion of willful ignorance), but even I would say that satirizing someone as being irrational and willfully ignorant isn't quite as vicious as blaming a scientific theory for the deaths of millions of people. But maybe that's just my skewed atheistic values....
I'm not interested in which is worse. They're both bad.
But in your earlier comment, you claimed that "both misrepresent the views of their opponents in equally viscious and ignorant ways" (emphasis mine). I was addressing the *equal* in that statement. Now you say you're not interested in which is worse. Then you shouldn't have said that they were equal in the first place. You're contradicting yourself.
Yes. You generalized to an entire group. I qualified my statement, recognizing that there are some extremely intelligent and rational darwinists in the world -- I've met a few on wikipedia and pandasthumb over the years. But apparently you feel confident enough to generalize to the entire group.
The reason I feel confident in doing this is because the entire view of ID as being scientific is ignorant at best (unintelligent at worst) and irrational. The tenents of ID simply do not fit with the tenants of the scientific method. There may be ID advocates who are intelligent and rational in other matters (though I haven't personally encountered them), but it's an oxymoron for an ID advocate to be intelligent and rational about ID.
I'm not here to debate with you. I'm here to tell you that if you want to effectively get your message across, then deliberately misrepresenting your opposition is counterproductive.
But if you are going to tell me I'm misrepresenting my opposition, I'd like to know how I'm misrepresenting them. You can't persuade somebody that they're wrong (I've repeatedly said that I don't think I'm misrepresenting their claims) without debating them.
Way to dodge the question, though. I have to say, I was pretty impressed by the deliberate and shameless avoidance of actual debate. It's kind of hard to believe that this is the same person who wrote, "It's amazing to me how all the substance of my comments is ignored..."
Projection, projection, projection....
Because, of course, atheism was seen as true and right, and Christianity was seen as false, and wrong. Marx's writings are clear on that point. And Marx was not a member of the "cult of Stalin." He was just the atheist who developed communism.
I assume you are thinking of such quotes as "religion is the opiate of the people." Sadly, this quote was the victim of quote-mining. The actual quote was, "Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."
In this context, yes, Marx wished for the abolition of religion, but he saw it as a natural and teleological consequence of the Hegelian progress of history. He would *not* have condoned Stalin's mangling of this concept to justify the persecution of religious people. Atheism did not lead to communism; the Soviet conception of communism lead to (or rather, forced) the mass adoption of atheism as a peculiar dogma.
(Also FTR: I am not a Marx apologist. I think Marx had some good insights into the direction of modern capitalism, but that his political and economic philosophies were heavily flawed and too much informed by a mistaken and overly Hegelian concept of history. Nevertheless, it seems important to point out that Stalinism has very little to do with Marxist communism in its original conception.)
Not so simple; not so indisputable. Have I misunderstood you, or have you gotten it almost exactly backwards? Radiometric dating of sedimentary layers depends heavily on radiometric dating of igneous rocks found in the layer.
Let me break this down real simple for you. I may have a rock that cooled from lava 10,000,000 years ago. It may well have sat on a lava field for 9,000,000 years, until being broken off by a glacier and being buried in sedimentary strata 1,000,000 years ago. In fact, it probably did, assuming sedimentary strata take a long time to lay down. So if I find a fossil next to that rock in the strata, am I to conclude that the fossil is 10,000,000 years old, because that's the age of the lava rock? According to Dawkins, yes. It's nonsense, of course. It takes no account of the time between the cooling of the lava and the laying of the strata. It can't.
But Dawkins must be right. He's a scientist, isn't he? Much, much smarter than me.
You do have a point. I will changed my statement to: someone who studies evolution is an evolutionary biologist. Someone who understands and accept evolution would just be informed. When talking about the typical believer (read: accepter) on the street, I don't think theres a corresponding term. I mean, the average smart guy isn't a Newtonist because he accepts physics. He's not an Einsteinist because he accepts relativity.
He's not an Einsteinist because he accepts relativity.
just so.
In fact, that essential phrasing has been used by many of us to point out the absurdity of singling out evolutionary biology from Physics or Chemistry, say, or even meteorology.
I still get a kick out of seeing it in action though. Like watching a favorite wind up toy do its stuff.
Yeah. I think the highlight of this evening was when I asked ungtss for the "real" argument of why ID is science, and he wrote, "I'm not here to debate with you." If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't believe that this was coming from the same person who wrote, "It's amazing to me how all the substance of my comments is ignored..."
Projection at its finest....
In other news, is it bad that it's almost 2 am and I still haven't left the office?
What's up with the 'believe in evolution' line anyway? What the fuck is there to not believe? It's bizarre to me that people put up these blocks to believe that are completely artificial (not based on actual evidence to the contrary, or, in the case of most of the people around me, actual disbelief).
It's as absurd as not believing that we landed on the moon, or not believing that we have robotic orbiters flying around Saturn... in all other aspects of life, people who disbelieve the plainly visible are called on this and sent to a doctor (if they're not homeless) for help.
Damn, IDiots are stupid... (I'm being elitist now, aren't I?)
1. Dawkins has been known to self-identify as a "Darwinist" because there's little or no pejorative overtones to the term in the U.K.
2. American scientists rarely do, because of the decades-old pejorative misuse of the term by creationists.
Simple enough - yes? No?
I think it's fair to say that the meaning and implications of the term varies, depending on who's talking, who's being described, and (as Ichthyic just pointed out) the intent of the usage.
If Richard Dawkins called me a Darwinist, I'd grin. If Mark Mathis did, I'd consider it an insult.
In my estimation, very few people who post on Pharyngula self-identify as Darwinists, for reasons that have already been covered.
I mean, the average smart guy isn't a Newtonist because he accepts physics. He's not an Einsteinist because he accepts relativity.
How about fundamentalist Newtonists? By which I mean people who don't accept Einsteinian relativity because it does not strictly conform to Newton's proposed hypotheses.
I'm sure they're out their somewhere, given how terribly dogmatic and resistant to change science is....
Incidentally, next time a creationist uses the faulty law/theory dichotomy, I think I may have to point them to Newton's "laws", which are actually only actually semi-accurate representations of macroscopic mechanics. So much for the infallibility of scientific laws as compared to theories...
((@#265 RamblinDude: Thanks. I'm glad I've stuck around too. I wonder if I can put all this time on the clock? I *am* discussing science, after all...))
It just kinda hit me; what are people thinking when they come to a science comment board? Did they really think they were going to overturn evolutionary theory with their super-science? I'm not pointing to anyone specific, but really, did you think you were going to have no science experience or original thought, come here and say "well you cant explain the eye!" and evolution would topple? That doesn't happen anywhere else. No one goes to a comment board and proclaims they can overthrow the fundamental underpinnings of chemistry with analogies about watches or finding paintings in the woods.
Ungtss...
When a geologist, archeologist or paleontologist wants to make a dating of a given strata they don't just take one sample. They will take multiple samples from all around the target fossil or location. They will then test each sample using multiple different methods to determine the age of the sediment layer. This will give the scientist enough data to make a statistical analysis of the age of the strata.
In fact, some layers can be identified as being laid down at the same time over a very large area. Say by a volcanic eruption. That layer can then be aged by taking samples not just from one site but ranging over an entire area. Since a large number of samples are taken and all samples are tested using the same multiple methods then a pretty accurate estimate for the age of the layer can be made through standard statistical analysis techniques.
Your blog shows a strong interest for things scientific. I would recommend that you read up on some standard research techniques for the areas of geology, archeology, and paleontology. I'm sure such resources are readily available and they may help clear things up for you.
Also, keep in mind that typically when you see someone like Dawkins speaking publicly he is probably simplifying what he is saying to account for time constraints and the audience.
Damn, IDiots are stupid... (I'm being elitist now, aren't I?)
Sometimes I think this is the point of their persistence. They want to provoke scientists and science-minded people into making comments that they can then use as fodder to portray us as rude, bigoted elitists.
Every time I start a "conversation" with an IDiot, I try to be polite. I try to engage them in reasonable discourse. But after a while, the projection, denial, and outright willful ignorance gets to be too much, and I inevitably become sarcastic and elitist (if you can call an expressed distaste for willfully ignorant irrationality 'elitism').
Aren't there still some excellent underground jazz and blues scenes there? I know we're all broke these days, but Chicago can be a fantastic hang out after dark from what I recall.
I only spent a couple of weeks there working with a nonprofit group, but I had a great time.
On the weekends, is there still a huge line of dog owners on the breakwater endlessly tossing balls into the lake?
Man, this unfunf guy must be a real hoot at parties!
Ultimately, he's just another one of those fun derailers we get around here. All that tedious bloviating seems to boil down to this: the poor guy doesn't get satire. Or else he just doesn't enjoy it. I say, just pity him and laugh at this Current video.
But in your earlier comment, you claimed that "both misrepresent the views of their opponents in equally viscious and ignorant ways" (emphasis mine). I was addressing the *equal* in that statement. Now you say you're not interested in which is worse. Then you shouldn't have said that they were equal in the first place. You're contradicting yourself.
Actually I'm trying to avoid an irrelevant tangent. The point is that it is bad. I used the word equal. Now, instead of discussing whether it is bad, you are focused only on the word "equal," which was not the point. However, since we've gotten this far, while Expelled blames the IDEA of darwinism (and not Darwin or any other scientists) for the holocaust, the video above attacks Christians and creationists AS PEOPLE, portraying them as fundamentally irrational. Is it worse to blame an idea for a holocaust, or to personally attack a group of people as fundamentally irrational? One's personal, one is not. One blames for a holocaust; the other, ostensibly, only for personal stupidity.
Which one is truly worse? They seem about equal to me. This is a tangent to the real issue.
The reason I feel confident in doing this is because the entire view of ID as being scientific is ignorant at best (unintelligent at worst) and irrational. The tenents of ID simply do not fit with the tenants of the scientific method. There may be ID advocates who are intelligent and rational in other matters (though I haven't personally encountered them), but it's an oxymoron for an ID advocate to be intelligent and rational about ID.
Whether ID is "truly science" is irrelevant to me. Many would be equally happy to have both ID and the idea of naturalistic universal common descent of all life both declared as either both science or both philosophy.
Do not confuse the idea of naturalistic universal common descent of all life with the scientific facts about changes in gene frequencies. The later is science. The former is speculation, philosophy, and interpretation of evidence. On par, many would argue, with ID. Is ID testable? No. Neither is the idea that life arose on Earth spontaneously from inanimate chemicals. That's the rub.
But if you are going to tell me I'm misrepresenting my opposition, I'd like to know how I'm misrepresenting them. You can't persuade somebody that they're wrong (I've repeatedly said that I don't think I'm misrepresenting their claims) without debating them.
The misrepresentation is that all advocates of ID are fundamentally irrational, as portrayed in the video. Advocates of a position may be wrong, and yet rational based on their premises. Sinking to the level of personally attacking them as stupid (or, as has apparently become the rage lately, ineptly psychoanalyzing them) fails to recognize that people may hold different opinions rationally, based on different premises. That failure is the essence of fundamentalism of all types.
Way to dodge the question, though.
Oh please. You've heard the ID arguments before.
1) It is unreasonable to exclude intelligent actors as a potential agent in the development of highly organized systems, a priori as a function of the definition of science.
2) There are a number of biological structures (including the primeval self-replicating organism) for which there is as yet no naturalistic explanation;
3) There are a number of structures for which the complexity is so interdependent on other structures as to make stepwise evolution appear highly unreasonable;
In this context, yes, Marx wished for the abolition of religion, but he saw it as a natural and teleological consequence of the Hegelian progress of history. He would *not* have condoned Stalin's mangling of this concept to justify the persecution of religious people. Atheism did not lead to communism; the Soviet conception of communism lead to (or rather, forced) the mass adoption of atheism as a peculiar dogma.
Would you apply this same sort of quibbling to your interpretation of the inquisition? I made that argument above, but you ignored it. Consider: "Jesus never called for putting heretics to death; therefore Christianity was not to blame for the inquisition. On the contrary, it was merely the cult of the papacy twisting the ideas of theism to justify oppressing heretics."
It is unreasonable to exclude intelligent actors as a potential agent in the development of highly organized systems, a priori as a function of the definition of science.
guess what moron?
we don't a priori exclude the supernatural from science, either.
It's just irrelevant unless one can define the actors in question (supernatural or not) and how they function causally in the world.
can you figure out why, or do we have to baby-walk you through that one too?
for which there is as yet no naturalistic explanation
both irrelevant to evolutionary theory, AND not correct. there are many theories of abiogenesis. your ignorance of them is no excuse.
There are a number of structures for which the complexity is so interdependent on other structures as to make stepwise evolution appear highly unreasonable;
If you wish to continue, you have to assume at this point that the people who are responding actually know more about ID, science, religion, and politics, than you do, Mr. Barnacle.
Every time I start a "conversation" with an IDiot, I try to be polite.
Well damn, if that don't say it all.
Maybe if you began with the premise: "This person thinks differently than me; I wonder how his premises lead to his conclusions?" rather than "This person is an IDiot -- nevertheless I must be polite if I wish to persuade him" things would go differently for you in these conversations.
Any conversation that begins with the presumption on either side that the other is fundamentally irrational is doomed to begin with. That is he seed of fundamentalism -- the failure to recognize that people may rationally disagree, based on different premises.
Maybe if you tried to understand ID, rather than trying to explain why it is wrong, you would succeed.
And before you start with the strawmen, I haven't argued that anyone here is fundamentally irrational. I am fascinated by the premises that lead to evolutionary thought -- because understanding them helps me develop my own premises.
The problem with the ID/evolution debate is that there are too many scientists running around that don't understand philosophy, and too many philosophers running around that don't understand science. It's like The Dark Crystal, if you've ever seen the film.
Ok I give up on this guy. When someone says naturalistic universal common descent isn't science, I interpret what they're implying. Would un-naturalistic universal common descent be ok? If not, why bother adding the part about naturalism. Fundie types have a problem with naturalism. For what reason I can only speculate.
Naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality. Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.
Naturalism leaves no room for God, and they want their God everywhere. I mean, total monopoly. School, court, stores, TV, legislated into law. Whenever he doesn't dominate the scene they get offended and cry some sort of persecution. Nevermind that naturalism is needed for science to even work. When it gets to this point, I see the true colors. This and numerous other reasons, show you lack a clear grasp of what science even is. If you want them listed I'm sure people here would oblige; me, I'm going to bed.
The problem with the ID/evolution debate is that there are too many scientists running around that don't understand philosophy
no, the problem with this "debate" is that there really isn't one.
there are a bunch of idiots like yourself, running around creating a fictional controversy, and then claiming victimhood when we point out that this is what you are doing.
We really can't help that you're a demented fuckwit.
It is unreasonable to exclude intelligent actors as a potential agent in the development of highly organized systems, a priori as a function of the definition of science.
guess what moron?
we don't a priori exclude the supernatural from science, either.
It's just irrelevant unless one can define the actors in question (supernatural or not) and how they function causally in the world.
Oh please. "Supernatural" is a meaningless term. Take a hard look at what you mean by the term. Define it. Then see if a) it means anything; or b) science can investigate it.
both irrelevant to evolutionary theory, AND not correct. there are many theories of abiogenesis. your ignorance of them is no excuse.
Science requires demonstration. None of those hypotheses (not theories) have been demonstrated as functional; much less demonstrated as actually having occurred. The existence of multiple hypotheses is proof that none has been demonstrated as factual.
If you wish to continue, you have to assume at this point that the people who are responding actually know more about ID, science, religion, and politics, than you do, Mr. Barnacle.
After all, you are a scientist; much, much smarter than I.
I say we suspend all discussion until a testable theory of ID is put forward by ungtss.
There isn't one. There's also no testable theory that a cell arose spontaneously from inanimate matter, and diversified by purely natural means into all life. There are some hypotheses. All conflicting. None demonstrated. That's not science. It's speculation.
Science requires demonstration. None of those hypotheses (not theories) have been demonstrated as functional; much less demonstrated as actually having occurred.
So... we're finally talking about "creation science" and ID...?
The point is that it is bad. I used the word equal. Now, instead of discussing whether it is bad, you are focused only on the word "equal," which was not the point.
Actually, my point was that you contradicted yourself. First you made a judgment about their relative "badness" ("equal"), then you said you weren't interested in that. If you have no interest in evaluating such a thing, you shouldn't make the evaluation in the first place.
But alright. You say this is irrelevant to your point, and to be fair, it is difficult (and maybe impossible) to debate a "which is worse" point, at least not without getting into a lengthy debate over philosophical views of ethics.
Moving on....
Whether ID is "truly science" is irrelevant to me. Many would be equally happy to have both ID and the idea of naturalistic universal common descent of all life both declared as either both science or both philosophy.
Do not confuse the idea of naturalistic universal common descent of all life with the scientific facts about changes in gene frequencies. The later is science. The former is speculation, philosophy, and interpretation of evidence.
Oh boy. I'd love to see the scientific literature, stripped of everything that involves "interpretation of the evidence." It's a mistaken view of science that states that all science is is a method involving collecting data and publishing it. There's a reason that the structure of a scientific article usually goes something like:
See, after you get the RESULTS -- changes in allele frequency, etc -- you're supposed to use things like logic and other previously published data to DISCUSS and interpret it.
As for your interpretations of the data in support of ID (or at least the possibility of ID)...
1) It is unreasonable to exclude intelligent actors as a potential agent in the development of highly organized systems, a priori as a function of the definition of science.
No one has excluded them a priori, but until we have evidence of these intelligent actors actually *existing*, there's no reasonable way to talk about them acting. (This, I think, is ID'ers first task on the road to a semblance of scientific legitimacy to find evidence of God, intelligent extra-terrestrial life, or the like...so far, there has been no success.)
2) There are a number of biological structures (including the primeval self-replicating organism) for which there is as yet no naturalistic explanation;
Unlike in theology, it is not a problem in science to say, "I don't know." Instead, it's an avenue for future scientific research.
3) There are a number of structures for which the complexity is so interdependent on other structures as to make stepwise evolution appear highly unreasonable
Key word: "appear." As discussed previously in this thread, intuitive appearances are often misleading.
And by the way, regarding your preface to these arguments:
Oh please. You've heard the ID arguments before.
Yes, I have. But I wanted to hear them from you, because if I had described them myself, you might accuse me of "misrepresenting" ID'ers arguments.
Would you apply this same sort of quibbling to your interpretation of the inquisition? I made that argument above, but you ignored it. Consider: "Jesus never called for putting heretics to death; therefore Christianity was not to blame for the inquisition. On the contrary, it was merely the cult of the papacy twisting the ideas of theism to justify oppressing heretics."
And I never said that Jesus' philosophy lead to this sort of oppression. Actually, I never said anything about religious persecution, other than to state that persecution certainly doesn't require belief in God -- only dogma. You're putting words into my mouth, and I ignored them because I didn't feel a need to address refutations of arguments I never made.
Though if we're going to talk about Jesus' ethical philosophy, it's really hard to figure out...one minute he's talking about love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek, and the next it's "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
The trouble with the bible is that it's so contradictory anyone can use it to justify anything....
oh fucking please, what did you just finish reading Behe's black box or something?
if you don't get why I posted the reducible mousetrap, you don't even understand the basic fucking argument you yourself are trying to make.
I'm backing off the just denial/projection thing and really thinking you are a complete moron at this point.
After all, you are a scientist; much, much smarter than I.
yeah, so what of it? some of us spent decades actually studying biology, zoology, botany, and evolutionary theory, then went out and actually did research and published it.
If you want to paint that as being elitest, you better paint your fucking plumber as elitest too.
damn, do you just get dumber as you go along?
It's not like every single "argument" you've presented this evening hasn't been entirely refuted as nonsense a thousand times before.
In fact, before you open your yap again, do at least check and see if what you are about to say hasn't already been covered here:
So... we're finally talking about "creation science" and ID...?
No, we're talking about the fact that science doesn't know where life came from, but a number of evofundies want to claim that an ID speculative explanation is invalid, without having to acknowledge that their own explanation is also nothing more than speculation.
Aren't there still some excellent underground jazz and blues scenes there? I know we're all broke these days, but Chicago can be a fantastic hang out after dark from what I recall.
Yeah, there are...sadly, I'm still not of legal drinking (and thus jazz/blues club-going) age. Less than a month more to go, though...21 on May 16th :\.
Also, I live in Hyde Park, which has to be the most boring part of Chicago. Seriously, I swear almost everything here closes by 10 pm, even on weekends.
Also, I live in Hyde Park, which has to be the most boring part of Chicago. Seriously, I swear almost everything here closes by 10 pm, even on weekends.
bummer.
soon though...
soon.
I'd join you for a drink if I was still in that neck o the woods, but I find myself out in the desert southwest these days.
So... we're finally talking about "creation science" and ID...?
No, we're talking about the fact that science doesn't know where life came from, but a number of evofundies want to claim that an ID speculative explanation is invalid, without having to acknowledge that their own explanation is also nothing more than speculation.
and as I said before, and you ever so blithely ignored, there are plenty of theories regarding that as well:
Is it, like, mandatory to conflate ToE with abiogenesis in order to get ones ID merit badge, or something? Good grief. We just went through this over on the Freshwater thread. At least I can credit ungtss for having the sense not to bring the Big Bang into it too.
Neither is the idea that life arose on Earth spontaneously from inanimate chemicals. That's the rub.
Actually, there is mounting evidence for this theory. There was the Miller-Urey experiment (which, Stein's claims to the contrary, was not a failure; that they failed to spontaneously generate new life is unsurprising given the short time scale they conducted the experiment on relative to the very long time scale prebiotic earth had to work with). Then there's independent evidence derived by different techniques that validate the idea that life originated out of the prebiotic environment. For example, here is the abstract from an article published in 2002 (quite a while ago, on the scientific article time-scale):
"To understand more fully how amino acid composition of proteins has changed over the course of evolution, a method has been developed for estimating the composition of proteins in an ancestral genome. Estimates are based upon the composition of conserved residues in descendant sequences and empirical knowledge of the relative probability of conservation of various amino acids. Simulations are used to model and correct for errors in the estimates. The method was used to infer the amino acid composition of a large protein set in the Last Universal Ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. Relative to the modern protein set, LUA proteins were found to be generally richer in those amino acids that are believed to have been most abundant in the prebiotic environment and poorer in those amino acids that are believed to have been unavailable or scarce. It is proposed that the inferred amino acid composition of proteins in the LUA probably reflects historical events in the establishment of the genetic code."
I am currently reading "Evolution" by Mark Ridley. It is an undergraduate textbook. (I am reading it purely for interest/pleasure - I have no practical need to).
In its 750 (big) pages, it references material that is listed in 34 pages of references, probably over 700 papers & books in all, by 100s of authors. This book is intended to get people to first degree level, and is presumably not intended to be enough by itself to do valuable research in the topic. And this is just one book!
What arrogance must someone have to expect that they will be able to undermine the whole area of science without doing proper homework first?
Just for interest, 3 of those references are to Darwin, and 5 to Dawkins.
Maybe if you tried to understand ID, rather than trying to explain why it is wrong
nonsequitor?
how does one go about understanding something without trying to prove it wrong?
ummm, THAT'S SCIENCE MORON.
In case you never knew (duh), science never does try to prove anything. It's a systematic attempt to DISPROVE hypotheses.
hence why ID doesn't, and even can't, rise to the level as being anything other than vacuous nonsense:
there is nothing to disprove. no testable predictions, not even a definition of a designer to work with.
it's fucking nonsense, and is really just as much relevant to actual science as the flying spaghetti monsterism.
so strike me with a noodly appendage already.
you just don't fucking get it, Mr. Barnacle. Nothing would make a real scientist happier than a new hypothesis for evolution to play with.
We asked the IDiots for YEARS to refine their concept to the point where it would be testable. While conceptually, we of course realized they wouldn't be able to, we did ask nonetheless.
there was no repression, there was no expulsion, there was only an impatient tapping of feet while we waited... and waited... and waited...
and now political ideologues simply want to convince screwballs like yourself that there is controversy where there is not, simply in order to push your fucking buttons.
that you are ignorant is forgivable and fixable.
that you are a willfully ignorant muppet is inexcusable unless you have a mental health condition you would like to share with us.
Why on earth would I wonder how someone's premises lead to his conclusions if I've already heard all the arguments outlining just that?
Wheeeee!
At this point, I start to figure I'm losing too many brain cells trying to get someone like Mr. Barnacle to think his way out of a paper bag.
Just once, I would love to see a creobot admit that everything they are saying has been said and refuted a million times before (which is of course why the ICC even exists). That they would actually point to a thread where they acknowledge someone who isn't themselves said the exact same thing, and that they recognize it was actually addressed.
I understand why it never happens (again, perfect fit with what we were talking about with psychological defense mechanisms), but still, like a unicorn or a fire-breathing dragon, it's something I'd like to see someday, even if I realize it doesn't exist.
Would you apply this same sort of quibbling to your interpretation of the inquisition? I made that argument above, but you ignored it. Consider: "Jesus never called for putting heretics to death; therefore Christianity was not to blame for the inquisition. On the contrary, it was merely the cult of the papacy twisting the ideas of theism to justify oppressing heretics."
Hey, you yourself applied the same sort of quibbling to the "poison" bible quote, when you claimed that it's "misquoting" and "bigotry" to take the bible verse at face value!
"Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
But alright. You say this is irrelevant to your point, and to be fair, it is difficult (and maybe impossible) to debate a "which is worse" point, at least not without getting into a lengthy debate over philosophical views of ethics.
Bingo. But you still haven't addressed the bigotry I alleged was reflected in the video.
Whether ID is "truly science" is irrelevant to me. Many would be equally happy to have both ID and the idea of naturalistic universal common descent of all life both declared as either both science or both philosophy.
Do not confuse the idea of naturalistic universal common descent of all life with the scientific facts about changes in gene frequencies. The later is science. The former is speculation, philosophy, and interpretation of evidence.
Oh boy. I'd love to see the scientific literature, stripped of everything that involves "interpretation of the evidence." It's a mistaken view of science that states that all science is is a method involving collecting data and publishing it.
That's mere strawman. No one said that science permitted no interpretation of the evidence. I said that the notion that all life arose spontaneously from non-living matter and diversified without any intelligent interference into all life on Earth today is not a testable hypothesis; it is grounded in a great deal of speculation, philosophical assumption, and interpretation of evidence.
Additionally, in the many areas of science where interpretation becomes an issue, multiple untestable interpretations are permitted, even if they are not all testable. Except in the case of ID, of course.
You failed to address my point again, zeroing in on a single word and manufacturing a straw-man. Do you think that the concept of "inanimate goo-to-you evolution" has been tested?
No one has excluded them a priori, but until we have evidence of these intelligent actors actually *existing*, there's no reasonable way to talk about them acting. (This, I think, is ID'ers first task on the road to a semblance of scientific legitimacy to find evidence of God, intelligent extra-terrestrial life, or the like...so far, there has been no success.)
That evidence is called "history." Advocates of ID give credence to the ancient accounts of gods interacting with men in time and space. Opponents of ID do not, based on the premise that such histories are mere mythology and fiction developed by primitives to cope with ignorance and fear. This difference in premise is untestable and philosophical, and underlies the divide between ID + evo.
2) There are a number of biological structures (including the primeval self-replicating organism) for which there is as yet no naturalistic explanation;
Unlike in theology, it is not a problem in science to say, "I don't know." Instead, it's an avenue for future scientific research.
You're making two mistakes:
1) If a scientist admits that he does not know how it happened, then he is obligated to acknowledge the possibility of all explanations which have not been falsified. You can't say my explanation is wrong unless you falsify it, or prove your own. Evofundies decline to do this. They say, "We don't know how, but we know no one intelligent did itit, and it's unscientific to believe that someone intelligent did."
2) Alleging that theology doesn't permit saying "I don't know." On the contrary, any theology will tell you that the essence of theology is knowing that there are many things about God they do not understand.
3) There are a number of structures for which the complexity is so interdependent on other structures as to make stepwise evolution appear highly unreasonable
Key word: "appear." As discussed previously in this thread, intuitive appearances are often misleading.
Again, unless an explanation can be falsified or its alternative demonstrated, it must be permitted as a possibility.
And I never said that Jesus' philosophy lead to this sort of oppression. Actually, I never said anything about religious persecution, other than to state that persecution certainly doesn't require belief in God -- only dogma. You're putting words into my mouth, and I ignored them because I didn't feel a need to address refutations of arguments I never made.
I never claimed you made those arguments, nor put any words in your mouth. I asked if you would apply a similar analysis to the inquisition -- blaming power rather than belief and religion, as you so charitably do in the case of Stalin. You still haven't responded.
The trouble with the bible is that it's so contradictory anyone can use it to justify anything....
IMO, using the Bible to justify action or belief is the wrong way round. The Bible is a tool to be used, not an authority to appeal to.
That having been said, I disagree with your characterization of Jesus' statements as contradiction. Look at Gandhi. Through a policy of non-violence, he managed to cause great strife and dissonance. He brought down an entire political regine. So it was with Jesus. He pursued a policy of non-violence; but the results were radical. His philosophy destroyed paganism as an institutionalized belief system in Europe.
It's easy to use the bible to justify evil. It's also easy to use superficial analysis of the Bible to contrive superficial "contradictions" that don't really exist.
Just once, I would love to see a creobot admit that everything they are saying has been said and refuted a million times before
Yeah, it would be nice. Ungtss probably came as close as we'll ever get to fulfilling this fantasy with his, "Oh please. You've heard the ID arguments before" statement in comment 290....
(again, perfect fit with what we were talking about with psychological defense mechanisms)
Hey! According to ungtss, this is nothing more than "as has apparently become the rage lately, ineptly psychoanalyzing them [your opponents]". I love how a discussion between a few people on a discussion board apparently constitutes a new "rage". Suddenly I feel all influential and important-like.
I would hardly call it quibbling to say that your entire conception of Marxist thought on religion as it relates to Stalinist policy is wrong....
I would hardly say you established that. The fact remains that atheism is an established tenet of communism, that Marx put that tenet there, and that later atheists like Stalin killed the religious because they were religious, justifying them with the atheistic tenets of communism.
The fact is, atheists can be just as bigoted and ignorant as Christians or Muslims can. Your characterization of Stalin as "Communist first, atheist second" doesn't change that. The real enemy, I think we can agree, is dogmatism of any type. Including both theitic and atheistic dogmatism.
The real enemy, I think we can agree, is dogmatism of any type. Including both theitic and atheistic dogmatism.
*sigh*
can you even grasp what "false equivalency" means?
Please instruct us on the dogma of not collecting stamps, Mr. Barnacle.
congratulations, btw, you are the creotard of the day! I'd say there's even a chance that PZ will mention you on the blog tommorrow; he's pointed out especially obtuse morons before.
Hey! According to ungtss, this is nothing more than "as has apparently become the rage lately, ineptly psychoanalyzing them [your opponents]". I love how a discussion between a few people on a discussion board apparently constitutes a new "rage". Suddenly I feel all influential and important-like.
There have indeed been a lot of people fancying themselves competent to psychoanalyze my defense mechanisms on this message board. Mischaracterizing my description of it as a "rage" as referring to something nation-wide or global in scope is sheer sophistry.
Remember folks, never ever ever think that you're right about anything. Or that anyone else is wrong. That's dogmatism. And it seriously harshes other peoples' mellow.
"I am currently reading "Evolution" by Mark Ridley. It is an undergraduate textbook. (I am reading it purely for interest/pleasure - I have no practical need to)."
Me too! I'd be interested to know if there is a text that provides a better grounding in the major concepts for £20. It always amazes me how cheap it is to self-educate yourself to a fairly high standard, if you are prepared to put in the effort.
I've got a pile of books that I really need to get through. I think that I will move on to "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", and then "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", after that. I'm trying to catch up with some of the classics, while at the same time furthering my understanding of much of the current thinking.
There are few better feelings than when that light comes on and you realize that you have actually grasped a major concept in science!
There have indeed been a lot of people fancying themselves competent to psychoanalyze my defense mechanisms on this message board.
only because you exhibit such textbook symptoms of projection and denial, that any high school student with a basic psych text could have pointed them out.
frankly, I doubt anyone here feels competent to analyze your condition, but the symptoms are as obvious as if you had come here with pictures of a missing leg, or a broken nose.
In fact, as I suggested earlier, I do recommend you seek professional treatment.
Remember folks, never ever ever think that you're right about anything. Or that anyone else is wrong. That's dogmatism. And it seriously harshes other peoples' mellow.
Nobody said that holding opinions was in and of itself dogmatism. This is the definition of dogmatism. Holding unwarranted opinions in an arrogant manner, and/or holding to a belief system based on insufficiently examined premises.
did you entirely miss me asking you to define the dogma involved in not collecting stamps?
I can only conclude that you are mischaracterizing my statement that "the enemy is dogmas of all types" to mean "There is a dogma about everything, to include stamp collecting."
Of course, I neither said nor meant that.
There are many different types of dogmas. There are not dogmas about everything. Read what people write. Thanks.
Ben Stein may be the fundamentalist Newtonist we're looking for.
He's mentioned on a few occasions that "Darwinism" can't explain how the planets are kept in their orbit. Given his known stance that there is a Creator behind life, one can reasonably assume he also thinks a Creator is necessary for keeping those orbits on the elliptical and narrow.
Now, Newton thought at one point that the planetary orbits were inherently unstable, and so proposed that every so often God would lob a comet through the solar system to make the needed corrections.
So, there you go: Ben Stein -- intermittent actor, economist, erstwhile Nixon flack, ID apologist, game show host, eye drop shill, Newtonian Fundamentalist.
Is there nothing he can't do with that amazing intellect?
Bingo. But you still haven't addressed the bigotry I alleged was reflected in the video.
While it's nice to know you'll agree with me when I agree with you, I have addressed your allegations of bigotry, in any number of comments detailing why ID is fundamentally and inherently irrational (and why thus, portraying its defenders as being irrational on that account is not bigoted).
I said that the notion that all life arose spontaneously from non-living matter and diversified without any intelligent interference into all life on Earth today is not a testable hypothesis; it is grounded in a great deal of speculation, philosophical assumption, and interpretation of evidence.
(bolded emphasis mine)
Which is where modern scientific ideas about abiogenesis have an advantage over ID 'theory.' ID is grounded in a great deal of speculation and philosophical assumption and no actual interpretation of the evidence. The interpretations you have given (irreducable complexity, etc) have all been debunked numerous times.
That evidence is called "history." Advocates of ID give credence to the ancient accounts of gods interacting with men in time and space. Opponents of ID do not, based on the premise that such histories are mere mythology and fiction developed by primitives to cope with ignorance and fear.
...no, opponents of ID don't give credence to "history" because there is no empirical evidence for the truth of these accounts. And honestly, don't you find it a *little* suspicious that all the overt interactions of god(s) with men suddenly ceased with the advent of technology that could actual record and analyze these interactions?
If a scientist admits that he does not know how it happened, then he is obligated to acknowledge the possibility of all explanations which have not been falsified.
Acknowledge, yes (hence Dawkins' acknowledgement of the possibility of panspermia after being asked leading questions in Expelled). Fund, no. There's limited funding in the science world these days; only the more credible hypotheses can get funding. But don't worry, the Discovery Institute and others are getting plenty of private funding for their ID "research." I'm sure they'll come up with results...one of these days...
You can't say my explanation is wrong unless you falsify it, or prove your own.
I can't say unequivocally that it's wrong, but I can say that it's pretty damn unlikely. And that the supposed "evidence" in favor of it is irrational.
Evofundies decline to do this.
Oh really? Let's see what you claim so-called evofundies do say.
They say, "We don't know how,...
True
...but we know no one intelligent did itit,
False. Evolutionary biologists do say that based on logical interpretations of currently existing evidence this seems unlikely, though.
and it's unscientific to believe that someone intelligent did."
True. Science is not about belief. And the "scientific" arguments that are presented over and over for ID are anything but.
I asked if you would apply a similar analysis to the inquisition -- blaming power rather than belief and religion, as you so charitably do in the case of Stalin. You still haven't responded.
I don't think belief was responsible for the Inquisition. I do think that dogmatic organized religion -- with its ability to seep into political power structures -- was.
Holding unwarranted opinions in an arrogant manner, and/or holding to a belief system based on insufficiently examined premises.
So ID (and Christianity, Hinduism and Islam)are all ok, huh?
Interesting...interesting...
Can you define "insanity" for me, please?
You're mischaracterizing me again. I never said there were no dogmatists in religion. I said there are dogmatists and non-dogmatists in both the theistic and atheistic camps.
There is a dogma about everything, to include stamp collecting."
nope, you clueless berk.
I was trying to point out to you that there is a dogma to atheism in exactly the same fashion that there is a dogma to not collecting stamps. Which is why you can't compare the dogma of religions to a dogma of atheism. there isn't one, hence why it's a false comparison.
It's really a simple concept, and I'm not the first to employ it, but you are the first to have totally missed what it meant.
congratulations, again!
now I feel like I'm talking to a four year old.
man, this is beyond shooting fish in a barrel, and more like watching concrete set at this point.
I'm tired of trying to guess what you won't know next.
You're mischaracterizing me again. I never said there were no dogmatists in religion. I said there are dogmatists and non-dogmatists in both the theistic and atheistic camps.
Yikes.
I'm not mischaracterizing you, I'm asking how any of those are not dogmatic in totality, not if they had no members that were dogmatic. Apparently, you should try comprehending things, it happens to be of great benefit.
I can assure you, while I may give some slack to religion in general by your very definition anyone who believes in ID is currently dogmatic or extremely ignorant and lacks very large amounts of basic high school education.
Either way, you pretty much just stepped in your own bear-trap by claiming dogma is bad then defining dogma to fit the ID belief perfectly.
"Stalin killed the religious because they were religious, justifying them with the atheistic tenets of communism."
Stalin also murdered Evolutionary biologists, as well, exploiting 100 years of the God-like reverence and subservience to the Tsar, thereby creating a quasi-religious state.
Me thinks that you are making quite a category error if you think that the so called "atheistic" tyrants weren't religious. It's all about the dogma, baby, and whatever you say about atheism there ain't no dogma involved. Good luck with justifying the logical steps between the rejection of God (and only that), and anything else.
Do you reckon it's about time we scientists think about re-naming the unaptly named "central dogma of molecular biology"?
Congratulations on finding the one, single thing the creobots have contributed to the advancement of science! They have forced us all to utilize more clearly defined jargon.
I can think of more productive ways to have accomplished the same task, however.
The fact is, atheists can be just as bigoted and ignorant as Christians or Muslims can.
You know, if the Christians and Muslims would at least accept this, that would be a major step in the right direction. JUST AS bigoted and ignorant. So no need for their fucking doomsday predictions about increasing atheism if everyone is potentially JUST AS bad.
If we could get that out of the way, we could then discuss with the Christians and Muslims why their religion does not seem to bring them GREATER understanding and LESS bigotry, what with religion being the source of morality and whatnot.
I'm tired of trying to guess what you won't know next.
I'm tired of trying to guess which of his own previous statements he's going to contradict next. It's hard enough trying to guess what an ignorant person won't know next, but when the few things they do claim to "know" contradict each other...it gets to be a real headache....
Thanks for that, Ichthyic. I have looked at it before, but there are just so many books and it is difficult to identify the better ones.
By the way, do you know that Richard Carrier is attempting to raise $20,000 from secular donations to produce a book about the historicity of Jesus? After reading Earl Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle", Carrier reckons there is a pretty solid case for a mythical Jesus, and that it may be possible to shift the balance with the majority of scholars who have traditionally favored a historical Jesus.
ungtss, or should that be ugh, Stalin didn't attack religion because of their belief in god but because religion was a powerful force in Russia and it represented a very real threat to the power of the state because of the organisation behind it and the support of the people. Much like the Burmese junta attacked Burma's religious leaders in the recent protests.
Thus the soviets either eliminated and/or controlled and/or co-opted religion. Which they did at any one time depended purely on how the state thought it could be best used to its own advantage.
Exactly in the same manner and for the same reason that they attacked their own trade unions when those trade unions, originally one of their principle supporters, started asking where was this utopia promised by the state. The result of the unions actions in questioning the soviet, the state eliminated those it couldn't co-opt or control and replaced them with those it could control.
In other words, at no time where xians attacked because of their belief but simply to eliminate them as a possible powerful opponent. If you can't see the difference between that and attacking them for their xian beliefs, then there isn't much hope for you. Then again, after following you in this thread, we are way past that conclusion anyway.
On that note, I think I'll (finally) return home for a well-deserved early-morning nap that will hopefully last well into the afternoon...good night, all. It's been fun.
I said that the notion that all life arose spontaneously from non-living matter and diversified without any intelligent interference into all life on Earth today is not a testable hypothesis; it is grounded in a great deal of speculation, philosophical assumption, and interpretation of evidence.
(bolded emphasis mine)
Which is where modern scientific ideas about abiogenesis have an advantage over ID 'theory.' ID is grounded in a great deal of speculation and philosophical assumption and no actual interpretation of the evidence. The interpretations you have given (irreducable complexity, etc) have all been debunked numerous times.
I have been studying these alleged "debunkings" for years, and personally, I haven't been impressed. Scientists are not trained in philosophy, or the evaluation of evidence. While I will accept a scientist's authority on things that are within their purvue of training, I do not feel obliged to accept their authority on things they know nothing about.
Philosophy of science is, unfortunately, something most of them know nothing about.
These "debunkings" fall squarely within the category of philosophy of science. They are not, in fact, debunkings; they are competing, unfalsifiable interpretations of the evidence masqueraded as debunkings.
You cannot "debunk" the impression that even the simplest forms of life are too tightly integrated and complex to have reached that configuration spontaneously, unless you can show how it happened. No one has done that. Some people think they've done it, by pointing out uses for partial mousetraps. But that's not science. It's an argument, made by people not trained in how to make or analyze philosophical arguments.
...no, opponents of ID don't give credence to "history" because there is no empirical evidence for the truth of these accounts.
And that is another point of empirical disagreement. Lawyers call it a "question of fact." And reasonable minds can disagree. Personally, I think there's an enormous amount of evidence to support it, from the complexity evidence in the simplest cell to the fact that the orbital periods of the planets are arranged in proportion to the golden ratio, phi. Civilization appeared around 4,000 BC fully developed and highly advanced, and subsequently declined in its organization until only very recently. And the histories of every ancient culture on Earth describes themselves as created, and as interacting and interbreeding with the gods.
I find those facts persuasive. I understand another might not. But I also understand that in every jury and every supreme court ruling, there are different weighings and evaluations of the evidence. For one side to allege that theirs is somehow privileged based on its consonance with their own presuppositions is the same arrogance exhibited by fundamentalists of all stripes.
And honestly, don't you find it a *little* suspicious that all the overt interactions of god(s) with men suddenly ceased with the advent of technology that could actual record and analyze these interactions?
Actually, many of the ancient texts explain that phenomenon rather plausibly -- consider Timaeus, Critias, Genesis, Jubilees, and Enoch. Josephus also gives a great synopsis of other ancient texts that have unfortunately been lost through time.
If a scientist admits that he does not know how it happened, then he is obligated to acknowledge the possibility of all explanations which have not been falsified.
Acknowledge, yes (hence Dawkins' acknowledgement of the possibility of panspermia after being asked leading questions in Expelled). Fund, no. There's limited funding in the science world these days; only the more credible hypotheses can get funding. But don't worry, the Discovery Institute and others are getting plenty of private funding for their ID "research." I'm sure they'll come up with results...one of these days...
I don't care about funding. I care about the acknowledgment that the intuition of the vast majority of people -- that we were created -- be acknowledged as possible, rather than as an idea proven false by science. It appears we agree on that.
You can't say my explanation is wrong unless you falsify it, or prove your own.
I can't say unequivocally that it's wrong, but I can say that it's pretty damn unlikely. And that the supposed "evidence" in favor of it is irrational.
Evidence cannot be rational or irrational. Only inferences from evidence to a conclusion can be rational or irrational. As to whether those inferences are rational or not, I will continue to try and sharpen my mind by striving to see the evidence from all sides and perspectives; you can keep excluding what you've already determined is irrational. Life will go on.
Evofundies decline to do this.
Oh really? Let's see what you claim so-called evofundies do say.
They write books called "The God Delusion," arguing that theism is delusion. They claim that "Religion spoils everything." They don't bother to prove these things. They don't bother to falsify the alternatives. They substitute rhetoric for reason, and do the cause of atheism a huge disservice.
Evolutionary biologists do say that based on logical interpretations of currently existing evidence this seems unlikely, though.
Again, logical interpretations differ. In fact, no one knows how life began. There's no "evidence" to "interpret logically."
I don't think belief was responsible for the Inquisition. I do think that dogmatic organized religion -- with its ability to seep into political power structures -- was.
You're a fair-minded person; I appreciate it. I also don't blame atheism for the purges -- it was power and dogma, as you rightly pointed out.
But there are evofundies writing books with a radically different premise; that religion may well be "The Root of All Evil?"
This sort of bigotry does the cause of atheism a great disservice. Religion is not the root of all evil. Religion is often the victim of evil (both from within and without), as is everything else.
Have you actually read the God Delusion, ungtss? If all Dawkins said was "religion is bad" and then didn't bother trying to prove that, it'd be a very short book.
So I'm hoping you didn't read it. If you did and you still say things like this, you're either crazy or a liar.
I was trying to point out to you that there is a dogma to atheism in exactly the same fashion that there is a dogma to not collecting stamps.
I suppose I'm to blame for your unwillingness and/or inability to coherently make an argument. You throw out a half-ass analogy and then say "Don't you get it!?"
Your argument still carries no content except proof by assertion. Dogmatism is defined as holding an opinion with unwarranted strength or arrogance. Some atheists fit this bill. Others do not.
I do not know of any "anti-stamp collectors," much less arrogant ones. But I do know some arrogant atheists whose beliefs rest on unexamined premises. I also know some wonderful ones with whom I love to discuss the issues.
Your analogy to stamp-collecting is even more nonsensical than I thought.
As a philosophy student, Ungtss, to claim to be defending a philosophical standpoint you utterly disgust me. Call this bigotry if you will but I see it as you defecating upon what I enjoy and I call you out on that.
Additionally, I completely love how you've ignored how I've asked you to defend ID as 'non-dogmatic' by definition.
Also, you seem to be standing on the horrid idea that 'possible = plausible/rational' which I can't even begin to fathom someone who's arguing for philosophy can honestly do, it boggles my mind.
Possible does not mean rational by any means, unfortunately you seem to have a mental disorder which allows you to commit such horrid mangling of logic while continuing to rationalize it with even more mangling. I weep for my dear friend logic, mayhap one day it shall recover from these horrid wounds.
You honestly make me sad to be a philosophy major. I can only hope that (assuming you did/do) go to a college it was a Christian one, so I don't feel all that bad for its utter failure.
If all Dawkins said was "religion is bad" and then didn't bother trying to prove that, it'd be a very short book.
Do a quick word search for "religion is bad" in my post. Not there! Doh! Dawkins alleged that belief in God was a delusion -- but what he argued in the book was that 1) belief is unwarranted; and 2) belief is bad. The word "delusion" means something very specific. It remains unproven in the book.
Additionally, I completely love how you've ignored how I've asked you to defend ID as 'non-dogmatic' by definition.
Well I've been arguing with a number of people, many of whom made more coherent arguments than that one. I apologize for missing yours.
I can assure you, while I may give some slack to religion in general by your very definition anyone who believes in ID is currently dogmatic or extremely ignorant and lacks very large amounts of basic high school education.
As a philosophy major, I'm sure you've heard of "begging the question" or "circular reasoning." That's what you do here. You assume that ID is wrong. You then define ID as dogmatic, because it is belief in that which is wrong. But of course, your premise that ID is wrong is the issue in dispute. And if ID is correct, then believers in ID are not, in fact, dogmatic.
ungtss again, we'll ignore the fact that the mousetrap analogy used by Ichthyic was simply an example of how an artefact designed for one thing when used as a complete entity doesn't become useless when parts are removed and look at the real claims for irreducible complexity. Actually all the so called irreducibly complex structures claimed by the IDiots, (and yes I use the term IDiot deliberately as they have earned the sobriquet time and time again, so cry me a river) such as the flagellum, blood clotting and so on, have all been proven not to be irreducibly complex. The flagellum has been shown to consist of substructures that have uses in their own right and from which the flagellum evolved from. Blood clotting has shown many different but related structures that all work to different degrees, irrespective of whether there are parts missing or not. Thus the refutation of the irreducible complexity has been done not by wishing it away but by demonstrating, through experiment and observation, that sub-structures that make up the human blood clotting agent have similar or different tasks in organisms other than humans even when parts present in the human agent are missing and/or different. The same has been shown in every example the IDiots throw up. Do they give up? No, they simply look for another gap in our existing knowledge and claim that as irreducibly complex.
Thus IDiotism, ignoring its political basis, is based purely on incredulity. Its not the evolutionist fault if IDiots refuse to look at the evidence with their fingers in their ears going na na na I can't hear you. As Dumbski demonstrated in the Dover trial that not only had he not read the wealth of peer reviewed papers that refuted his arguments but even stated that he had no intention of reading them. This leading light of IDiotism even went so far as to admit that using his definition of science, astrology had to be acknowledged as valid science. If this is the best you can come up with as your leading advocates, you really do have problems when it comes to criticising real scientists on how they approach their work and reach their conclusions.
Nobody said that holding opinions was in and of itself dogmatism. This is the definition of dogmatism. Holding unwarranted opinions in an arrogant manner, and/or holding to a belief system based on insufficiently examined premises.
Posted by: ungtss | April 26, 2008 4:53 AM
But ... but ... science isn't a belief system!!??!!
I like to think that parodies are efficient tools. But are they really ?
On the downside, we will get accused by the moderates of battling carricatures of theism, instead of having the moderates attacking the real fundamentalists.
Mind you, they seem to keep quiet on the fundamentalists anyway, so what's the risk ?
Maybe the trick is to make parodies like this guy, which are that good, that one can't see the difference with a real fundie. The problem is that he is honest (which is in his honor) and says it on his profile, but then his parody looses its efficiency.
Ugh. I'm reading the same circular arguments over and over again, with certain nameless people thinking they've discovered the rhetorical equivalent of perpetual motion. All this wasted effort on the exact same set of false premises, day in and day out.
the fact that the orbital periods of the planets are arranged in proportion to the golden ratio, phi. - ungtss
Here's a table of orbital periods, taking that of Earth as 1:
Mercury 0.206
Venus 0.6152
Earth 1.000
Mars 1.8809
Jupiter 11.862
Saturn 29.458
Uranus 84.01
Neptune 164.79
Pluto 248.54
(I've included Pluto as the Neptune/Pluto ratio is one of the better ones from ungtss's point of view, but drop it if you like.)
Phi is 1.618, to 3 decimal places.
The successive ratios between orbital periods, also to 3 decimal places, are: 2.986, 1.625, 1.881, 6.307, 2.483, 2.852, 1.962, 1.508.
Ungtss, you just repeated your piece of numerological garbage without even bothering to check it, didn't you?
Civilization appeared around 4,000 BC fully developed and highly advanced, and subsequently declined in its organization until only very recently. - ungtss
4000 BCE there were proto-urban settlements (showing evidence of occupational specialisation) in Mesopotamia, use of copper in tools across south-west Asia, Egypt and eastern Europe, agriculture there and also western Europe, much of Asia, central America and Peru; no bronze, no iron, no writing, no wheeled vehicles. Going back in time from there, copper use appears in the 6th millennium BCE, pottery rather earlier, agriculture around the ninth... (I could go on). Going forward in time we find bronze use in the 4th millennium BCE, writing starting around 3000 BCE, wheeled vehicles late 3rd millennium, iron late 2nd millennium - ungtss, the depths of your ignorance are enough to daze the mind with horror.
You cannot "debunk" the impression that even the simplest forms of life are too tightly integrated and complex to have reached that configuration spontaneously, unless you can show how it happened.
Do you agree with this description of ID?
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
It's very disingenous of you to act as if it's mostly about how the "simplest forms of life" originated and to add the diversification of life just as an afterthought. Evolutionary biology deals primarily with the latter. The bulk of the debunkings of ID have concentrated on their stupid claims about evolution, not abiogenesis. For example, Behe's claims about the evolution of new binding sites have been debunked.
ID has been dismantled so many times by so many scientists it's not even that we're assuming it's wrong. It's been shown to be an empty idea. It's this empty idea that assumes that everything is just too perfect and too balanced for not it to have been designed in someway by a designer... when you can prove a designer exists get back to us. Meanwhile science will keep doing research.
As I get older (not that I am very old) I am finding it hard to accept that there are people who are not only regularly as eloquent and insightful as I am on my best days, but who are also considerably younger than me. Etha, you're a credit to the scientific tradition. Could you take it easy for a bit so us old gits can keep up?
Do all IDists or apologists argue by randomly pulling terms out of the logical fallacies wikipedia article and assigning them to arguments basically at random?
So has Ungtsss bothered to put forth a reason why we should take Young Earth Creationism Intelligent Design "theory" seriously, or is he just getting his jollies off of accusing us of being Christian-killing Communazis?
God, with his "chosen" people, is the ultimate elitist.
Maybe if he spent less time mindlessly adding God comments to science discussion boards and more time following those discussions... but no, that would require thought and, apparently, that's not his forte.
God, with his "chosen" people, is the ultimate elitist.
Maybe if he spent less time mindlessly adding God comments to science discussion boards and more time following those discussions... but no, that would require thought and, apparently, that's not his forte.
Of course not: he was taught that thinking is the "Devil's personal indulgence."
Let me break this down real simple for you. I may have a rock that cooled from lava 10,000,000 years ago. It may well have sat on a lava field for 9,000,000 years, until being broken off by a glacier and being buried in sedimentary strata 1,000,000 years ago. In fact, it probably did, assuming sedimentary strata take a long time to lay down. So if I find a fossil next to that rock in the strata, am I to conclude that the fossil is 10,000,000 years old, because that's the age of the lava rock? According to Dawkins, yes. It's nonsense, of course. It takes no account of the time between the cooling of the lava and the laying of the strata. It can't.
In the first place, you're misrepresenting Dawkins' claim in the video you're criticizing. In response to an audience question about what creationists would have to do to prove that dinosaur fossils were 3,000 years old, Dawkins said:
"What they would have to do is to find igneous rocks which were found in proximity to or sandwiching the fossils, and date these by radioactive dating..."
Note the "or sandwiching" bit, which you left out of your transcript.
Dawkins did not say that any igneous rock would be sufficient to accurately date the fossils, regardless of its shape or size or composition or context or relative position; he said igneous rocks would be necessary. Obviously, yes, a random pebble embedded in the stratum next to the fossil will be less informative than a pair of lava flows or volcanic ash deposits closely sandwiching it. But do you really expect Dawkins to give a lecture on stratigraphy in a brief Q&A session?
In the second place, even in the worst-case scenario you lay out above, that igneous rock does provide valuable dating information. By the principle of inclusion, we can say that the stratum and the fossils it contains may be much younger than the igneous rock, but they can't be older. There's half your dating job done right there. And, coincidentally, it's the half most relevant to the question Dawkins was asked: how would you prove fossils were actually very young?
So you've created a strawman of Dawkins' position and then failed to refute it anyway. Well done!
But Dawkins must be right. He's a scientist, isn't he? Much, much smarter than me.
I don't know about that, but on this topic he's evidently much better-informed.
I got a kick out of the claim that scientists aren't trained to evaluate evidence. Is that true?
Mr. Ungtss repeatedly claims that a proposition must be considered until it is falsified, without once acknowledging that in order to be considered at all, it must be falsifiable. Odd.
Ah yes, of course you are right. It seems I'm the one who got it backwards. My bad.
Nah, you just made the mistake of trusting ungtss to accurately describe Dawkins' position. That's the problem with atheism, it makes us all kindly and open-minded and trusting of our fellow man. :-)
Try to exercise your capacity for crabby suspicion this weekend.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but in this case it wasn't so much about whether or not Dawkins was right, it was about how igneous rocks can or cannot be used to accurately date the sedimentary layer in which they appear. That's what I got wrong, irrespective of Dawkins' statements. Serves me right for trying to think at 3 a.m. (A common error of mine...LOL)
Looking back on it, I can only file it under "What was I thinking?!?" :-)
Wow. ungtss gets his personal thread with 379 comments. Have I missed anything?
When scrolling through, I noticed this, in any case:
These "debunkings" fall squarely within the category of philosophy of science. They are not, in fact, debunkings; they are competing, unfalsifiable interpretations of the evidence masqueraded as debunkings.
You cannot "debunk" the impression that even the simplest forms of life are too tightly integrated and complex to have reached that configuration spontaneously, unless you can show how it happened. No one has done that.
As Kseniya alluded to in comment 377, if it cannot be debunked even in principle, it is not science -- it can explain everything and its opposite, in other words, nothing, and must therefore be ignored as a waste of time.
And you of all people brought up science theory? I suppose I should be glad you know it exists, which is a big advantage you have over most cdesign proponentsists that have wandered in here so far.
And I completely managed to forget mentioning Ockham's Razor. When faced with competing interpretations that are all falsifiable and have not been falsified so far, we must choose the one that requires the fewest extra assumptions. ID requires the assumption of a Designer. ID loses.
It's difficult to satirize something that is essentially a satire of itself. I had to listen to this for a few minutes to realize that this might be beyond even what the IDiots would say. Anyway, it's funny.
@372
"Apparently he's never even read a junior-high ancient history book, or glanced at the articles in National Geographic."
No, no--he's talking about Atlantis. Which has not yet been disproved! Thus it is perfectly valid evidence. You can't possibly understand history and archeology if you dogmatically limit it to stuff we've actually found!
There's also the highly-advanced pre-historic Papuan culture--which nobody has been able to disprove, either.
"This sort of bigotry does the cause of atheism a great disservice."
Criticism of an idea can be wrong, can be right, can be a matter of opinion, but it can never be bigotry.
You were not born religious. You are not genetically a creationist. You have a choice in the matter. You have made that choice, and right or wrong, your choice can be criticized.
Charging that criticism of your beliefs is bigotry is utter cowardice. If your belief is criticized, defend your belief.
If you defend it successfully you may look wise.
If you defend it unsuccessfully you may look like a fool, perhaps at least an honest fool.
If you refuse to defend it, you look like a fool and a coward.
If you refuse to defend it and claim that it should be beyond criticism (as claiming bigotry does) then you look like a fool, a coward, and a hypocritical asshole.
Etha Williams: I would hardly call it quibbling to say that your entire conception of Marxist thought on religion as it relates to Stalinist policy is wrong...
As with all brilliant satires, its not clear until you
the whole video whether the man is sincerely espousing
his beliefs, or whether he is satirizing those beliefs.
Its a devastating caricature: i think 90% of
creationist-activists would, if given no other information
but the video itself, enthusiastically embrace it and
post links to it.
ungtss, you aren't as smart as you think you are. People who constantly take apart the smallest things people say and suck the fun out of genuine satire are only looking to prove they're Smarty McSmarty-Pants.
And, no, I don't have to prove what I am saying. You make yourself obvious to everyone here - if you can't see it, then you need to examine yourself for a while.
If you *want* to have an actual argument with rules and everything, then just say so.
the video above attacks Christians and creationists AS PEOPLE, portraying them as fundamentally irrational.
The video above is a satire of the movie EXpelled and the kind of arguments it's promoting. Currant is portraying the "ideal" member of the audience, one who has bought into the film's basic premises and is following its reasoning.
1.) There is a "major controversy in science."
2.) Scientists are unfairly sticking together and being "close-minded."
Those two statements contradict each other. The way the film supports both is being made explicit by the comedian in the video: what makes a "major scientific controversy" is being redefined. The criticism doesn't have to come from within the scientific community -- it's perfectly fine for ordinary people to criticize it from the outside, and try to "force a new theory into science without performing any actual research." Current is Joe Ordinary, miffed that his lack of competence in a field is "expelling" him from being able to have his say. If the majority of Americans don't like a science theory, then the controversy is, by definition, a major scientific controversy. Scientists don't get to rule on which scientists are wrong: it's up for democratic vote.
I think it's a sharp hit against the way Intelligent Design is being promoted to the general public. ungtss apparently agrees that the guy is being irrational -- and would probably agree that this is the wrong way to promote ID, too.
This thread seems to be dying at last, which is probably for the best, but I just wanted to point out a few things.
To #354 ungtss:
Philosophy of science is, unfortunately, something most of them know nothing about
Evaluation of evidence has nothing to do with the philosophy of science and everything to do with science. And your knowledge of philosophy of science seems incredibly misinformed and willfully ignorant anyway.
While I will accept a scientist's authority on things that are within their purvue of training, I do not feel obliged to accept their authority on things they know nothing about.
This seems to be a new strategy, then: redefine the principles you wish to dispute as not falling "within [scientists'] purvue of training"; then don't accept it. The really stunning thing is, I think you actually believe you're right.
Personally, I think there's an enormous amount of evidence to support it, from the complexity evidence in the simplest cell to the fact that the orbital periods of the planets are arranged in proportion to the golden ratio, phi.
Others have already debunked this particular claim, but for information about how other complex patterns are by no means evidence for an outside intelligence, please see Emergent Phenomena. (And then there's also coincidence, which allows you to detect various patterns even when they don't exist, and which would explain why a few, but by no means all, of the planetary orbits sort of kind of conform to the golden ratio.)
Also, science is not about what you *personally* believe. (And this is the second time you've used that word in a single post, so please don't accuse of quibbling over a single word; it's an important point.) Science is about what the impersonal evidence, independently investigated by numerous separate persons, suggests.
You cannot "debunk" the impression that even the simplest forms of life are too tightly integrated and complex to have reached that configuration spontaneously, unless you can show how it happened.
and
In fact, no one knows how life began. There's no "evidence" to "interpret logically."
Do you believe that ID "theory" has any application at all to actual evolutionary biology, ie, the study of the diversity of life? Because every argument you've given thus far is related to abiogenesis.
And no, we don't yet have a comprehensive theory of abiogenesis. What of it? The evidence from the Miller-Urey experiment and the article on LUA amino acid sequences I previously linked you to, among other things, are compelling arguments for life arising spontaneously out of the prebiotic environment, though. And certainly warrant further investigation, unlike the untestable, unsubstantiated arguments for intelligent design.
I care about the acknowledgment that the intuition of the vast majority of people -- that we were created -- be acknowledged as possible, rather than as an idea proven false by science.
Oh no! The argument from majority and from intuition. Please see the very interesting article Ichthyic posted back in comment 137.
For one side to allege that theirs is somehow privileged based on its consonance with their own presuppositions is the same arrogance exhibited by fundamentalists of all stripes.
I assume by "their own presuppositions" you're talking about the presupposition of the scientific method. Well, if favoring interpretations based on logic and empirical, observable evidence rather than intuition and unsubstantiated historical accounts is fundamentalism, then I guess there's no way around it -- I'm a fundamentalist.
You're a fair-minded person; I appreciate it.
Thanks for the compliment, but based on your comment #294 and your statement in this comment that "...I will continue to try and sharpen my mind by striving to see the evidence from all sides and perspectives; you can keep excluding what you've already determined is irrational", I don't think you really mean it. Or maybe you do. You've said enough internally incosistent, contradictory things that I really can't tell.
Well said, Etha... and hey, I see that you really are younger than I am. I thought people were kidding about that "too young to drink" thing... lol. :-)
I like to think that parodies are efficient tools. But are they really ?
Well, if nothing else, they're evidently efficient tool for generating comments -- this approximately four and half minute video has generated almost 400 comments in less than a day's time....
And parody seems to be efficient at creating tools as well. ungtss, if you're still reading this, you really need to educate yourself and gain an appreciation of satire before you start feeling personally offended by people trying to let you know you're acting stupid. If you can at least accept that the video portrayed actual opinions you have had and that you felt offended by the fact that those opinions were made to seem unreasonable, then perhaps you should examine your own opinions more closely before blaming everyone else for your obvious failings.
I see this thread has come to an end for the most part. I was up last night reading it. Sometimes I would be laughing, other times feeling frustrated but it was interesting. I almost made a few comments but I just felt other people would do better and I would just end up distracting them.
Thanks for the good discussion (I don't know if it really can be called that, I don't think ungtss really discussed much, just played with words, never defined much of what he meant and accused others of playing mean and making poor arguements while doing the same thing).
I'd just like to point something out (mostly for ungtss): strawmen, intentional mischaracterizations, etc. are only fallacious when used in ARGUMENTS. Ed is not arguing. He's having fun. And so are we. And so can you. And if you realize this, try not to be offended so easily. And if you are offended, try to keep it to yourself. Just a suggestion; although I believe you have every right to speak up when you're offend, I have every right to tell you to grow a pair.
The comment about the impossibility of Sumerians' creating glue before the creation of the Earth was only trumped by the threat of sodomy with a cross in plain sight, "godless scientist, bed over and take it where it hurts."
Now I'm TOTALLY confused... I mean, YOU GUYS are the ones joking around now, yeah? pretend he's not funny to you, 'cause of the stance he takes against the stuffy old men who are all-like, "set-in-the-way, and always using science to explain what religion is too afraid to talk about? (?porn? is an example of this)
Hey, I supposedly saw a "BIOLOJIST" poking around near this very website not too long ago...with his hands all crammed down in his pants, like he was whippin up more so-called "biologism" to mix w/his buddy's evolutionjism, (No, I'm actually making up stuff now).
First I thought this guy was a little confusing, like he had a car-accident involving his head and a windshield when he was younger and too 'wild' for his seatbelt.
There was guy like that in my high school. Anyways, he got into a pretty serious carwreck that almost gave him permanent brain-damage, and afterwards, he was never the same again.
From then on, he was basically a lot like this guy...he always talks real loud like this guy and he will also get these little wads of white creamy spit "balls" stuck around his mouth and he never wipes them off or anything...just seems like he went gone down a couple notches...closer to a mongoloid or something...
Anyways, I'm only here for 1 thing: to hear a good supporting argument. i.e. "...the same way we know that Jesus is real---because most Americans believe in Him."
And who will ever forget comments about scientists bending over and taking "that" because of their conviction that "life just pooped into existence."
I love this site. You guys are nutty, but I see what you're saying here...this site is mostly like a way of saying things that are um, opposite of what you mean...but then you turn them around AGAIN, so you're back to what you REALLY believe, but you're still pretending to try and make it sound like you believe the OPPOSITE of what you're acting like you're really saying! It's all about making the people you agree with look like a god-damn bunch o mongoloids, huh? ;)
Is he even listening to what he is saying?
I love Edward Currant. He's proof positive of Poe's Law; there have been some Xians on youtube who have taken him seriously, and applauded him for his unflagging defense of cretinism and IDiocy.
My favorite two are probably God's Cool Designs and his satire of Pascal's Wager, I've Converted to Every Religion (Just in Case). Jesus Protects us from Being Poisoned is also a classic.
I love that the crationists are too dense to recognize satire.
They wouldn't recognize bad logic if it fell off the edge of the earth.
"Godless scientists, bend over and take that logic where it hurts!"
Edward Current rules.
I don't think God approves of soul patches. Edward must be a heretic. (Or a satirist!)
Really, though, the flat cross on the wall appears to be made of two pieces of construction paper. Edward should have dug up a more substantial prop.
I do, however, like the use of earth tones throughout the scene. Very churchy. Nice throwaway line on Big History and the Sumerians, too. We all know that Elmer invented glue, not the Sumerians!
That's one big arse crucifix he's got on his wall. My heavily catholic grandmother would salivate if she saw that.
He does manage to walk that fine line that a true Poe's Law candidate needs to tread, doesn't he? It's brilliant work; I think this is one of his best yet, since it perfectly parodies the circular nature of creationist arguments and "evidence". It's rare that satire achieves this Juvenalian level anymore.
Eddie Current rules! His best one (though depressing) is "COOL DESIgnS!"
The "I've converted to every religion just to be safe!" one is awesome too.
I couldn't get more than a minute in. I hate, hate HATE people who smack their lips with every breath they take when talking.
"Well, *smack*, I posted to some evolution forums, *smack*, and the responses I got, *smack*..."
I have walked out of seminars where the speaker is smacking right into the microphone. I refuse to believe I am alone in feeling this way.
Dear everyone, but especially Ed Currant: Please pay attention to how you are saying things, particularly if speaking is a big part of your job or hobby. For fuck's sake, PLEASE pay attention.
Is this real or a joke?
Anyone know of this guy?
Gotta love the ancient laptop. Makes it seem like he's using a time machine to make the video.
It's cute, but I like the review in the Detroit Weekly better. That was some serious on-target snark!
Even though I knew it was a piss take, that was kind of hard to watch. Probably because I knew I could easily find tons of people who would argue those views seriously.
But then I couldn't even get through 'Thank You for Smoking'. I gotta get some boundaries or something.
That's just perfect.
"Sorry actual scientists!"
hahaha...
I love that part about "Big History."
Mockery and strawman: the classic substitutes for reason used by empty minds. Historically, have been used to mischaracterize points of view by those who wish to inspire bigotry against them. Appeal only to those too ignorant and/or dogmatic to understand another point of view. Carry on.
Edward Currant FTW.
I think the cross might actually be duct tape.
I think the ancient laptop was a smart prop choice.
Blaznazn, billybob,
I guess it isnt just the occasional Creationist that doesn't get satire.
I just puked on my keyboard.
Sub Cruce Lumen? Minime!
#15 is right. Good thing creationists and ID proponents never use mockery or strawmen.
Also fortunate that none of those same people have ever used similar arguments.
Way to call that video for what it was: completely baseless mud slinging!
I concur with #11.
Which brings me to something I've wondered since I started reading this: PZ, have you ever thought about implementing a ratings system for comments? Does Seed give you that option?
Whining about imagined persecution: a classic substitute for reason used by people whose ideas are so flimsy and ridiculous that they can't be supported on their own merit. Historically, have been used by people in the majority who wish to protect cherished beliefs from criticism from uppity minorities. Appeals only to those whose unfounded dogmas are so deeply cherished that the mere idea someone might mock or criticize them feels like unbearable persecution. Carry on.
BoS: 'Tain't a crucifix, it doesn't have the Corpus Christi* on it.
What kind of computer is that? Is it really an ancient laptop or some weird mockup of one with wheels?
"there have been some Xians on youtube who have taken him seriously, and applauded him for his unflagging defense of cretinism and IDiocy."
Or are they faking it as well? We're through the Looking Glass! I think his tone becomes a little too sarcastic at times, but the wide-eyed look is pretty genuine.
* Now there's a town I'm glad I don't live in. Not because it's a bad town, I've never been there, but because of the name. Ick.
I <3 Edward Current...
That was real slick. Great stuff. The more of this available on the interweb the more impossible it will be for the real cretins to get people to listen to their message. Eventually, we could start spreading a vicious rumour that the DI is in fact a hoax site created by some wiley geeks.
Minimalist,
I'm not being facetious when I suggest that you might have hyperacusis (the soft sound variant). Do you have a problem with people chewing as well?
(I'm not even going to ask what happened to my comment...or why only the first letter of it posted...weird...probably something went awry with my attempt to be 'cute')
I love this guy...absolutely brill!
That was hilarious. I have seen his video about how masturbation is evil, but this one takes the cake. Poe's Law Strikes again! Satire really is one of the best ways to rationally refute your opponents ideas.
Ad hominem argumentation: the third classic substitute for reason. "Ah yes, some creationists are ignorant and bigoted; therefore it is not only funny but okay for us to drop to the level of the lowest of our opposition."
Never mind that there are ignorant, bigoted people on every side of every issue. Never mind that the presence of such people is totally irrelevant to the potentially meritorious views of those with more subtle, intelligent analysis.
Like, I don't know, those who respond to links between evolution and Nazism with the argument that bigotry is neither necessary nor sufficient for belief in common descent.
@ #25 How could we know DI isn't already a hoax?
@#15 --
Yeah, but unfortunately the mockery is pretty much the same as the things it's mocking, and the strawmen are simply replicas of the strawmen created by the actual proponents of the "theories" being mocked. (Okay, admittedly that second part was kind of weak in the syntax department. Sorry.) Hence Poe's Law
Seriously, look at The Banana: The Atheist's Worst Nightmare. You want to believe this is satire/mockery/a strawman, but no. These people are serious.
Can't dish it out or take it, can ya, Ungt...what's with that handle, anyway? Sounds like a toilet noise.
ungtss @ #28
When a sad, ignorant enemy has been debunked by subtle, intelligent analysis repeatedly and their potentially meritorious views have been shown to have no potential and no merit, its ok to do some gloating.
Mischaracterization of another person's argument: Hear someone say that a particular satire merely mocks and mischaracterizes a point of view, and lacks any logical or factual merit whatsoever. Mischaracterize that statement as a persecution complex.
In fact, ignorant people misrepresent the point of view of others on all sides of every issue. Identification of that habit is not a persecution complex, but a call for people to grow up.
The video was a satire, but it's not quite obvious enough that all people will get the joke.
Also...more in response to #15:
I'd point out that watching and enjoying mockery is not the ONLY way we respond to creationist claims. In numerous threads on this site (and elsewhere), people have attempted patiently to use reason against creationist claims. It's generally quite futile as creationists really are "too ignorant and/or dogmatic to understand another point of view," but that hasn't stopped us from trying.
Sometimes, however, you need to take a break from the (admittedly not terribly intellectually taxing) debate and just have a laugh. Sure, maybe it's a bit childish and unconstructive, but as John Grier said, "You are only young once, but you can be immature for a lifetime." (Thanks to a fellow pharyngulite for posting that in the "crash the poll" thread.) Just because sometimes we sit back and have a laugh at creationists' expense doesn't mean we lack the reasonable arguments to refute their claims. It just means that sometimes, we get a little tired of throwing reason at those who are willfully blind to it.
It was obvious at BIG HISTORY and the Sumerians.
The best satire is always the most subtle.
Perhaps. But it's not okay to mischaracterize your opponents. It hardens their views, because it gives them hard, objective reason to believe that atheists either do not understand them, or deliberately choose to ignore what they are actually saying.
It's mere selection bias to characterize an entire viewpoint as the worst of those who hold it. Yes, there are wacko, ignorant creationists. There are also wacko, ignorant evolutionsts who use it to justify racial purges. So what?
Unfreaking believable! I have a new monitor on the way, so I had to restrain myself from putting my fist through it! Is this that insane moron Planet Killer in disguise? The absolutely incredible crap he ranted was boiling my blood with each insane comment. Did he say Ben Stein is a great Stinker? How could glue be discovered before the world was born? I listened and watched the whole painful crap to its end and sat there for a few seconds trying to comprehend that I actually heard this moron spewing his deranged crap with all the veracity of established facts. This insane crap is starting to effect me to the point that even a mild believer in religion is just so much fodder for my extreme hatred of all irrationality. I still can't believe that this moron was speaking to us and not to his fellow idiots! Good grief, where does tolerance end retribution begin for this spreading muck of insanity?
@#15 ungtss (again....I'll stop soon):
I'm genuinely curious: how would *you* correctly characterize the POV of ID proponents? What are their real arguments that are being mischaracterized here and in other satire videos?
Am I the only actor on this site? This can be better even if it's good. And I'm sure he wants it to be. Not to mention, if he does clean up the presentation, he could be a top notch satirist. And who doesn't want that?
Eddie: Don't smack your lips. Minimalist isn't crazy, It can be distracting. If your whole bit is centered around your talking, then focus more on making it clean.
Cut more often so that you don't have to look at your "laptop" (that is a perfect prop by the way) or take pauses to get your flow back. Also your presentation will tighten up if you do so, shortening the clip, keeping those with the attention spans of 3 y.o. children with you.
I also have to admit the odd fact that I think the shirt was my favorite subtle part. It's so very... christian. Brilliant ideas all around my man. Keep em coming!
Is anyone else imagining Dwight Shrute when reading Ungua's comments?
"Fact: Mistyping someone's handle is the last resort of someone who doesn't want to engage a humorless prig in intellectual discussion."
Oh Holbach...
Satire my friend, satire.
Amazing how Ed Current vids can weed out posters around here. He and Pat Condell are my favorites.
Actually, us catholics like our crosses properly done, like with a dude nailed to it. What the hell is the point of an empty cross? Those flimsy protestants...
"Perhaps. But it's not okay to mischaracterize your opponents."
Seeing how many people on this thread have mistaken this guy for a real Expelled proponent, I think the characterization must be spot on.
@#37 ungtss:
Three words: Gott Mit Uns. German-English translation: God with us. Worn on the belt of Wehrmacht soldiers. Maybe Hitler got some of his inspiration from Darwin (the veracity of even this is questionable), but most of what he used to justify it, and what allowed his deranged worldview's spread throughout Germany, was not 'Darwinism' as Stein claims, but rather religion.
Ungts.
You concern has been noted. It is bullshit but it has been noted. Now run along and defend the holocaust deniers and the flat earthists.
Wow, this may be classified as "lethal" irony. Eddie has poed this subject so successfully that I'm sure many fundies will repeat his arguments as their own and never understand why we're all laughing hysterically.
Burning strawmen shackled by angst. Reputed defenders nonetheless missing the crux of the interlocutory sarcasm. Free-style prose substituting for constructive dialog amongst the bukakke enthusiasts. Carry on.
I don't think this is ID vs. atheists... I think it's people in tune with science, and people out of sync with reality. Who exactly in the ID camp is not a wacko, ignorant creationist?
There is not one such point of view. There are a spectrum of ID points of view, with a spectrum of different beliefs. There are those who believe that God intelligently engineers life through the process of evolution. There are those who believe that life on Earth is the result of terraforming. There are those who don't claim to know much at all about the designer, but leave open the possibility that one exists.
They're not all kooks.
Holbach! Take a deep breath, man! Relax.
I know, I know, I had to surpress rage at first too. But his bad acting gave it away pretty quickly. That and he finished with "Have a nice day" instead of "God bless".
Now, find your happy place... deep breaths... in... out...
There is not one such point of view. There are a spectrum of ID points of view, with a spectrum of different beliefs. There are those who believe that God intelligently engineers life through the process of evolution. There are those who believe that life on Earth is the result of terraforming. There are those who don't claim to know much at all about the designer, but leave open the possibility that one exists.
They're not all kooks.
Poe?
Another application of Poe's law: the failure of fundy evolutionists to realize that this statement was a satire, engineered by the Expelled crew, to illustrate the consumate arrogance displayed by some on your side of the fence.
I love Edward Current. The only channel that comes close to that level of Poe's Law embodiment is Red State Update. Despite those guys being a regular feature on salon.com and CNN and popping up at the Democratic YouTube debate, the most rabid of neocons still insist on humping their legs.
ungtss,
You've mentioned theistic evolutionists and deists (and some odd thing about terraforming). But you have yet to define what ID proponents have already said is their point of view. I'm beginning to think you don't know or care what they actually believe, but that you believe it's close enough to your belief that you feel the need to defend it.
@#51 ungtss --
Fair enough, but the ones we're typically debating -- the ones who are most vocal on the internet and in the public arena, eg, the makers and fans of Expelled (who are the ones explicitly being mocked in this satire) -- are those who not only believe that maybe there is a designer, but think that this belief is scientific and should be researched and taught.
I don't see how this belief can be characterized as anything but ignorant at best.
Anything ID is by definition not science. You've also described theistic evolution, which is not ID. I have the feeling you're just coming up to speed on this issue, but you will learn soon enough that there is no weight to intelligent design. I hypothesize you've just been taken in by all the care they've taken to make up science sounding words and warp and twist existing science, in addition to their intricately planned persecution and martyr complex. But hey, ungtss looks like he might be a fence sitter, so thats all the more reason to rope him into the land of critical, rational thinking.
Holbach: "This insane crap is starting to effect me to the point that even a mild believer in religion is just so much fodder for my extreme hatred of all irrationality."
Dear Holbach, I'm being completely serious here. You appear to have strong emotional issues with the topic of religion that border on the unhealthy. A good percentage of your posts reveal a reflexive anger that does neither yourself nor the cause you wish to support a beneficial service. I think most people here politely ignore you because of your behavior. Please consider seeking some help in this area so we can engage with you on a calmer level.
@#58 Dennis N
To be fair, until recently (eg, Expelled manufactroversy) I wasn't aware that theistic evolution and ID were different things, and likely some so-called ID proponents/sympathizers aren't aware of this either. This understandable confusion is probably why the DI picked this name for their so-called "theory" (Wedge Document, much?).
#25 Posted by: DSKS | April 25, 2008 8:51 PM
I do. It drives me batty. I have no clue why - I'm sure my eating habits are no better. It's just one of those odd noise things that gets under my skin. I try to ignore it because I know it's petty and stupid to complain about - but dang! Can't people chew quietly...., er, um. I mean, carry on!
JBS
Ungtss -
Science isn't about "points of view". If any of those people can put together any actual evidence to form a Theory that can be falsified and provides testable predictions then the scientific community would be happy to listen. I for one would be absolutely thrilled if someone could show real evidence for God or even better terra-forming of Earth by outside intelligences. Really, I'd jump up and down with joy if someone could point to proof of extraterrestrial intelligence and you couldn't imagine my how ecstatic I would be if someone could prove beyond doubt that I have a soul.
However, until those formal theories are presented and are shown to stand up to scrutiny then they are just fantasies. They fall into the realm of religion, philosophy, or straight-up insanity.
Ungts:
Fine. Not all IDers are kooks. Some atheists and "evolutionists" are kooks. These are both relatively uncontroversial claims. What's your point? That satirizing the IDers who *are* kooks -- or laughing at such a satire -- is to paint all IDers with broad kook-strokes? No, it's just a bit of light-hearted fun at the expense of those who really are kooks. The fact that some IDers are not is completely irrelevant. Perhaps your point is that it's immature? Indeed, in order to be mature, one must be very, very solemn.
Yeesh. Relax, and let us have a laugh at some harmless fun.
Oh the arrogance was intended.
I don't care what "degree" of IDist you think needs respect.
ID is bullshit. If someone accepts evolution than there's no issue and I'm sure they understand who we're mocking. It would be silly for them to be offended.
But the majority of people who call themselves IDists(creationist in a bad disguise) or actual creationists deserve every bit of arrogance and mockery they get. If they're too lazy to understand the science, well it's their own damn fault they get mocked.
Like I said. Your concern is bullshit.
Satire yes, but it could easily have been the Planet Killer, Stein, and so many others. We know that there are real videos of real creos spouting this crap to real deranged audiences. The satire is not so much lost on me as is the real portent of its content to real wackos who do believe this insanity and perhaps take this video as the real stuff, and as someone has noted, satire will be lost on them. I need a relief. I'm going to purge my brain of this portentious satire and watch Volume 2 of W C Fields who has a different brand of satire to offer without pissing me off, even in jest. I quoted this by W C the other day and there is definitely no satire intentioned.
"Wouldn't it be terrible if I quoted some reliable statistics which prove that more people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol?"
The statistics are true W C; believe me!
Edit to my last post:
On second thought, that IDers are not all kooks *is* controversial. If they insist on claiming that their claims are scientific, then they are kooks. And an awful lot of them -- er... all? -- seem to claim that, don't they?
I just wanted to clear the confusion, because there is an important distinction. Mainly, theistic evolution means evolution with God never conflicting with science. Its a concession by religion that allows scientists and teachers to do their jobs. ID is the opposite, having God step in at certain points to work miracles. Theistic evolution lets people step away from the protest line and teach children science, and ID leads to people wanting Of Pandas and People as the de facto source of children's knowledge.
Oh, also theistic evolution doesn't claim to be a theory or science, and doesn't demand to be taught in schools. It's just a personal belief.
Watching the educational video was, my friends, nearly as enjoyable as the olives accompanying my Friday night martini. Gin, of course. Thank you PZ for lifting my spirits...the other type...I seem to be handling the liquid type just fine.
In any case Holbach, that is what the "Humor" tag is for at the top of the page. So that you don't need to worry about confusing it.
Who is this MORON? Why give him a forum. He mneed an enama.
But it's not okay to mischaracterize your opponents.
your barking up the wrong tree.
You should be yipping that noise over on the blog for Expelled, straight to Ben Stein, Mark Mathis, and then on to the Disinformation Institute.
what you keep seeming to miss is that this vid is satirizing the VERY THING you seem to dislike so much.
It's satirizing the fact that the strawmen and mischaracterizations have all been invented by the IDiots themselves.
We've asked countless times for the so called "intelligent" ID supporters to even define their concept to the point of a testable hypothesis. Hell, the Templeton Foundation (you know who they are, right?) even offered them a fucking grant to do so, if they would but apply.
ten years later...
*crickets chirping*
there IS no honest other side to the issue of evolution; it's nothing but political wankery on the part of the conservative right in order to utilize it as a hot-button issue amongst the fundies.
at it's very core, it differs little in strategy and application from the attacks on homosexuality in this country.
It's a fucking manufactured controversy, and WE DIDN'T START IT.
@#67 Dennis N
Well put. IOW, I'd classify ID as "trying to twist science to fit religion," whereas TE is "trying to twist religion to try to fit science." Since in my view religion is pretty twisted as it is, I have much less of a problem with the latter than the former :).
One of the big theistic evolution arguments is that the Genesis story is not literal, but is a pre-scientific era allegory for the creation of the universe, earth, and life over the period of billions of years (rather than the literal 6 days described in Genesis). (I believe this argument was used famously in the Scopes Monkey Trial, at least if my Inherit the Wind-based knowledge of the trial is correct.)
Personally I think this sounds like a stretch, but to my knowledge theistic evolutionists have never asked that this interpretation be taught in schools, so I'm fairly apathetic about it.
Heck, if ID'ers were just saying that they thought that life was irreducibly complex, and they saw evidence of design and divine intervention in the process of evolution, I wouldn't really care that much. It's the fact that they want these irrational views to infiltrate our scientific education and research institutions that bothers me.
I agree with Dennis N.
It is an important distinction. The people we are fighting are only those that would replace science with religion in the classroom. Destruction of ignorance is our goal, not necessarily the destruction of faith. There are a lot of foaming-at-the-mouth atheists around here and it doesn't do our side any good for convincing the middle-of-the-fencers to reject the creo-fundi-extremists.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Nietzsche
John. Sarcasm? If not, watch again.
Anything about "Big History" give it away?
Not all IDers are kooks.
I used to allow for that possibility, but in 5 years of carefully examining all the movers and shakers behind the ID movement, I really cannot with any precision or accuracy agree with that statement.
There is not a one among them that isn't a kook.
Now, I've met emeritus biology profs who I also would call kooks, but they are a tiny minority.
nope. In the fantasy advertising world of ID, there really exist nothing but kooks.
I always have fun when someone actually tries to prove that statement wrong, and finds out they really can't.
@#72 Ichthyic --
And that's not even mentioning all the private funding the DI has given ID 'researchers' to perform experiments to demonstrate ID. Strangely, despite all this funding and alleged, no evidence has emerged.
Better start praying harder....
ID'ers are trying to sneak their superstitions into the scientific arena, but they have absolutely no understanding of or respect for the scientific method. Ben Stein actually probably put it best, in an interview with Christianity Today: "Anyway, I couldn't give a [profanity] whether a person calls himself a scientist."
[[The "profanity" censor was put in by CT, not me.]]
Holbach,
What is so brilliant is that he dismantles his argument as he goes. He refutes each point by supplying the reason it is false and all with a reasonably straight face. Planet Killer isn't sharp enough to even get the satire, he's all bluster and bullshit.
Aw dammit, this is a perfect example of "if you have to explain the joke..."
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
Giordano Bruno (Il Nolano) 1548 to 1600
Victim of the Venice and Roman Inquisitions
@#74 ThirdMonkey --
True, but I think many on this blog would argue that faith is ignorance.
I'm somewhat on the fense on the issue myself. For me to have religious faith would require (willful) ignorance on my part, given the way my mind works, but I'm not certain this is true for all religious people. People who simultaneously understand & accept the scientific method and have religious faith don't seem to be ignoring everything. In their minds, the obvious conflict I see is not something they have to ignore; it just doesn't exist at all for them.
(Keep in mind, though, that I am trying to argue on the behalf of people whose entire worldview I neither accept nor can truly comprehend, so maybe this isn't an accurate representation.)
Edit to my post #80:
When I wrote "People who simultaneously understand & accept the scientific method and have religious faith don't seem to be ignoring everything," I actually meant "People who simultaneously understand & accept the scientific method and have religious faith don't seem to be ignoring anything" (correction in bold).
Freudian slip?
I keep reading in the comments that this guy is joking, its sarcasm, I looked at his other videos and I think he is joking.
No, to ignore everything, you'd have to be a young earther.
Ichthyic:
I actually agree with you. I had spoken too soon. See my edit a couple of comments later -- though that edit still doesn't do justice to my own beliefs re: ID.
I haven't done much research into ID's movers and shakers -- with the exception of Behe, Dembski, and some of the more obvious characters -- but, for now at least, am happy with more general support for the claim that they *are* all kooks. There is a fundamental irrationality involved in "faith" that, when imported into the science world, can't help but lead to abject kookery.
(Parenthetically, some some drive-by flattery: I always enjoy your comments -- just the right balance of insight, intelligence, antagonism, sarcasm and humour. It's always a pleasure. =))
Etha,
We are in no position to comment on faith. We are far to biased.
Fight ignorance and faith will sort itself out.
, despite all this funding and alleged, no evidence has emerged.
nor could it, given the fact that beyond the fact they refuse to even identify precisely which "designer" they are talking about (IDiots forget, or lie, or never knew, that "aliens" are as much a part of ID as the Judeo-Xian "god"), none of the large list of potential "intelligent designers" is known at all, let alone to sufficient depth to actually form a hypothesis about how they might act in the world.
It's nothing but vacuous nonsense piled on top of fiction and lies.
As evil as the purported "creators" of ID are to push this nonsense (the Wedge document is just like the PNAS website; merely a signpost on a road of lies and corruption and rationalization), that itself doesn't make me nearly as concerned as the fact that so many apparently eat this bullshit up in this country as if it were mana... from heaven.
It hardly surpises me that BushCo. was elected not once, but twice.
Just too many damn sheeple around these parts.
Goering said it best:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/goering.jpg
Beautiful!
Well done!
I suggest that people take a look at the "excuses" that ungtss has come up with (read: pulled out of his ass) in respect to how endogenous retroviruses might not be evidence for common ancestry, on his blog.
Here is just a taster:
"This argument rests on a number of key unstated assumptions:
3) These viruses weren't intentionally inserted into our DNA. We use retroviruses to perform genetic engineering. Who's to say the Designer didn't use them to genetically engineer us? This is especially interesting, given the fact that some (many) ERVs are indispensible (sic) to life."
He's right. I guess that we were unfairly characterizing ID supporters. Hmmmn. Anyone?
True, but I think many on this blog would argue that faith is ignorance.
I have no problem with faith as a philosophical concept.
However, I've never met ANYBODY who actually had it.
In fact, all religious people I've ever met in my whole 43 years of living have required some material justification for their faith (even unto seeing Jebus in a coffee cake).
Not saying it isn't possible to have real faith in something, I just have concluded that if it exists, it's far too rare to concern oneself about.
no, ID does not arise from faith. It arises from LACK of faith. It's supported by those who fear (really KNOW) that they lack faith, and are looking for some crutch to utilize in support of a faith that doesn't exist.
It's nothing but a rationalization formed to support a delusion, and utilized as a tool to motivate the faithless and fearful.
In short, it's absolutely pathetic. It's what's beyond "turtles all the way down".
These viruses weren't intentionally inserted into our DNA.
man, there's so many things wrong with that, I have to make a list:
-that's called "assuming the premise".
...and it's complete abandonment of logic.
...and a perfect projection on the part of "ungst", since HE is the one inserting the assumption into his argument.
...it's also a great example of how moronic creobots so often shift the burden of proof, and think they are being smart.
...at it's most basic, it boils down to the argument about how god could have made everything in the last 5 minutes, and just fooled us all into thinking it's billions of years old.
In short:
It's crap.
Comment #30 by Etha Williams
You should check out my favorite response to Ray Comfort's banana video. (I personally think that that video deserves way more views than it has.
Comment #55 by deerjackal
I think this guy walks the Poe's Law line very well.
I've said it before in a different thread, but I'll repeat it here. I think that the Expelled movie just might be a big gag. Its just about the worst possible movie on its topic that was possible, i guess, having never seen it.
Ya know what would make a lot of sense, but ID proponents and religious apologists will never say, doesn't everything make more sense if your God can't just do anything and everything? Why would God need retroviruses to make us? Can't he just poof us into existence? Why doesn't God stop evil? Well maybe he can't do everything. I think that would answer about 90% of the objections we have to their crap. But they'll never go there.
I wonder when Ungtss will start posting comments in haiku form in the mistaken belief that this makes him sound smarter.
@#85 ThirdMonkey --
Please clarify: who are you referring to with the word "we"? Pharyngula readers? Scientists? Humankind? And what is it that makes "us" too biased?
@#86 Ichthyic --
Oh, you did *not* just go there.
But I do agree re: PNAS. One of the worst things to come out of this ID manufactroversy, IMO, is that sometimes I think scientists feel a need to put up a unified front, as though there's no corruption, petty politics, etc within the scientific community. Nothing could be further from the truth....
I think that the Expelled movie just might be a big gag
I'd consider that a possibility, if I hadn't looked into the history of Ben Stein.
He was actually to the right of Nixon during the time he wrote speeches for him.
this is nothing but a political tool to Stein, mark my words.
But I do agree re: PNAS.
OH, SO ACK!
back up 30 feet or so, I actually meant to write PNAC, not PNAS.
damn acronyms and fumbling old fingers.
I'm sure there were some raised eyebrows...
just to be clear, THIS:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Is what I meant.
The Project for a New American Century.
damn, that was one bad typo!
Yes, there are politics involved in everything, but I most assuredly was NOT intending to refer to the National Academy in this case!
*whew*
#88 Damian quoted from creobots page:
Ummmm...seriously? Ever heard of, say, burden of proof? Or occam's razor? Let's see: either ERVs arose through naturally occuring infections of germ cells by retroviruses (which we know can happen) or an intelligent designer (whom many assume to be omnipotent, I might add -- point of interest) decided to do some retroviral mediated gene transfer experiments on his/her/its creations.
Yeah...not much of a contest there. The ID hypothesis obviously wins. /sarcasm
But hey. For that matter, who's to say that the fossils weren't intentionally inserted into the various strata of rocks? Who's to say that radioactive isotopes weren't intentionally distributed to make the earth appear billions of years old?
I think ungtss unintentionally illustrated my point: cDesign proponents are mockeries and strawmen of themselves.
ThirdMonkey:
I'm not sure that we are "in no position to comment on faith". Two questions:
First, I'd ask what exactly you mean by faith. I take "faith" to be a flouffy PC term for "religion". Faith works much better in that nice, happy little multicultural ideal than religion -- makes it less threatening, less controversial, if you don't see through the facade. I suppose this, in itself, is a comment on faith but I'm wondering why faith reserves some special place, immune to comment.
Second, I'm not sure why coming to an issue with an opinion already formed -- rather than, I suppose, as a blank slate -- would make us so biased that it wouldn't be good for us to comment on it. I rarely -- if ever -- come to an issue without an opinion and equally rarely ever think that I can't, by virtue of holding that opinion, comment on the matter. Why do you think that we are too biased really to comment on faith?
As I watched the video and not knowing of Ed Current, and furthermore, since the resolution on my laptop is better than my retina such that I missed the props, I started keeping track of logical fallacies. The speaker made all of the creo errors we've come to know and luv. I'm thinking, is this Planet Killer, then, this can't be real, then at. . ."bend over and take it where it hurts" the reality (hilarity) of Poe's law struck home. SOOOO very well done. Big History, Summerians and glue, not enough- remember T. rex and coconuts?
I don't think Atheists can be convinced of anything except how much they love themselves.
Wow! Look at the huge laptop that he is using.
I don't think Atheists can be convinced of anything except how much they love themselves.
well, that's certainly an easy thing to disprove for yourself if you wish.
care to try?
Ya know... I should learn to use that handy-dandy little preview button. Sometimes, my comments just sound asinine.
What I take to be the interchangability of "faith" and "religion" is in the political context. I know that faith and religion are *not*, strictly-speaking, interchangable.
I love me long time.
carlos @ #102
Yup, and I love the people around me too. And I don't do it out of fear of divine wrath.
I love me long time.
I love you long time, too, Steve.
there, see, Carlos?
I'm also convinced Carlos is an idiot.
see? there's two things that don't relate to how much I love myself.
@#102 carlos:
Hmmm. Sometimes I have moments of self-loathing. I must be slipping in my atheistic faith...better say a few Hail Darwins and try to redeem myself.
Remember 'Carlos' spelled sideways is slo arc. Atheists love reason, science, logic and not lies, deception, corruption and abuse. The latter qualities unfortunately characterize far too many christians- You can tell they are christians by their hate(TM).
Wow, that was funny. Not really. Now we have to resort to this kind of bagering. If you are a scientist I really hope you have something better to do than to make some kind of stupid mock video of some retarded satire.
We get it, you think people who are religious are stupid. Now do something constructive with your lives. Instead of patting yourselves on the back.
@#89 Ichthyic --
I hadn't ever met such a person until recently, but I'm fairly certain (from the lengthy discussions we've had on the subject) that one of my friends actually has genuine, bona-fide faith. It's a little strange, because it's something I can't really wrap my head around. I was religious, once, but I was also literally psychotic (I don't think that all god-belief is a psychiatric disorder -- the acceptance of a widely held irrational belief entails a different psychological process than the invention of a highly individualized irrational belief -- but for me it was). You're probably right about it being too rare to practically need to concern one's self about, but it's a philosophical/psychological oddity that I'd really like to be able to understand.
There are also wacko, ignorant evolutionsts who use it to justify racial purges.
Like who?
(Don't be so stupid as to claim Hitler was a Darwinist, you'll get chewed up.)
@#111 carlos --
Actually, many scientists have found that it's possible to do both. And chew gum at the same time.
We're just good at that kind of multi-tasking stuff. (*commence self-congratulatory back-patting*)
Now we have to resort to this kind of bagering. If you are a scientist I really hope you have something better to do than to make some kind of stupid mock video of some retarded satire.
boy you really like attracting attention to yourself, dontchya?
I bet even you can count the number of things wrong with your statement, but here, let me help you:
bagering[sic]: where?
what makes you think a scientist made this video?
what makes you think scientists never have free time?
please define how this video is "stupid"
who are you to judge what is a good use of one's time?
shall we continue?
but it's a philosophical/psychological oddity that I'd really like to be able to understand.
why?
carlos is right, we should all stop enjoying life and go back to suffering like the miserable, sinful mistakes his God tells us we are (unless you're a Mormon (I think)). Why did you come here if you don't like the video? Youtube has its own comments section. The bottom line is some religion is actually stupid. Stone cold stupid. If it makes testable predictions, those predictions fail (see faith healing), and you still believe them, chances are I'll think you're stupid. Meanwhile, me and deism are buddies, and we hang out sometimes.
We have been. We've invented all manner of machines, methods of communication, and we keep you healthier than prayer ever has.
Now what the fuck have you done lately?
Exactly.
Lazy fuck.
#98 Ichthyic wrote to Carlos:
Obviously, a good use of one's time is making semi-coherent comments criticizing (a subset of the population of) scientists/atheists for a) enjoying satire and b) apparently being universally guilty of committing the grievous sin of self-love (because it is a sin, you know).
Carlos, you appear deluded. I would be quite surprised if anyyone here considered religious people 'stupid.' But I would be very surprised if many people here did not consider many religious people as deluded or undereducated in the biological sciences, or science in general, or all of the above.
Oh, and since none of us fall for the goddidit BS, we are responsible for our lives, our happieness, try to bring joy to friends and help others. I am quite happy with my constructive life thankyouverymuch.
I would be quite surprised if anyyone here considered religious people 'stupid.'
well, some of them most assuredly are.
It's not necessarily religion that has made them so, however.
Moreover, it's not even ignorance, or stupidity, that's the real problem.
It's a rationalization of ignorance or stupidity as something to be cultivated and admired that's the problem.
In part, that's what ID is, too: an attempt to codify ignorance as something to be admired.
I'm not a scientist.
I'm a smug atheist.
The religious aren't stupid. Deluded perhaps.
Creationists are ignorant and often stupid however.
I don't care whether he's religious or not, but I think Carlos is stupid.
Oh, and I also think he's a whiny little fuck, just in case that question comes up later.
@#116 Ichthyic --
Hmmm....good question. I suppose because it *is* an oddity, and a way of seeing things that is utterly contrary to the way I think. I guess that just by virtue of the fact that I can't understand it, I want to.
Don't misunderstand me -- I don't wish I could have faith. I'm quite happy with my rational, naturalistic worldview, and think it allows me to lead a much more meaningful existence than religion ever could. But I have, for as long as I can remember, always been fascinated with the idea of getting to truly live as someone else for a day -- seeing the world through the eyes, mind, etc of someone else. It's the reason I love to read fiction -- the chance to glimpse the world from the psychological POV of someone else. We have probably about 80 years to live, yet we're limited to one point of view, and that's really frustrating to me. In lieu of actually getting to have the subjective experience of anyone else, I try to at least intellectually understand the way others see the world...but on the level of 'faith', I fail utterly.
It has been established that Carlos is a whiny little fuck. Good call Brownian.
btw, speaking of "faceist" issues and the PNAC, there is an amusing counter to PNAC:
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
I suppose because it *is* an oddity, and a way of seeing things that is utterly contrary to the way I think.
I'd be interested if it had practical application, but have yet to find faith in a fictional being to have such.
but hey, maybe that's just me.
Why not have this person break down exactly what they think "faith" does for them on a daily basis, and compare those things to the same things without faith in your own life.
I think you'll find you do just fine, yes?
reality needs "faith" like science needs god.
which of course, is what the religious always seem to miss.
Atheists don't need a deity in order to lead a happy, productive life, and science hasn't needed god to explain anything for hundreds of years now.
so, while it might be a curiosity to you at first glance, i think you will find when you start breaking it down, "faith", even in it's purest, philosophical form, is rather superfluous.
"faith" disguising ignorance and fear is downright dangerous.
I imagine you'll be told that faith is comforting. Its like a nice soft blanket, in what is a beautiful but harsh world. I don't think the truth of their faith is as important to an atheist as it is to a theist.
I think I messed that up, I meant to imply the truth is more important to an atheist and less to a theist.
Ichthyic @98
I was gonna say. That's like writing Einstein when you meant Ben Stein.
Etha Williams @96
I don't think that means that the manufactroversy doesn't warrant a unified front, however; despite any faults in science, pseudoscience still needs to be dealt with effectively. There are petty politics and corruption in any human endeavor, but at least in science you're expected to be honest: misconduct in research, even once, is a career killer.
.but on the level of 'faith', I fail utterly.
I would add:
not just you. Nor, do I think, should you be concerned about such a "failure".
by design, (heh) faith is intractable.
In that, with what I'm told is a "radically naturalistic" worldview, I occaisionally -- though rarely -- have moments of an almost crippling sense of insignificance and meaninglessness, I may wish that I was a woman of "faith". Then I think of the things that we know about the world through the various factions of biology, physics, philosophy, etc... And I realize that I have the worldview that makes the most sense though all the questions may not yet be conclusively answered. This realization is far more comforting to me than the delusions of "faith" that (barely) comforted me in the past.
@#127 Ichthyic --
You'll get no argument from me on this one. I guess what I wonder is, why do people need/want/decide to hold superfluous views? This has always puzzled me about Deism in particular, which seems to be the ultimate form of utterly superfluous religious belief. Perhaps it's a way for people to resolve their ability to recognize the nature of observable reality with their inability to completely let go of traditional, long-held, widely-accepted, but unfounded beliefs. Some people resolve it by finding in themselves the ability to let go of these beliefs (non-theists); some people by being willfully ignorant of certain aspects of reality (IDiots, among others); some people don't resolve it, and probably live an uncomfortable philosophical existence (a large majority of religious scientists, I'd imagine); and some people, probably a small minority, use faith. I don't know. Just thinking out loud, really.
Quite so. And it's a very, very poor disguise, but one that is all too often accepted without critique.
That's like writing Einstein when you meant Ben Stein.
an apt analogy.
worst typo I think I've ever made from a substantive standpoint!
I'm glad Etha caught it, even in context of a presenting a tangential but important point about how scientists hardly march in lockstep on just about any issue one can name.
I thought the satire was right on. My favorite part was the "experiment":
"I did a little experiment. As an intelligent design supporter, I pretended to be a real scientist, and I got on some university discussion boards, and pointed out the holes in the mere "theory" of evolution. I showed those biologists some things they couldn't explain in perfect detail, and suggested that if they just admitted that God is responsible for life on earth, their questions could be answered - over night. Well, what do you think happened? That's right. My comments were deleted, and I got blocked - proving that Ben Stein is right. Intelligent Design really is being kept out of serious academic discourse. It was incredible, the reaction. These people, they acted as if a guy like me didn't even belong on a discussion board for post doctorate researchers! Typical elitists! Hey, this is a free country! But they said that all scientific theories are built on decades of "hard work" by scientists who came earlier. That evolution is supported by 150 years of research across "multiple disciplines" (whatever that means), and that you can't just force a new theory into science without performing any "actual research" to support your ideas. Well, that's where they're wrong..."
I love that line. "This is a free country!" People with no background in a scientific field are just as good as those with expertise, and are likely to come up with things the experts haven't even thought of.
CheckMATE, Atheists!
I guess what I wonder is, why do people need/want/decide to hold superfluous views?
well, now that's an interesting question.
have you read this paper:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996
while it is referring to very specific attitudes, the basic premise behind it I think applies to the entire issue of "faith" in general.
If ones parents utilize faith as a mechanism for filtering reality, they likely will convince their kids that it is an effective mechanism as well.
I'm thinking that's a good part of it, right there.
@#132 Avekid --
I've been told by a friend, "You're the most rigorously rational person I know, in all things." It was quite a complement.
re: insignificance and meaninglessness: I take the existentialist tack, ie, that there is no intrinsic meaning or significance to our lives, so we must create that meaning for ourselves. And with all the sources of wonder and avenues for human betterment offered by a naturalistic worldview, I think that's a liberating and exciting (though sometimes overwhelming) ethical obligation to have. Certainly better than having a prescribed purpose and meaning delineated by an out-of-date set of myths and moral codes that is constantly being re-interpreted in an increasingly difficult effort to keep pace with modern times.
Yeesh. Relax, and let us have a laugh at some harmless fun.
It's not harmless. Creationists react the same way to this bullshit and evolutionists react to the Darwin-caused-the-holocaust bullshit: by shutting you off as the ignorant bigots you appear to be. Look at some of this other guy's videos -- there's one where he misquotes a Bible verse as meaning poison won't kill you, then dies, then his estate suggests that all believing Christians drink poison too. It's not harmless. It's not even funny. It's old-fashioned bigotry. It's mocking what you hate without understanding. It's cheap shots at a straw-man. It's why Christians killed atheists in the Inquisition 600 years ago and why Atheists killed Christians in the Purges 60 years ago.
Help! We're being oppressed!
And that's why you just proved Poe's law for fundamentalist darwinists -- you're quoting a satire intentionally. Congratulations -- you follow in a long line of bigots and dogmatists and bigots who thought everything outside their own pov was bullshit, and couldn't tell when people were satirizing them.
@Ichthyic. I did conflate the issue. Wading into deep waters of speculation (and this moth may be fish food) at one level, I see people who function normally in most areas of their lives and in society, but are irrational and disfunctional in another area. Such individuals in conduct appear as people I have seen with 'delusery parasitosis.' These people I take to be suffering from an actual mental illness. Certainly there are some people who are in fact 'stupid' (cognitively deficient) and such individuals are likely not internet users. There are also certainly undereducated, yet intellegent persons who have never had the time or access to information to free themselves from the fraudulent world view they've been force-fed.
At another lever, and you are quite right, there is a bulwork against rationality set up, the ignorant and proud of it mentality. I see this as group identification and fostered by religious organizations. It is Orwellian.
At yet another level, televangelists, Bushies, it is simply corruption, taking advantage of the vulnerabilities of others- which is not to say that this does not take place at the church/organizational level as well.
Poor Carlos, I do not know where he fits, I was hard on him as he appeared here in full-on troll mode.
People with no background in a scientific field are just as good as those with expertise, and are likely to come up with things the experts haven't even thought of.
I swear, all of these IDiots should take a class in probability sometime.
Just because it's *possible* for a rank amateur with absolutely no relevant knowledge of a given field to come up with a unique insight, doesn't mean it's *probable*.
However, with 6 billion of us on the planet, I can very nearly guarantee that some complete idiot out there who has never taken a single class in physics or chemistry has already solved the issue of a cheap, effective, alternative energy source.
they just don't know it.
oh yeah, there's that "random chance" thing again, combined with "huge numbers".
I swear, if I had a dollar for every person I've ever met who doesn't really grasp how big a "billion" is, I wouldn't be sitting here writing this post; I'd be sailing on my 50' yacht.
I've sometimes joked to my friends that the only reason there are YEC's is that some people just cannot grasp numbers that are larger than "thousands". Being stuck in such an unenviable place, they simply rationalize it away as being a good thing in the artificial context they build for themselves.
"If you can count higher than 10,000, you must be evil!"
@#136 Ichthyic --
I hadn't seen that article; thanks for the link. The stuff about children's (and adults') intuitive (mis)understandings of the scientific world was particularly interesting.
From the article:
"In particular, both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense intuitions about the physical and psychological domains."
Demonstration of this principle, from an interview with Ben Stein on Glenn Beck's show:
"But when I talk to people who are Darwinists or evolutionists and say, 'Well, how did life begin' -- they're...they don't have an answer. I mean, they have an answer, but it's a BS answer. It's an answer that wouldn't make sense to a small child."
Yes. Well, apparently, this is also a problem with any answer that involves people living on a spherical earth ("Children's belief that unsupported objects fall downward, for instance, makes it difficult for them to see the world as a sphere--if it were a sphere, the people and things on the other side should fall off. It is not until about 8 or 9 years of age that children demonstrate a coherent understanding of a spherical Earth"). (Not to mention other more obviously counter-intuitive theories...bet a small child would be terribly confused about time dilation and length contraction in Special Relativity, for instance.)
This article almost makes me want to be a parent, just to bring children in the world who will be able to think about things in a rational way and not make the mistake of believing that counter-intuitive = false. Almost.
Yes. Well, apparently, this is also a problem with any answer that involves people living on a spherical earth
an analogy of the issue I am often fond of using myself.
wow. he's a fucking thick one.
It's good satire because it's the exactly language and logic creationists use.
anyone who uses the term fundamentalist darwinist is a fucking troll and an idiot.
Asimov was no dummy, that's for sure.
It never ceases to amaze me just how far back the cult of ignorance actually goes.
far, far beyond the advent of "Western" civilization.
You just can't go wrong with an Asmiov quote.
@#138 ungtss --
1. There's a difference between mocking a group of people for thinking unscientific things (and perhaps exaggerating those claims in order to make good satire -- but not exaggerating by much; if it weren't for the "big history" and "take the logic where it hurts" comments, this probably wouldn't have been recognizable as satire) and blaming a group of people, in all seriousness, for the mass murder of millions of people.
2. ID advocates ignore us no matter how we approach this issue. I can't count the number of times when I've seen a creationist post their "arguments", get links to scientific findings clearly refuting these arguments (observed instances of speciation, etc), and just utterly ignored those posts despite the posts being completely reasonable and free of bigotry.
No. "Atheists," by which you actually mean Stalinist communists, killed Christians in the Purges ((70 years ago)) because the state had replaced their dangerously irrational, dogmatic religious beliefs with an equally dangerously, dogmatic irrational political beliefs (Cult of Lenin/Cult of Stalin...there's a reason they're called 'cults').
I really hope this bullshit gets settled in a logical fashion, and soon.
I do appreciate the entertainment value of the videos they constantly churn unto the web but I'm a little afraid this will end badly for western culture.
It would take a lot of effort, but I've been tempted to masquerade as a creationist on one of these comment threads just for the sheer hell of it, seeing how far I could push people before losing it myself. Every now and then I think some of the 'trolls' appearing here and elsewhere are really just performance artists tweaking the self-assured. If nothing else, the mere possibility of such occurring should keep everyone on their toes.
These people I take to be suffering from an actual mental illness. Certainly there are some people who are in fact 'stupid' (cognitively deficient) and such individuals are likely not internet users. There are also certainly undereducated, yet intellegent persons who have never had the time or access to information to free themselves from the fraudulent world view they've been force-fed.
When I took my first college level psych course, the section involving "mental defense mechanisms", has really come in handy in rapidly identifying and explaining the behavior of most creationists.
example:
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/08/psychiatry-101-defense-mechanisms…
when you see tremendous amounts of denial and projection, you just know there is something fubar underneath.
What really bothers me in this country specifically (I haven't seen it as bad in others), is that when one recognizes obvious signs and symptoms of an underlying mental health issue, there is tremendous peer pressure in this country to reject it out of hand.
It's quite remarkable how much people tend to denigrate mental health care as "not applicable to me". As if a mental health issue were somehow more "denigrating" than a physical one.
I've never fully understood where this attitude came from, but it's yet another contributing factor to why the size and scope of religious cultism in the US has actually been INCREASING over the last few decades, while other areas have shown much more progress.
It also has a rather dramatic and practical negative effect on funding for mental health care, as well.
for example, I live in an area where approximately 500 thousand people are served by two local hospitals.
One of those hospitals had a mental health care facility, which they closed due to lack of funding about 3 years back.
so, essentially, if you have issues requiring a mental health care professional, you're shit out of luck.
now this is an area, OTOH, that boasts some of the best cancer research and treatment centers in the entire US.
@#148 --
Indeed.
To add a quote from my personal favorite sci-fi writer to the mix: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K Dick)
Every now and then I think some of the 'trolls' appearing here and elsewhere are really just performance artists tweaking the self-assured.
you would hardly be the fist to think of it, nor the first to employ it.
it happens here on a daily basis, I'd wager.
However, if the arguments are the same in quality, why should the response be any different, regardless of the source?
I think the reaction to this very video should indicate to you the level at which most of the posters here understand poe's law.
Poor Carlos, I do not know where he fits, I was hard on him as he appeared here in full-on troll mode.
LOL
heh, no worries. have you checked out the page on Michael Egnor on the Expelled Exposed site?
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/egnor
Asimov rocks. I meant for that quote to immediately follow Sastra's dead-on comment as a sort of "p.s." - but I was too slow. (As usual.) It's so prevalent these days...
Etha:
Exactly! We're seeing the same pattern on the "Freshwater" thread:
Sigh. And on, and on, and on...
I've often been frustrated by another phenomenon that was mentioned a few comments up: the tendency of some people (good old common folk, dontcha know) to reject counter-intuitive science. These are good, intelligent, educated people, but if it's outside their field of expertise (and most science is) and it doesn't "feel right," they'll question it. This pattern wears me out after a while.
I believe that's a Macintosh PowerBook 100 (circa 1991) -- the giveaway is the funky flipdown feet on the side (that are flipped up in the video). You can see where the original rainbow Apple logo has been blacked out.
I had a used PB100 for ages. It ran like an old VW, not fancy but practically indestructible.
re: Etha and others at several places regarding the PNAC/PNAS slip by Ichthyic bsck a ways in the thread.
I really had to chuckle - as grad students we called PNAS(against the preponderance of evidence of course): "P(robably) N(ot) A(cceptable) S(cience) for the relatively lax review policy (like none), and the bowing to authority that was implicit in the idea that submission by or through the agency of an Academy member was a sufficient guarantee of quality.
And ughtss- you can make up all the b.s. you want, but they're just masturbatory fantasies unless you've got some evidence. And that's why there's no reason for anyone to seriously engage the ID ravers. So STFU. Please.
One is indeed satire and one is not; however, both misrepresent the views of their opponents in equally viscious and ignorant ways.
As to whether it would be "easily identifiable as satire," that depends on the degree to which one's understanding of fundamentalism is sophisticated. A number of people here couldn't tell the difference between satire and reality. However, their failure to distinguish satire from reality is a consequence of their failure to understand the reality.
The inability of people to distinguish between reality and a joke should not be used to equate the reality with the joke.
Absolutely. And some ignorant darwinists have been known to do the same. I stumbled across a video of Dawkins completely misrepresenting how radiometric dating operates -- arguing that to date a fossil, you find an igneous rock in the same strata and date the igneous rock; which is simply not true. You can't date rock strata from the age of igneous rock found in the strata. And he's supposedly a leading scientist.
Similar reframing could be worked on the Inquisition; it wasn't really Christianity vs. Atheism; it was actually the "cult of the Pope." Whatever you call it and however you frame it, it involved atheists killing Christians because Christians were Christians. None of them said "
We are killing these Christians because Stalin is our god." They said they were killing the Christians because they viewed religion as an oppressive force opposed to the progress of the atheistic, socialist state. The Inquisitors had made reciprocal arguments just a few years prior.
Anyone who labels a person as a fucking troll and an idiot because they use a particular term is a fundamentalist darwinist.
@#141 mothra and @#152 Ichthyic --
re: religion and mental health...there are several levels to it.
Interestingly, in the DSM, the definition of delusional disorders specifically excludes an irrational belief that is widely accepted within one's wider social group (eg, religion). For a while this puzzled me and I thought it was psychology's way of pandering to religion, but I think there is actually some justification to this. The psychological process involved in adopting an individually concocted, unshared bizarre irrational belief is much different than buying into a widely shared and reinforced set of beliefs that are considered acceptable and even intuitive (God/faith just "makes sense"...or so I'm told), so I don't think it would be correct to lump them as the same thing.
That said, I think a lot of the defense mechanisms listed in the DSM *do* apply to religious people, particularly ID proponents, YECs, etc. For example:
Denial - A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, used to resolve emotional conflict and allay anxiety by disavowing thoughts, feelings, wishes, needs, or external reality factors that are consciously intolerable.
Projection - A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously (see unconscious), in which what is emotionally unacceptable in the self is unconsciously rejected and attributed (projected) to others.
Rationalization - A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, in which an individual attempts to justify or make consciously tolerable by plausible means, feelings or behavior that otherwise would be intolerable. Not to be confused with conscious evasion or dissimulation. See also projection.
Repression - A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, that banishes unacceptable ideas, fantasies, affects, or impulses from consciousness or that keeps out of consciousness what has never been conscious.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I went through a period where I was quite literally psychotic (my mental health has not always been all it could be...) and had a religious conversion experience. When I emerged from my insanity, I tried to cling to the belief for a while, and during that stage repression and denial were my best friends. Fortunately, I was self-aware and rational enough to realize what I was doing, and couldn't tolerate having to constantly fight back undesirable thoughts, so I was unable to continue in my religiosity much longer. So much for that....
On another note, re: Ichthyic's 152...the state of mental health care in this country is truly abysmal. Besides being a patient/consumer/whatever you want to call it in the system, I interned in the psychiatric ward at my university (University of Chicago) for a while, and it was really horrifying to see what passes for mental health "care". Not to mention the philosophical attitude towards mental illness, which puts an emphasis on being "better" and more able to take care of yourself than those crazy people, such that you want to reject mental health out of hand...the mentally ill are painted with such broad strokes, too, that it's easy to think "oh, well I'm not *that* bad...I obviously don't really *need* help..." and even "other people are so much worse off than me; I don't *deserve* help".
Okay, I'm done ranting now. I really should go home...I've been sitting around at my lab office for hours after my Western finished, responding to comments and what not...damn Pharyngula for reinforcing my already extant internet obsession!
"They're not all kooks."
Yes they are. Some might be nice, pleasant, well-mannered and congenial kooks. But they're all kooks.
"P(robably) N(ot) A(cceptable) S(cience) for the relatively lax review policy (like none), and the bowing to authority that was implicit in the idea that submission by or through the agency of an Academy member was a sufficient guarantee of quality.
oh yes, but I didn't want the connection between ID and PNAC to be lost in the discussion of good journals/bad journals.
That's the only reason I wanted to stress the error so much.
I think we've even had a discussion about PNAS's peer review policies on Pharyngula before, have we not? Not that long ago IIRC.
anyone recall the thread?
ungtss@138,
You do realise that you are writing on science blogs? If you wish to persuade scientifically-minded people, you will do much better with facts than rhetoric. The more your hand-waving your argument needs to be convincing, the less impressed your audience will be. By definition.
I personally couldn't care less what anybody else believes, but I hate it when people lie to get legislation enacted which impacts on what people learn in schools.
As an example, Expelled, full of lies from start to finish, was shown to the Florida legislators so that teachers can feel free to disparage evolution. Since the bill would leave it to the teacher to decide what is science, a teacher can talk about discredited notions such as a lack of "transitional fossils" to tear down established science. By the way, who needs a fossil? Isn't an egg-laying mammal enough to prove the point?
The biggest lie in Expelled was the association of Nazism with Darwin - Nazism was full of patriotic Christian fervour. Luther, and Paul of Tarsus before him, fuelled anti-semitism, it's ridiculous to pin it on Darwin.
It is not up to scientists to understand religion. But it is up to scientists to defend science and science education against lying lunatics.
Okay, I'm done ranting now. I really should go home...
no, no, no.
sit down, have another drink.
I'm buying!
I've loved myself twice already today and I'm shooting for a third. Where's that squid porn?
Not a particular term. THAT particular term.
We know exactly the type of people that use it.
You've done nothing to show us otherwise.
Started out getting angry, ended up laughing. Perfect ID defence, except half a bubble off. Perfect parody.
Ungtss @ 138:
Okaaaaay. Now to debunk the slightly more substantial bits of the post that you chose to quote in its entirety...
Neat. You don't think it's harmless. I do. See, e.g., Etha's post on why you and I might differ in opinion, here -- she has said it far better than I can at the moment. Aside from begging the question against one another on whether or not the vid PZ posted is harmless, care to deal with my other suggestions (esp., e.g., that your claims, in large part, are completely irrelevant)?
Ichthyic @163 "oh yes, but I didn't want the connection between ID and PNAC to be lost in the discussion of good journals/bad journals."
Couldn't help making the referencee, but I know it OT.
Anyone who labels a person as a fucking troll and an idiot because they use a particular term is a fundamentalist darwinist.
you've created a new definition for an undefined term.
congratulations.
OTOH, you obviously don't have a problem with the standard definitions for troll and idiot, and felt no reason to make up new words for those terms.
interesting.
better concern trolls please.
And...
There it is.
I wrote a comment on another blog in which I attempted to address this, making the argument that "common sense" doesdn't really exist, and that what we think of as common sense is really a semi-conscious process of assessing information in the context of what we already know - therefore, "common sense" was only as reliable as a person's knowledge base. After all, it's common sense, in the absence of greater knowledge of the world, is what tells us the earth is flat and the sky is a dome.
(With this in mind, it's great knowing that for the past 7 years we've had a President who thinks with his digestive tract. And we all know what the final and inevitable product of that is...)
My goal, which sadly I was unable to completely accomplish, was to get my readers to recognize that counter-intuitive findings in science or social science should not be casually dismissed. It frustrated me; I felt I wasn't being taken completely seriously because many of my readers had children who were older than I was... LOL... serves me right foe tryin, I suppose.
I've loved myself twice already today and I'm shooting for a third. Where's that squid porn?
LOL
careful, you'll go blind or grow hair on your palms...
:p
Er... No. Just no. Anyone who uses the term "fundamentalist Darwinist" knows neither the meaning of fundamentalism nor of Darwinism. More importantly, such a person is ignorant of the fact that modern evolutionary biologisits use Darwin as a starting, rather than an ending, point. I would recommend, dear Ungtss, a remedial biology course.
It is also up to scientists to recognize their own philosophical and religious assumptions, and to avoid imposing those assumptions on others in the name of science that neither proves them nor depends on them. If they did that, maybe there wouldn't be reactionaries out there fighting back.
I remember being taught by teachers like PZ, who don't understand the difference between science and atheism, and were convinced it was their duty to teach both.
And some ignorant darwinists have been known to do the same.
source.
I stumbled across a video of Dawkins completely misrepresenting how radiometric dating operates -- arguing that to date a fossil, you find an igneous rock in the same strata and date the igneous rock; which is simply not true.
source.
and an addendum:
Dawkins is a philosopher of science, not a scientist (at least for the last 30 years), and does indeed occasionally misfire.
OTOH, creationists can't even get the fucking car started.
are you sure you really want to compare the two?
I'll get my big cheese grater out.
Geeeze. Enough already. You're whining is tiresome.
Plus you're wrong. You've obviously never read PZ's posts on teaching and atheism and religion.
BZZZZZZZT.
Thank you for playing. Please exit out the side door.
And I recommend for myself twin grammar and detox courses. Pharyngula after a night on the town? Not a good idea. Four letter words are a trial. =)
It is also up to scientists to recognize their own philosophical and religious assumptions
now if only you could do anything other than project your own.
I remember being taught by teachers like PZ
no, you really don't, and that's obvious without even knowing WHO taught you.
Fundamentalism is a belief in the infallibility of an idea, and the belief that all those who disagree are not only ignorant but somehow morally deficient.
Darwinism is belief in common descent and philosophical naturalism.
Fundamentalist darwinism is belief in the infallibility of the doctrines of common descent and philosophical naturalism, and the belief that all those who disagree with it are not only ignorant but somehow morally deficient.
This discussion is not in the realm of biology; it's in the realm of philosophy. You don't learn this stuff in biology class. You learn it through philosophy.
Isn't there a law, and if there's not (please name if after me), there should be: Any cdesign proponentsist who uses the term Darwinist, Darwinism, evolutionist, evolutionism, "kind", or random selection after being corrected automatically loses the argument.
Ah yes, proof by assertion without evidence or explanation. Good work. People are bound to take you seriously with reasoning like that.
Fundamentalism is a belief in the infallibility of an idea, and the belief that all those who disagree are not only ignorant but somehow morally deficient.
evidently, you are very insistent on describing yourself tonight.
project much?
Darwinism is belief in common descent and philosophical naturalism.
then there are no "Darwinists".
you can't just make shit up, and use it to project your own ignorance and expect you are saying anything intelligent.
you really should quit while you're behind, if you ever want people to actually visit your blog.
well, that don't go there to poke sticks at the poo-flinging monkey, anyway.
Ah yes, proof by assertion without evidence or explanation. Good work. People are bound to take you seriously with reasoning like that.
My irony meter just blew up.
Hey ungtss, you cant falsify naturalism. Also, its fundamental to all science, not just evolution. It is ignorant of you to not know that. The main point I gather is that you are opposed to naturalism in science, by extension you want to extend it. Shades of Behe in Dover. If this is what you want, how far do you want to expand it?
One can never go wrong with an Asimov quote. . . or story. Two favoite (and germane to this discussion) stories from his 'Winds of Change' collection are: The Last Answer- one of the more rational examinations of god, and Winds of Change- which explores the scenerio of ideologies replacing the free examination of ideas in modern society.
Ah yes, proof by assertion without evidence or explanation.
again with the projection. Since you have never taken a class with Myers, where is the assertion without evidence coming from again?
are you trying to be the case on point for what we were talking about earlier wrt to psychology and religion?
if so, good job.
if not, you really have a problem.
I'd suggest a visit to a mental health care professional.
The old "I'm rubber you're glue" routine. Impressive.
Start by reading this article.
Isn't there a law
sounds like a corollary of Blake's Law (you know Blake Stacy, right?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngula_(blog)
Hey, Ungtss, did you happen to notice "Darwinist" wasn't mentioned once in that whole article?
Guess not.
Well, I didn't figure you're one for words, given your previous posts.
Umm ... I read his blog. He sees atheism as the scientific point of view. Explicitly.
The old "I'm rubber you're glue" routine. Impressive.
not when it's only going one way.
must you insist on projecting onto everything?
face it, you haven't a clue what you're on about.
Start by reading this article.
I suggest you read it again and show me where it defines "Darwinism" in exactly the same way you have in this thread.
you're pathetic, and it's starting to make me sad.
don't make me feel sorry for you.
besides, BSG is on and I'm rapidly losing interest in yet another sad case of complete denial and projection.
I'll add you to my database, though, if that makes you feel any better.
It's over a thousand entries now.
The article is about darwinism. A darwinist is one who ascribes to the premises of darwinism.
You seriously don't understand the linguistic link between an "Ism" and an "Ist?"
ungtss:
You don't read so good then. Try reading the parts where he says he does not bring religion or the lack of it into the classroom. That's (partly) what the blog is for.
Ah yes I knew that one in the back of my head. Thanks for the reminder. I like my addendum too. Maybe throw in "just angry at God" as a footnote for future generations to read.
To quote the article ungtss provided:
This has been said before, but I say it again: many religious people feel the need to see movements as a charismatic, cult-of-personality, dogmatic thing. Plus see projection.
Umm ... I read his blog.
blog=class.
got it.
He sees atheism as the scientific point of view.
oh, where?
show me.
Explicitly.
do you know who Inigo Montoya is?
i dont see how people are wondering if this is a joke or not. i mean cmon... his name is eddie current
A darwinist is one who ascribes to the premises of darwinism.
a circular argument, is, ummm, circular.
i dont see how people are wondering if this is a joke or not. i mean cmon... his name is eddie current
look up "poe's law"
Ungtss:
That's actually not what "Darwinism" is. For that, read the Origin of Species. Plenty of it is off the mark, plenty of it isn't. Like I said, modern evolutionary biology only uses Darwin as a starting point. Get with the programme.
Look, mate, if you're not going to give us anything new, buzz off.
In anticipation of you droning on with the typical creobot BS... G'night. No time for this.
Case in point on the not reading so good issue, your vaunted wikepedia entry on Darwinism:
I.e., it's a completely plastic definition that changes depending on who uses the word. Like ID apologists with a fondness for repeated brick-induced cranial trauma.
man, this is too much like shooting fish in a barrel.
'nite all!
The article is about darwinism. A darwinist is one who ascribes to the premises of darwinism.
You seriously don't understand the linguistic link between an "Ism" and an "Ist?"
Touche, and since I also believe in feats of heroism, I'm additionally a heroist, am I not?
Please, kind sir, stop projecting your ignorance. Accepting scientific fact makes you nothing more than someone who's not ignorant.
You fail to realize that the vast majority of people who accept that the theory of evolution accurately describes how the diversities of life came, and are coming to be, do not call themselves "Darwinists," nor do any of them refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism," because the theory of evolution has been expanded upon and revised so much since Darwin's day.
The only people who refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" are Creationists who attempt to malign scientists as being evil, devil-worshiping atheist/cultists.
Kseniya: I wrote a comment on another blog in which I attempted to address this, making the argument that "common sense" doesdn't really exist, and that what we think of as common sense is really a semi-conscious process of assessing information in the context of what we already know - therefore, "common sense" was only as reliable as a person's knowledge base.
I do believe you have hit upon a great truth there. If I ever have children, one of the things I feel is very important will be to give them as much experience about the world as possible as soon as possible.
It's interesting that we live in an information age of global communication, and yet a huge swath of the population is, by and large, just as dumb and superstitious as ever. I don't know how this anti-investigative mindset got started, but I do know that religion, with its emphasis on faith, is a big part of the problem. It's like a creeping fungus threatening to cover the country in stupid, and it goes all the way to the top!
Although an incredible amount of information is just a google click away, so is an incredible amount of information within the specific area of knowledge that one limits oneself to. (Like religion, or 150 channels on TV--that include science and history--and a lot of people watch MTV and soap operas.) It's no wonder that science, is in many ways, counter intuitive to them.
That's why it is so important to get knowledge out there, work it into the social consciousness, confront the creationists and anti-science panderers head on, and argue big and loud--with multiple approaches to reach as many people as possible.
You're jumping to conclusions, Ungtss, no doubt due to your relative inexperience with this blog. Dr. Myers has made it abundantly clear that he quite intentionally leaves religion and atheism out of his biology classes. You might also note that when he blogs on peer-reviewed science literature here, the same principle applies. The only exception in recent memory was when a paper with an obvious creationistic slant was presented.
"Fundamentalism is a belief in the infallibility of an idea"
Please demonstrate ANY EVIDENCE that the people on this blog believe that scientific explanations (let alone Darwin's theories) are INFALLIBLE. Do that now, or get labeled as a fucking troll and idiot.
Stanton:
Yeah, Stanton, but that's because they've accepted the Gospel of pseudo-Darwin as a canonical text.
Pffffft. Whatever. This Ungtss douchebag is all about talking about irrelevancies. He knows he doesn't have a damn leg to stand on when it comes to the substantial bits of our posts. Typical freakin' creobot. Just peruse the replies we've made. He responds to nary a one.
Don't feed the troll, kids, don't feed the troll.
@#159 ungtss --
Hmmm, I hold a pretty high opinion of rationality (and a pretty low opinion of willful ignorance), but even I would say that satirizing someone as being irrational and willfully ignorant isn't quite as vicious as blaming a scientific theory for the deaths of millions of people. But maybe that's just my skewed atheistic values....
Okay. Please explain to me the *real* argument for why ID should be considered as a scientific theory. But if it involves arguments like endogenous retroviruses coming from a designer who likes to perform retroviral gene transfer experiments on his designs, rather than from retroviruses that infected the germ lines of our ancestors, prepare for me to laugh at and possibly satirize it. Then you can tell me I'm doing it because I don't understand the *reality* of your argument, and we can return to square one.
Now here's the difference: when I wrote that statement, I clearly said "ID advocates." Referring to them as a collective group. All of 'em. You qualified your statement "some ignorant darwinists."
Firstly, this is not at all an analagous situation; if Dawkins was indeed wrong about this (and I have some doubt here), it is still not the same as ID advocates willfully ignoring refutations to their claims. In that video, Dawkins gave a description of radiometric dating, and that was that; there was no instance in which an audience member argued rationally that his description of radiometric dating was wrong and he proceeded to willfully ignore the argument. Someone making an incorrect claim doesn't mean they're being willfully ignorant; someone making an incorrect claim and then not listening when people present evidence counter to that claim is.
As for the actual accuracy of his statement -- I will first admit that I am far from being an expert on radiometric dating. However, based on this talkorigins page on radiometric dating, it seems that what he is saying about using igneous rock (in conjunction with multiple other things) for radiometric dating is accurate, if a bit simplistic, and your claim that the location of igneous rock in strata is useless for dating is not. (I'd also add that Dawkins is rather out of his field of expertise within the field of evolutionary biology, namely molecular genetics.)
But the dogma that motivated those killings was not atheism. It was communist/Stalinist dogma. Atheism had nothing to do with it, other than being part of the dogma. Atheists were killing Christians because Christians were Christians (and thus enemies of the people); but Christians were not being killed by atheists because atheists were atheists. They were being killed by atheists because those atheists also happened to be communists.
(Interestingly, Stalin later reinstated the Orthodox church during WWII, realizing its power to mobilize people in wartime.)
Also, FTR, I somewhat disagree with atheists such as Dawkins who call religion the "root of all evil", in that I think we are quite capable of finding excuses to kill people and do barbaric things without religion as an excuse. All people really need is some kind of dogma that people will blindly accept. Religion is handy, but any number of other dogmas -- George W's brand of patriotism (which often but not always is accompanied by fundamental Xianity), communism, etc -- will do just as well. Ridding the world of religion won't necessarily lead to a peaceful, violence-free world, but ridding the world of dogmatic thinking and leading just might....
You may have heard of one person who refers to himself as a "Darwinist." His name is Richard Dawkins. You can read about it here if you like.
It's amazing to me how all the substance of my comments is ignored, in favor of semantics about whether "darwinism" and "darwinists" actually exist.
Diverting attention from the substance of the matter in favor of irrelevant side issues. Another classic tactic.
So then please explain to us why we should regard Intelligent Design "theory" as being a serious, solemn science, when all Intelligent Design researchers and supporters have demonstrated that not a single, solitary one of them even have a rudimentary interest in doing any sort of scientific work with or about Intelligent Design "theory" since the Discovery Institute introduced it in its present form almost two decades ago?
RamblinDude, you've made an excellent point. We constantly point out that they don't accept reality, but its more that they live in an alternate reality. Sometimes I try to take a walk on their side; I listen to fundie podcasts, creationwiki, going to church. In their reality, evolution doesn't have evidence. I doubt they have fossils or DNA sequencing at Bible Universities. If you don't know what fallacies to look for, it can almost sound convincing. It makes it all the more scary.
Also, I've heard Dawkins explain that he didn't want to name it the "Root of All Evil?", because he doesn't think its the root of ALL evil. He compromised with the studio by insisting on the question mark.
Okay. Please explain to me the *real* argument for why ID should be considered as a scientific theory.
prediction:
If he chooses to respond to that, it will inevitably resemble a true Scotsman fallacy.
I think the phrase "fundamentalist Darwinist" may actually be the definition of creobot projection....
You may have heard of one person who refers to himself as a "Darwinist." His name is Richard Dawkins. You can read about it here if you like.
are you SURE you've never heard of Inigo Montoya?
meh, BSG is almost as boring as you are tonight.
Actually, "fundamentalist Darwinist" is a copyrighted term from the Discovery Institute. Stop using it or they'll sue your ass.
Ungtss, I'm waiting, pal...
Maybe we're dismissing what you think is the substance of your comments is because your comments have absolutely no substance at all to begin with.
All of your rhetoric in your arguments is recycled from previous creationist material that has been debunked over and over and over again.
Also, your admonishments and shamings are empty, if not totally wrong and based on the grossest untruths.
I would say that we would take you more seriously if you were to go out and actually read about the Theory of Evolution, and not listen to what your spiritual handlers have lied to you about it, but, the typical creationist, like yourself, is trained to think that learning is the Devil's Hobby.
I'd take a stab in the dark and say Dawkins doesn't mind using Darwinist because Darwin's legacy hasn't been attacked for decades across the pond (no sizable population of fundies), and so thus doesn't have the stigma that creationists have attached to it.
Yes, my initial snarky thought while watching that video was "1992 called: they want their laptop back." I was only off by one year. :)
@#214 ungtss --
Exactly which "substantive" parts of your comments haven't been addressed?
Methinks the commenter doth project too much....
Ungsst,
Maybe you should read that Wiki article you linked to, this time for comprehension.
"A notable example of a scientist who uses the term in a positive sense is Richard Dawkins. Outside the USA, the term carries no negative connotations."
ungtss:
Ungtss, man, you've got really try reading the stuff you cite. Nowhere in the interview does Dawkins actually use the word Darwinist. Here's where it does appear:
That said, I don't doubt he said it, but I also think it's irrelevant for reasons cited earlier in reference to the wikipedia article you also apparently failed to read. Which post did address one of your claims. So fuck off already with the "Darwinist" schtick and start droning about something else you don't understand or something you do but want to misrepresent. Jesus.
I'd take a stab in the dark and say Dawkins doesn't mind using Darwinist because Darwin's legacy hasn't been attacked for decades across the pond (no sizable population of fundies), and so thus doesn't have the stigma that creationists have attached to it.
He's said just that on many occasions.
of course, the issue isn't how Dawkins uses the term, it's how "ungst" has made up his own definition for it, then projected it onto everyone who knocks his idiocy.
What's really funny is that even though it's been pointed out to him several times, he simply is unable to comprehend that this is what he is doing.
I guess he really has never heard of Inigo Montoya, so at this point I have to add the punchline for him:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes
Dennis: "I'd take a stab in the dark and say Dawkins doesn't mind using Darwinist..."
Except, in the interview cited by Ungtss, it's the interviewer who uses the term, not Dawkins himself. After a flurry of searches, I haven't been able to find any quotes by Dawkins using that actual term (not that I'm asserting one doesn't exist, but it's hardly a label that matches with his own words.)
Even still, the loose construction 'Darwinist' is hardly a precise term that evolutionary biologists throw around in actual journals. So its supposed definition is mostly clung to by creationists, in the same manner that conservatives use the term 'elitist' (despite many of them being elitist or worse in real life).
You keep using that word
@#194 ungtss --
Firstly, regarding PZ's views on science and religion, please read PZ's own post, What should a scientist think about religion?. While this asserts that atheism is *consistent* with the scientific worldview (and theism is not) it does not say that you must be an atheist to be a scientist, or that a scientist must be an atheist.
Further, you shouldn't conflate what PZ writes in his blog (which includes stuff about atheism) with what he teaches in class (which I very much doubt includes atheism). Believe it or not, many people are able to show admirable restraint and refrain from expressing their religious beliefs in the classroom.
I haven't been able to find any quotes by Dawkins using that actual term (not that I'm asserting one doesn't exist, but it's hardly a label that matches with his own words.)
oh he uses it often enough, and has used it in his writings as well, and has defended its usage many times, even while recognizing the problems the creobots have made for those who use it in this neck o the woods. Hell, even 15 years ago it wasn't much of a problem, so long as you were hanging around with people who knew that the ToE had moved on in the 150 years since Darwin proposed natural selection as a mechanism.
like i said, it isn't the issue here.
It parallels the usage of the word "liberal". Coming from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh, it's an insult. The actual definition of the word and historical usage however, is quite a bit different from how it's been spun by the hard-right.
same thing.
poor ungst has just swallowed the lies and spin, and appears to have lost the ability to differentiate reality from fiction any more.
If it makes him feel any better, in this country he is far from alone.
@#227 Ichthyic --
As an amateur psychologist, I would say that this is the key to truly successful projection (and to successful use of other defense mechanisms): the ability to utilize another defense mechanism, denial, in order to forcibly ignore the very fact of one's own irrational defense mechanisms. Really skilled people are even able to successfully deny denial....
HA! That was pretty funny. Satire and sarcasm are great tools.
I employed them myself in my recent entry about the Padre Pio controversy. I'd appreciate anyone who had a look or left a comment!
Celebrating Crazy [Padre Pio]
I love you PZ!
My bigger issue is that when corrected, and told Darwinist is a not the term by which we go by, there is a refusal to change. Watch it in any creo-evo debate. The intelligent people will go to lengths to correct them, to say please use the term evolution, and they will keep it up, and just say it and say it and say it. Whether the term is right or wrong, the denial of letting someone self-identify is a disingenuous rhetorical tactic.
Yes. You generalized to an entire group. I qualified my statement, recognizing that there are some extremely intelligent and rational darwinists in the world -- I've met a few on wikipedia and pandasthumb over the years. But apparently you feel confident enough to generalize to the entire group.
That's a fair distinction -- he's obviously speaking out of ignorance, but not necessarily willful ignorance. I guess it strikes me as odd that he wouldn't understand such a simple concept as radiometric dating, the basis for our interpretation of the fossil record. Radiometric dating of igneous rocks measures the time since the lava cooled -- not the time since the sediment was laid. That's simple, indisputable fact. Here's the Dawkins video if you're interested.
But why did those atheists who were also communists think that Christians were enemies of the people? Because, of course, atheism was seen as true and right, and Christianity was seen as false, and wrong. Marx's writings are clear on that point. And Marx was not a member of the "cult of Stalin." He was just the atheist who developed communism.
Yes, after he devastated it, I suppose he did use some of its trappings to serve his own ends. I'd hardly call that being permissive of religion.
I'm with you 100%. Dogmatism of all stripes is the real enemy. That's what I was initially trying to communicate. Everything else will take care of itself, if people keep their minds open. Videos like the one above are extremely destructive toward that goal.
Did anyone notice how ungtss moved the goalposts so he didn't have to back up his original statement?
There are also wacko, ignorant evolutionsts who use it to justify racial purges.
Will you tell us now what 'evolutionsts' committed these purges you speak of? Do you even know?
If you can google it...it MUST be real!!!
lololololol. oh wow.
he shoots himself in the foot a number of times. especially at the end when he pokes fun at the idea of "poofing" into existance. it's almost as if he doesn't recognize the tenets of his own doctrine.
I would say that this is the key to truly successful projection (and to successful use of other defense mechanisms): the ability to utilize another defense mechanism, denial, in order to forcibly ignore the very fact of one's own irrational defense mechanisms. Really skilled people are even able to successfully deny denial....
that's about the size of it alrighty.
you might have noted I mentioned a database of over a thousand entries?
yeah.
I still get a kick out of seeing it in action though. Like watching a favorite wind up toy do its stuff.
@#231 Ichthyic --
Though to be fair, the actual historical usage/definition of the word is also somewhat different than the meaning most modern-day liberals have imparted on it.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are probably two of the most ill-defined words in modern political discourse. Both words are hurled as insults by the other side, neither word's historical meaning is widely understood by those who self-identify with it, and even the current meaning of each word is unclear.
@Icthyic and Etha, thank you for the link and information, respectively.
@ungtss, when the flat earth falls off the stack of turtles, is there a 'people-side' down rule? Just thought I would construct a statement with as much intellectual heft and gravitas as yours.'
At the basis of science there ARE assumptions such as: there is a reality and, we can observe this reality, and based upon our observations we can predict what other more general aspects of reality might be like. There, done with the assumptions. Gee, god was an unnecessary 'hypotheis.' Science is evidence based.
Darwinism is a creo/IDiot term. No such concept exists in science, just as there are no Newtonists in physics, Mendeleevists in chemistry, Dobsanskyites in genetics, or Pasteurists in medicine. There is a thing called evolutionary theory. One of its' driving mechanisms, natural selection, was first proposed by Charles Darwin.
I'm not interested in which is worse. They're both bad.
so is unqualified equivalency.
a grenade and a hydrogen bomb are both explosives, and both can be bad for you, so it makes no difference which is worse, right?
you are one nutty bastard.
Please explain why atheism matters in the development of Marxist theory.
Look -- if you have a name you'd rather go by, name it. Commondescentist. Evolutionist. Materialist. Modernsynthesisist. Whatever. The name you use is mere semantics, and is irrelevant to the fact that there are certain people who behave as fundamentalists with respect to the ideas of atheism, materialism, and common descent. That's what I said above, but you were careful to ignore.
Etha Williams @ 143
This was a very common thought of mine as my own son was growing through his first couple of years. I have the unlucky position of being the only vocal atheist in my extended family (surrounded by layers and layers of godbots), and was damn sure that my own child would learn logic and reason from the moment he was able to comprehend my words...
It's been quite funny to hear the things that come out of his mouth, and I get a warm glow every time he states something that should be obvious to the grownups around him. At Easter, he told me that the Easter Bunny came to his school, but that the Easter Bunny wasn't real, just some lady dressed up in a bunny suit. He's four.
When we've been talking about why people believe in gods, he asked about who Jesus was, and he got quite the odd look on his face when I said that he was just like Santa Clause...
BTW, I must say, I am very happy that a number of the new commenters here have stuck around. I mostly lurk here (for 4 or 5 years? I don't even remember how long it's been...), but your comments have been a very nice improvement to the place.
Though to be fair, the actual historical usage/definition of the word is also somewhat different than the meaning most modern-day liberals have imparted on it.
true, to a point, but that only serves to reinforce the point I was making.
btw, there is a specific history to how the word "liberal" has been twisted by the right since 1950.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/27/globalist_ed3__6.php
In fact, if you look into it, you will find many of the same people involved in the anti-science issue (or their direct descendants) as you will in the demonization of the word liberal.
SOS, different day.
Not so simple; not so indisputable. Have I misunderstood you, or have you gotten it almost exactly backwards? Radiometric dating of sedimentary layers depends heavily on radiometric dating of igneous rocks found in the layer.
The other thing to note is that Ungtss likes to pick and choose who and what he will respond to and thus which responses "count". He'll then later claim "no one" addressed this or that or the other thing, when in fact he chose not to address the addressing.
I believe the proper term for someone who believes in evolution is scientist. At least it is 99% of the time.
Your first sentence contains assumptions essential to science. Your third one is not. Your failure to differentiate between the assumptions of science and your own philosophical inferences is the foundation of the problem here.
Tell that to Dawkins.
Look -- if you have a name you'd rather go by, name it. Commondescentist. Evolutionist. Materialist. Modernsynthesisist.
you're not gettin' it.
It's not the label that's the problem, moron, it's your definition underneath.
now go take your meds like a good little wanker.
The other thing to note is that Ungtss likes to pick and choose who and what he will respond to and thus which responses "count". He'll then later claim "no one" addressed this or that or the other thing, when in fact he chose not to address the addressing.
this relates to the usage of denial as a psychological defense mechanism.
I swear, if I ever end up teaching basic psych, I'm going to use creobots to illustrate basic principles of psychological defense mechanisms.
Actually no. If you go around calling everybody who believes in evolution a "scientist" you won't get far. There are many people who believe in evolution who are not scientists. Lawyers, doctors, schoolteachers, and bums. Try again.
I don't get the obsession with "ist" and "ism" words. They're used so inconsistently they're often rendered useless for discussion purposes.
But, let's stick to science.
So, while a physicist certainly "believes" in physics, what it really means is someone who does physics. Same with Chemist, Biologist, etc. So, if we're sticking to the usage common in the sciences, Darwinist out to mean someone who does Darwinry. I have no idea what the hell Darwinry would be. Probably involves barnacles and possibly pigeons.
I believe the proper term for someone who believes utilizes in evolution[ary theory] is scientist. At least it is 99% of the time.
sorry, that needed some precision added.
those of us who actually perform experiments testing a hypothesis based on a particular aspect of theory have no need (nor want) to "believe" in it.
belief is entirely irrelevant.
again, belief is projected by the religious onto everyone around them. They then live in denial of the fact that not everyone needs to believe in something for it to have pragmatic use, or even to test against.
It's like watching someone who lives in a darkened room tell us how wrong we are about color.
@#234 ungtss (in blockquoted segments, my arguments are in italics):
But in your earlier comment, you claimed that "both misrepresent the views of their opponents in equally viscious and ignorant ways" (emphasis mine). I was addressing the *equal* in that statement. Now you say you're not interested in which is worse. Then you shouldn't have said that they were equal in the first place. You're contradicting yourself.
The reason I feel confident in doing this is because the entire view of ID as being scientific is ignorant at best (unintelligent at worst) and irrational. The tenents of ID simply do not fit with the tenants of the scientific method. There may be ID advocates who are intelligent and rational in other matters (though I haven't personally encountered them), but it's an oxymoron for an ID advocate to be intelligent and rational about ID.
But if you are going to tell me I'm misrepresenting my opposition, I'd like to know how I'm misrepresenting them. You can't persuade somebody that they're wrong (I've repeatedly said that I don't think I'm misrepresenting their claims) without debating them.
Way to dodge the question, though. I have to say, I was pretty impressed by the deliberate and shameless avoidance of actual debate. It's kind of hard to believe that this is the same person who wrote, "It's amazing to me how all the substance of my comments is ignored..."
Projection, projection, projection....
I assume you are thinking of such quotes as "religion is the opiate of the people." Sadly, this quote was the victim of quote-mining. The actual quote was, "Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."
In this context, yes, Marx wished for the abolition of religion, but he saw it as a natural and teleological consequence of the Hegelian progress of history. He would *not* have condoned Stalin's mangling of this concept to justify the persecution of religious people. Atheism did not lead to communism; the Soviet conception of communism lead to (or rather, forced) the mass adoption of atheism as a peculiar dogma.
(Also FTR: I am not a Marx apologist. I think Marx had some good insights into the direction of modern capitalism, but that his political and economic philosophies were heavily flawed and too much informed by a mistaken and overly Hegelian concept of history. Nevertheless, it seems important to point out that Stalinism has very little to do with Marxist communism in its original conception.)
Let me break this down real simple for you. I may have a rock that cooled from lava 10,000,000 years ago. It may well have sat on a lava field for 9,000,000 years, until being broken off by a glacier and being buried in sedimentary strata 1,000,000 years ago. In fact, it probably did, assuming sedimentary strata take a long time to lay down. So if I find a fossil next to that rock in the strata, am I to conclude that the fossil is 10,000,000 years old, because that's the age of the lava rock? According to Dawkins, yes. It's nonsense, of course. It takes no account of the time between the cooling of the lava and the laying of the strata. It can't.
But Dawkins must be right. He's a scientist, isn't he? Much, much smarter than me.
You do have a point. I will changed my statement to: someone who studies evolution is an evolutionary biologist. Someone who understands and accept evolution would just be informed. When talking about the typical believer (read: accepter) on the street, I don't think theres a corresponding term. I mean, the average smart guy isn't a Newtonist because he accepts physics. He's not an Einsteinist because he accepts relativity.
I have no idea what the hell Darwinry would be. Probably involves barnacles and possibly pigeons.
oh, most assuredly barnacles.
:p
I think we can concede Dawkins was possibly wrong once, and it was filmed. I don't see how that invalidates his vast contributions to science though.
He's not an Einsteinist because he accepts relativity.
just so.
In fact, that essential phrasing has been used by many of us to point out the absurdity of singling out evolutionary biology from Physics or Chemistry, say, or even meteorology.
Ungtss:
Edward Current:
But Dawkins must be right. He's a scientist, isn't he? Much, much smarter than me.
speaking of barnacles, I rather think a barnacle is smarter than you.
perhaps not much, though.
oh, that was fun, but really, it's not an issue of how stupid or smart you are.
it's how bloody intractable and completely in denial you are.
@#237 Ichthyic --
Yeah. I think the highlight of this evening was when I asked ungtss for the "real" argument of why ID is science, and he wrote, "I'm not here to debate with you." If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't believe that this was coming from the same person who wrote, "It's amazing to me how all the substance of my comments is ignored..."
Projection at its finest....
In other news, is it bad that it's almost 2 am and I still haven't left the office?
In other news, is it bad that it's almost 2 am and I still haven't left the office?
hmm.
based on how often I have heard that from frequent blog posters, I'd have to say no.
It's all relative, though, right?
If you have someone waiting on you, better put down that drink and call a cab...
What's up with the 'believe in evolution' line anyway? What the fuck is there to not believe? It's bizarre to me that people put up these blocks to believe that are completely artificial (not based on actual evidence to the contrary, or, in the case of most of the people around me, actual disbelief).
It's as absurd as not believing that we landed on the moon, or not believing that we have robotic orbiters flying around Saturn... in all other aspects of life, people who disbelieve the plainly visible are called on this and sent to a doctor (if they're not homeless) for help.
Damn, IDiots are stupid... (I'm being elitist now, aren't I?)
Etha Williams
I for one am rather glad you've stuck around. You've done some fine postin' tonight.
1. Dawkins has been known to self-identify as a "Darwinist" because there's little or no pejorative overtones to the term in the U.K.
2. American scientists rarely do, because of the decades-old pejorative misuse of the term by creationists.
Simple enough - yes? No?
I think it's fair to say that the meaning and implications of the term varies, depending on who's talking, who's being described, and (as Ichthyic just pointed out) the intent of the usage.
If Richard Dawkins called me a Darwinist, I'd grin. If Mark Mathis did, I'd consider it an insult.
In my estimation, very few people who post on Pharyngula self-identify as Darwinists, for reasons that have already been covered.
I suggest "Evilutionist". Can we move on, now?
Damn, IDiots are stupid... (I'm being elitist now, aren't I?)
sit down and have another drink.
@#247 Dennis N --
Now there's an "-ist" word I can get behind. Scientist: from Latin scio, scire, scivi, meaning "to know."
Oh, how I love etymological vindication...
Can we move on, now?
WE moved on decades ago.
we're simply trying to convince people like ungst to do so as well.
...and we're evidently pretty bored.
pretty slow friday night out in the desert, that's for sure.
Ah yes, of course you are right. It seems I'm the one who got it backwards. My bad.
My bad.
put on your darwinist hat and sit in the corner!
:p
@ Dennis N
How about fundamentalist Newtonists? By which I mean people who don't accept Einsteinian relativity because it does not strictly conform to Newton's proposed hypotheses.
I'm sure they're out their somewhere, given how terribly dogmatic and resistant to change science is....
Incidentally, next time a creationist uses the faulty law/theory dichotomy, I think I may have to point them to Newton's "laws", which are actually only actually semi-accurate representations of macroscopic mechanics. So much for the infallibility of scientific laws as compared to theories...
((@#265 RamblinDude: Thanks. I'm glad I've stuck around too. I wonder if I can put all this time on the clock? I *am* discussing science, after all...))
You mean, my pointy Darwinist hat with the red star on top and the hammer-and-sickle emblem on the front?
Ok.:-)
You mean, my pointy Darwinist hat with the red star on top and the hammer-and-sickle emblem on the front?
LOL
yeah, that's the one
p.s. (can you send me one?)
I used to be a Newtonist, but when I was eleven my mom and dad moved out to the 'burbs.
@#263 Ichthyic --
Alas, only my cats. I live a lonely existence, with only the cold comfort of science to keep me company at night....
It just kinda hit me; what are people thinking when they come to a science comment board? Did they really think they were going to overturn evolutionary theory with their super-science? I'm not pointing to anyone specific, but really, did you think you were going to have no science experience or original thought, come here and say "well you cant explain the eye!" and evolution would topple? That doesn't happen anywhere else. No one goes to a comment board and proclaims they can overthrow the fundamental underpinnings of chemistry with analogies about watches or finding paintings in the woods.
How about fundamentalist Newtonists?
*ahem*
http://www.amazon.com/review/RIDD2KAC62AXZ
...also caught my eye because I used to live in Santa Cruz, and have been to the "Mystery Spot" a couple of times.
Ungtss...
When a geologist, archeologist or paleontologist wants to make a dating of a given strata they don't just take one sample. They will take multiple samples from all around the target fossil or location. They will then test each sample using multiple different methods to determine the age of the sediment layer. This will give the scientist enough data to make a statistical analysis of the age of the strata.
In fact, some layers can be identified as being laid down at the same time over a very large area. Say by a volcanic eruption. That layer can then be aged by taking samples not just from one site but ranging over an entire area. Since a large number of samples are taken and all samples are tested using the same multiple methods then a pretty accurate estimate for the age of the layer can be made through standard statistical analysis techniques.
Your blog shows a strong interest for things scientific. I would recommend that you read up on some standard research techniques for the areas of geology, archeology, and paleontology. I'm sure such resources are readily available and they may help clear things up for you.
Also, keep in mind that typically when you see someone like Dawkins speaking publicly he is probably simplifying what he is saying to account for time constraints and the audience.
Err... supplies have been meager since 1991.
Maybe this will give you an idea of how you'd look in one...
Oh Newton. You may be superseded, but you're still in our hearts.
Alas, only my cats. I live a lonely existence, with only the cold comfort of science to keep me company at night....
actually, that can be pretty damn good company in my experience.
er, the science, not the cats.
umm, not that cats are bad company or anything.
right.... shutting up now.
:p
Maybe this will give you an idea of how you'd look in one...
LOL
that's exactly what I was thinking.
That's one big arse crucifix he's got on his wall. My heavily catholic grandmother would salivate if she saw that.
Bride of Shrek, as has already been pointed out, this isn't a crucifix, just a cross.
Plus, it's directly against the wall and it's entirely flat and a dull beige. It looks this cross is just made with packing tape.
@#264 Tiskel:
Sometimes I think this is the point of their persistence. They want to provoke scientists and science-minded people into making comments that they can then use as fodder to portray us as rude, bigoted elitists.
Every time I start a "conversation" with an IDiot, I try to be polite. I try to engage them in reasonable discourse. But after a while, the projection, denial, and outright willful ignorance gets to be too much, and I inevitably become sarcastic and elitist (if you can call an expressed distaste for willfully ignorant irrationality 'elitism').
Oh well.
btw, Etha, you live in the Chicago area, right?
Aren't there still some excellent underground jazz and blues scenes there? I know we're all broke these days, but Chicago can be a fantastic hang out after dark from what I recall.
I only spent a couple of weeks there working with a nonprofit group, but I had a great time.
On the weekends, is there still a huge line of dog owners on the breakwater endlessly tossing balls into the lake?
Don't worry, Etha. Within a year or two, "sarcastic and elitist" will probably have become your baseline. ;-)
Man, this unfunf guy must be a real hoot at parties!
Ultimately, he's just another one of those fun derailers we get around here. All that tedious bloviating seems to boil down to this: the poor guy doesn't get satire. Or else he just doesn't enjoy it. I say, just pity him and laugh at this Current video.
Actually I'm trying to avoid an irrelevant tangent. The point is that it is bad. I used the word equal. Now, instead of discussing whether it is bad, you are focused only on the word "equal," which was not the point. However, since we've gotten this far, while Expelled blames the IDEA of darwinism (and not Darwin or any other scientists) for the holocaust, the video above attacks Christians and creationists AS PEOPLE, portraying them as fundamentally irrational. Is it worse to blame an idea for a holocaust, or to personally attack a group of people as fundamentally irrational? One's personal, one is not. One blames for a holocaust; the other, ostensibly, only for personal stupidity.
Which one is truly worse? They seem about equal to me. This is a tangent to the real issue.
Whether ID is "truly science" is irrelevant to me. Many would be equally happy to have both ID and the idea of naturalistic universal common descent of all life both declared as either both science or both philosophy.
Do not confuse the idea of naturalistic universal common descent of all life with the scientific facts about changes in gene frequencies. The later is science. The former is speculation, philosophy, and interpretation of evidence. On par, many would argue, with ID. Is ID testable? No. Neither is the idea that life arose on Earth spontaneously from inanimate chemicals. That's the rub.
The misrepresentation is that all advocates of ID are fundamentally irrational, as portrayed in the video. Advocates of a position may be wrong, and yet rational based on their premises. Sinking to the level of personally attacking them as stupid (or, as has apparently become the rage lately, ineptly psychoanalyzing them) fails to recognize that people may hold different opinions rationally, based on different premises. That failure is the essence of fundamentalism of all types.
Oh please. You've heard the ID arguments before.
1) It is unreasonable to exclude intelligent actors as a potential agent in the development of highly organized systems, a priori as a function of the definition of science.
2) There are a number of biological structures (including the primeval self-replicating organism) for which there is as yet no naturalistic explanation;
3) There are a number of structures for which the complexity is so interdependent on other structures as to make stepwise evolution appear highly unreasonable;
Would you apply this same sort of quibbling to your interpretation of the inquisition? I made that argument above, but you ignored it. Consider: "Jesus never called for putting heretics to death; therefore Christianity was not to blame for the inquisition. On the contrary, it was merely the cult of the papacy twisting the ideas of theism to justify oppressing heretics."
It is unreasonable to exclude intelligent actors as a potential agent in the development of highly organized systems, a priori as a function of the definition of science.
guess what moron?
we don't a priori exclude the supernatural from science, either.
It's just irrelevant unless one can define the actors in question (supernatural or not) and how they function causally in the world.
can you figure out why, or do we have to baby-walk you through that one too?
for which there is as yet no naturalistic explanation
both irrelevant to evolutionary theory, AND not correct. there are many theories of abiogenesis. your ignorance of them is no excuse.
There are a number of structures for which the complexity is so interdependent on other structures as to make stepwise evolution appear highly unreasonable;
like a MOUSETRAP?
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
If you wish to continue, you have to assume at this point that the people who are responding actually know more about ID, science, religion, and politics, than you do, Mr. Barnacle.
Well damn, if that don't say it all.
Maybe if you began with the premise: "This person thinks differently than me; I wonder how his premises lead to his conclusions?" rather than "This person is an IDiot -- nevertheless I must be polite if I wish to persuade him" things would go differently for you in these conversations.
Any conversation that begins with the presumption on either side that the other is fundamentally irrational is doomed to begin with. That is he seed of fundamentalism -- the failure to recognize that people may rationally disagree, based on different premises.
Maybe if you tried to understand ID, rather than trying to explain why it is wrong, you would succeed.
And before you start with the strawmen, I haven't argued that anyone here is fundamentally irrational. I am fascinated by the premises that lead to evolutionary thought -- because understanding them helps me develop my own premises.
The problem with the ID/evolution debate is that there are too many scientists running around that don't understand philosophy, and too many philosophers running around that don't understand science. It's like The Dark Crystal, if you've ever seen the film.
Ok I give up on this guy. When someone says naturalistic universal common descent isn't science, I interpret what they're implying. Would un-naturalistic universal common descent be ok? If not, why bother adding the part about naturalism. Fundie types have a problem with naturalism. For what reason I can only speculate.
Naturalism leaves no room for God, and they want their God everywhere. I mean, total monopoly. School, court, stores, TV, legislated into law. Whenever he doesn't dominate the scene they get offended and cry some sort of persecution. Nevermind that naturalism is needed for science to even work. When it gets to this point, I see the true colors. This and numerous other reasons, show you lack a clear grasp of what science even is. If you want them listed I'm sure people here would oblige; me, I'm going to bed.
Oh hey Ichthyic, I see you pretty came to the same conclusions as me.
I say we suspend all discussion until a testable theory of ID is put forward by ungtss.
Still goin to bed.
Ok I give up on this guy.
oh, no worries, he was gone when he showed up.
it's all just for fun, and the lurkers.
nobody has any illusions that logic or facts will modify his position in anything other than at best a very temporary way.
his brain will hit the reset button, and he will have forgotten all about anything anybody here told him that doesn't fit with his projections.
Even now, his mind is claiming victory for itself.
...and we've seen it a thousand times before.
The problem with the ID/evolution debate is that there are too many scientists running around that don't understand philosophy
no, the problem with this "debate" is that there really isn't one.
there are a bunch of idiots like yourself, running around creating a fictional controversy, and then claiming victimhood when we point out that this is what you are doing.
We really can't help that you're a demented fuckwit.
Only you can do that.
It is unreasonable to exclude intelligent actors as a potential agent in the development of highly organized systems, a priori as a function of the definition of science.
guess what moron?
Oh please. "Supernatural" is a meaningless term. Take a hard look at what you mean by the term. Define it. Then see if a) it means anything; or b) science can investigate it.
Science requires demonstration. None of those hypotheses (not theories) have been demonstrated as functional; much less demonstrated as actually having occurred. The existence of multiple hypotheses is proof that none has been demonstrated as factual.
No -- like a cell.
After all, you are a scientist; much, much smarter than I.
It's like The Dark Crystal, if you've ever seen the film.
ya know, I was about to call you a muppet, and then you go and make a reference to that film.
It's support for Jung's theory of Synchronicity, I tells ya!
There isn't one. There's also no testable theory that a cell arose spontaneously from inanimate matter, and diversified by purely natural means into all life. There are some hypotheses. All conflicting. None demonstrated. That's not science. It's speculation.
So... we're finally talking about "creation science" and ID...?
@#290 ungtss --
Actually, my point was that you contradicted yourself. First you made a judgment about their relative "badness" ("equal"), then you said you weren't interested in that. If you have no interest in evaluating such a thing, you shouldn't make the evaluation in the first place.
But alright. You say this is irrelevant to your point, and to be fair, it is difficult (and maybe impossible) to debate a "which is worse" point, at least not without getting into a lengthy debate over philosophical views of ethics.
Moving on....
Oh boy. I'd love to see the scientific literature, stripped of everything that involves "interpretation of the evidence." It's a mistaken view of science that states that all science is is a method involving collecting data and publishing it. There's a reason that the structure of a scientific article usually goes something like:
Abstract
Introduction
Materials/Methods
Results
Discussion
See, after you get the RESULTS -- changes in allele frequency, etc -- you're supposed to use things like logic and other previously published data to DISCUSS and interpret it.
As for your interpretations of the data in support of ID (or at least the possibility of ID)...
No one has excluded them a priori, but until we have evidence of these intelligent actors actually *existing*, there's no reasonable way to talk about them acting. (This, I think, is ID'ers first task on the road to a semblance of scientific legitimacy to find evidence of God, intelligent extra-terrestrial life, or the like...so far, there has been no success.)
Unlike in theology, it is not a problem in science to say, "I don't know." Instead, it's an avenue for future scientific research.
Key word: "appear." As discussed previously in this thread, intuitive appearances are often misleading.
And by the way, regarding your preface to these arguments:
Yes, I have. But I wanted to hear them from you, because if I had described them myself, you might accuse me of "misrepresenting" ID'ers arguments.
And I never said that Jesus' philosophy lead to this sort of oppression. Actually, I never said anything about religious persecution, other than to state that persecution certainly doesn't require belief in God -- only dogma. You're putting words into my mouth, and I ignored them because I didn't feel a need to address refutations of arguments I never made.
Though if we're going to talk about Jesus' ethical philosophy, it's really hard to figure out...one minute he's talking about love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek, and the next it's "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
The trouble with the bible is that it's so contradictory anyone can use it to justify anything....
No -- like a cell.
oh fucking please, what did you just finish reading Behe's black box or something?
if you don't get why I posted the reducible mousetrap, you don't even understand the basic fucking argument you yourself are trying to make.
I'm backing off the just denial/projection thing and really thinking you are a complete moron at this point.
After all, you are a scientist; much, much smarter than I.
yeah, so what of it? some of us spent decades actually studying biology, zoology, botany, and evolutionary theory, then went out and actually did research and published it.
If you want to paint that as being elitest, you better paint your fucking plumber as elitest too.
damn, do you just get dumber as you go along?
It's not like every single "argument" you've presented this evening hasn't been entirely refuted as nonsense a thousand times before.
In fact, before you open your yap again, do at least check and see if what you are about to say hasn't already been covered here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
I don't think there's a hypothesis that claims "a cell arose spontaneously from inanimate matter" - so why are we talking as if there is?
No, we're talking about the fact that science doesn't know where life came from, but a number of evofundies want to claim that an ID speculative explanation is invalid, without having to acknowledge that their own explanation is also nothing more than speculation.
There's also no testable theory that a cell arose spontaneously from inanimate matter,
*sigh*
do try and keep up, Mr. Barnacle.
what you speak of is accurately termed abiogenesis, NOT evolutionary theory.
and as I said before, and you ever so blithely ignored, there are plenty of theories regarding that as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
@#287 Ichthyic --
Yeah, there are...sadly, I'm still not of legal drinking (and thus jazz/blues club-going) age. Less than a month more to go, though...21 on May 16th :\.
Also, I live in Hyde Park, which has to be the most boring part of Chicago. Seriously, I swear almost everything here closes by 10 pm, even on weekends.
#304, meet #305
nitol
What's wrong with doing both?
Also, I live in Hyde Park, which has to be the most boring part of Chicago. Seriously, I swear almost everything here closes by 10 pm, even on weekends.
bummer.
soon though...
soon.
I'd join you for a drink if I was still in that neck o the woods, but I find myself out in the desert southwest these days.
I'll tip one in your direction.
cheers
No, we're talking about the fact that science doesn't know where life came from, but a number of evofundies want to claim that an ID speculative explanation is invalid, without having to acknowledge that their own explanation is also nothing more than speculation.
Those aren't theories. They're hypotheses. They won't be theories until they can be tested, and pass the test. They haven't been tested.
Is it, like, mandatory to conflate ToE with abiogenesis in order to get ones ID merit badge, or something? Good grief. We just went through this over on the Freshwater thread. At least I can credit ungtss for having the sense not to bring the Big Bang into it too.
@#290 ungtss --
Actually, there is mounting evidence for this theory. There was the Miller-Urey experiment (which, Stein's claims to the contrary, was not a failure; that they failed to spontaneously generate new life is unsurprising given the short time scale they conducted the experiment on relative to the very long time scale prebiotic earth had to work with). Then there's independent evidence derived by different techniques that validate the idea that life originated out of the prebiotic environment. For example, here is the abstract from an article published in 2002 (quite a while ago, on the scientific article time-scale):
"To understand more fully how amino acid composition of proteins has changed over the course of evolution, a method has been developed for estimating the composition of proteins in an ancestral genome. Estimates are based upon the composition of conserved residues in descendant sequences and empirical knowledge of the relative probability of conservation of various amino acids. Simulations are used to model and correct for errors in the estimates. The method was used to infer the amino acid composition of a large protein set in the Last Universal Ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. Relative to the modern protein set, LUA proteins were found to be generally richer in those amino acids that are believed to have been most abundant in the prebiotic environment and poorer in those amino acids that are believed to have been unavailable or scarce. It is proposed that the inferred amino acid composition of proteins in the LUA probably reflects historical events in the establishment of the genetic code."
Article here.
@#277 (Dennis N): I have also wondered this.
I am currently reading "Evolution" by Mark Ridley. It is an undergraduate textbook. (I am reading it purely for interest/pleasure - I have no practical need to).
In its 750 (big) pages, it references material that is listed in 34 pages of references, probably over 700 papers & books in all, by 100s of authors. This book is intended to get people to first degree level, and is presumably not intended to be enough by itself to do valuable research in the topic. And this is just one book!
What arrogance must someone have to expect that they will be able to undermine the whole area of science without doing proper homework first?
Just for interest, 3 of those references are to Darwin, and 5 to Dawkins.
Maybe if you tried to understand ID, rather than trying to explain why it is wrong
nonsequitor?
how does one go about understanding something without trying to prove it wrong?
ummm, THAT'S SCIENCE MORON.
In case you never knew (duh), science never does try to prove anything. It's a systematic attempt to DISPROVE hypotheses.
hence why ID doesn't, and even can't, rise to the level as being anything other than vacuous nonsense:
there is nothing to disprove. no testable predictions, not even a definition of a designer to work with.
it's fucking nonsense, and is really just as much relevant to actual science as the flying spaghetti monsterism.
so strike me with a noodly appendage already.
you just don't fucking get it, Mr. Barnacle. Nothing would make a real scientist happier than a new hypothesis for evolution to play with.
We asked the IDiots for YEARS to refine their concept to the point where it would be testable. While conceptually, we of course realized they wouldn't be able to, we did ask nonetheless.
there was no repression, there was no expulsion, there was only an impatient tapping of feet while we waited... and waited... and waited...
and now political ideologues simply want to convince screwballs like yourself that there is controversy where there is not, simply in order to push your fucking buttons.
that you are ignorant is forgivable and fixable.
that you are a willfully ignorant muppet is inexcusable unless you have a mental health condition you would like to share with us.
well?
@ungtss --
Okay, your self-contradictory comments are really starting to confuse me.
In #290 you write:
But then, in #292, you write:
Why on earth would I wonder how someone's premises lead to his conclusions if I've already heard all the arguments outlining just that?
Why on earth would I wonder how someone's premises lead to his conclusions if I've already heard all the arguments outlining just that?
Wheeeee!
At this point, I start to figure I'm losing too many brain cells trying to get someone like Mr. Barnacle to think his way out of a paper bag.
Just once, I would love to see a creobot admit that everything they are saying has been said and refuted a million times before (which is of course why the ICC even exists). That they would actually point to a thread where they acknowledge someone who isn't themselves said the exact same thing, and that they recognize it was actually addressed.
I understand why it never happens (again, perfect fit with what we were talking about with psychological defense mechanisms), but still, like a unicorn or a fire-breathing dragon, it's something I'd like to see someday, even if I realize it doesn't exist.
Hey, you yourself applied the same sort of quibbling to the "poison" bible quote, when you claimed that it's "misquoting" and "bigotry" to take the bible verse at face value!
"Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
Also to ungtss --
In your comment #234, you wrote
I explained why Marxist thought on religion is not consistent with Stalinist communist actions. You wrote:
I would hardly call it quibbling to say that your entire conception of Marxist thought on religion as it relates to Stalinist policy is wrong....
"without having to acknowledge that their own explanation is also nothing more than speculation."
Speculation with all the relevant facts in and no made-up stuff (i.e., God, aliens, FSM) on top.
Bingo. But you still haven't addressed the bigotry I alleged was reflected in the video.
That's mere strawman. No one said that science permitted no interpretation of the evidence. I said that the notion that all life arose spontaneously from non-living matter and diversified without any intelligent interference into all life on Earth today is not a testable hypothesis; it is grounded in a great deal of speculation, philosophical assumption, and interpretation of evidence.
Additionally, in the many areas of science where interpretation becomes an issue, multiple untestable interpretations are permitted, even if they are not all testable. Except in the case of ID, of course.
You failed to address my point again, zeroing in on a single word and manufacturing a straw-man. Do you think that the concept of "inanimate goo-to-you evolution" has been tested?
No one has excluded them a priori, but until we have evidence of these intelligent actors actually *existing*, there's no reasonable way to talk about them acting. (This, I think, is ID'ers first task on the road to a semblance of scientific legitimacy to find evidence of God, intelligent extra-terrestrial life, or the like...so far, there has been no success.)
That evidence is called "history." Advocates of ID give credence to the ancient accounts of gods interacting with men in time and space. Opponents of ID do not, based on the premise that such histories are mere mythology and fiction developed by primitives to cope with ignorance and fear. This difference in premise is untestable and philosophical, and underlies the divide between ID + evo.
You're making two mistakes:
1) If a scientist admits that he does not know how it happened, then he is obligated to acknowledge the possibility of all explanations which have not been falsified. You can't say my explanation is wrong unless you falsify it, or prove your own. Evofundies decline to do this. They say, "We don't know how, but we know no one intelligent did itit, and it's unscientific to believe that someone intelligent did."
2) Alleging that theology doesn't permit saying "I don't know." On the contrary, any theology will tell you that the essence of theology is knowing that there are many things about God they do not understand.
Again, unless an explanation can be falsified or its alternative demonstrated, it must be permitted as a possibility.
I never claimed you made those arguments, nor put any words in your mouth. I asked if you would apply a similar analysis to the inquisition -- blaming power rather than belief and religion, as you so charitably do in the case of Stalin. You still haven't responded.
IMO, using the Bible to justify action or belief is the wrong way round. The Bible is a tool to be used, not an authority to appeal to.
That having been said, I disagree with your characterization of Jesus' statements as contradiction. Look at Gandhi. Through a policy of non-violence, he managed to cause great strife and dissonance. He brought down an entire political regine. So it was with Jesus. He pursued a policy of non-violence; but the results were radical. His philosophy destroyed paganism as an institutionalized belief system in Europe.
It's easy to use the bible to justify evil. It's also easy to use superficial analysis of the Bible to contrive superficial "contradictions" that don't really exist.
@#316 Ichthyic --
Yeah, it would be nice. Ungtss probably came as close as we'll ever get to fulfilling this fantasy with his, "Oh please. You've heard the ID arguments before" statement in comment 290....
Hey! According to ungtss, this is nothing more than "as has apparently become the rage lately, ineptly psychoanalyzing them [your opponents]". I love how a discussion between a few people on a discussion board apparently constitutes a new "rage". Suddenly I feel all influential and important-like.
Advocates of ID give credence to the ancient accounts of gods interacting with men in time and space.
uh huh.
go ask Behe if he thinks the intelligent designer is Zuess, you grand fucking moron.
I would hardly say you established that. The fact remains that atheism is an established tenet of communism, that Marx put that tenet there, and that later atheists like Stalin killed the religious because they were religious, justifying them with the atheistic tenets of communism.
The fact is, atheists can be just as bigoted and ignorant as Christians or Muslims can. Your characterization of Stalin as "Communist first, atheist second" doesn't change that. The real enemy, I think we can agree, is dogmatism of any type. Including both theitic and atheistic dogmatism.
The real enemy, I think we can agree, is dogmatism of any type. Including both theitic and atheistic dogmatism.
*sigh*
can you even grasp what "false equivalency" means?
Please instruct us on the dogma of not collecting stamps, Mr. Barnacle.
congratulations, btw, you are the creotard of the day! I'd say there's even a chance that PZ will mention you on the blog tommorrow; he's pointed out especially obtuse morons before.
There have indeed been a lot of people fancying themselves competent to psychoanalyze my defense mechanisms on this message board. Mischaracterizing my description of it as a "rage" as referring to something nation-wide or global in scope is sheer sophistry.
Remember folks, never ever ever think that you're right about anything. Or that anyone else is wrong. That's dogmatism. And it seriously harshes other peoples' mellow.
It's rather that their conclusions lead to their premises...
Me too! I'd be interested to know if there is a text that provides a better grounding in the major concepts for £20. It always amazes me how cheap it is to self-educate yourself to a fairly high standard, if you are prepared to put in the effort.
I've got a pile of books that I really need to get through. I think that I will move on to "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", and then "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", after that. I'm trying to catch up with some of the classics, while at the same time furthering my understanding of much of the current thinking.
There are few better feelings than when that light comes on and you realize that you have actually grasped a major concept in science!
Yes. Can you provide some evidence or argument that I am guilty of that fallacy? Or do you prefer your ad hominem approach to argument?
There have indeed been a lot of people fancying themselves competent to psychoanalyze my defense mechanisms on this message board.
only because you exhibit such textbook symptoms of projection and denial, that any high school student with a basic psych text could have pointed them out.
frankly, I doubt anyone here feels competent to analyze your condition, but the symptoms are as obvious as if you had come here with pictures of a missing leg, or a broken nose.
In fact, as I suggested earlier, I do recommend you seek professional treatment.
Yes. Can you provide some evidence or argument that I am guilty of that fallacy?
holy crap! did you entirely miss me asking you to define the dogma involved in not collecting stamps?
you didn't grok that, did you.
I'll let someone else with more patience explain it to you.
dude, you need help, seriously.
Me too! I'd be interested to know if there is a text that provides a better grounding in the major concepts for £20
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/2182444/used/Evolutionary%20B…
there ya go.
Nobody said that holding opinions was in and of itself dogmatism. This is the definition of dogmatism. Holding unwarranted opinions in an arrogant manner, and/or holding to a belief system based on insufficiently examined premises.
Holding unwarranted opinions in an arrogant manner, and/or holding to a belief system based on insufficiently examined premises.
So ID (and Christianity, Hinduism and Islam)are all ok, huh?
Interesting...interesting...
Can you define "insanity" for me, please?
I can only conclude that you are mischaracterizing my statement that "the enemy is dogmas of all types" to mean "There is a dogma about everything, to include stamp collecting."
Of course, I neither said nor meant that.
There are many different types of dogmas. There are not dogmas about everything. Read what people write. Thanks.
OK, you know what just occurred to me?
Ben Stein may be the fundamentalist Newtonist we're looking for.
He's mentioned on a few occasions that "Darwinism" can't explain how the planets are kept in their orbit. Given his known stance that there is a Creator behind life, one can reasonably assume he also thinks a Creator is necessary for keeping those orbits on the elliptical and narrow.
Now, Newton thought at one point that the planetary orbits were inherently unstable, and so proposed that every so often God would lob a comet through the solar system to make the needed corrections.
So, there you go: Ben Stein -- intermittent actor, economist, erstwhile Nixon flack, ID apologist, game show host, eye drop shill, Newtonian Fundamentalist.
Is there nothing he can't do with that amazing intellect?
@#320 ungtss --
While it's nice to know you'll agree with me when I agree with you, I have addressed your allegations of bigotry, in any number of comments detailing why ID is fundamentally and inherently irrational (and why thus, portraying its defenders as being irrational on that account is not bigoted).
(bolded emphasis mine)
Which is where modern scientific ideas about abiogenesis have an advantage over ID 'theory.' ID is grounded in a great deal of speculation and philosophical assumption and no actual interpretation of the evidence. The interpretations you have given (irreducable complexity, etc) have all been debunked numerous times.
...no, opponents of ID don't give credence to "history" because there is no empirical evidence for the truth of these accounts. And honestly, don't you find it a *little* suspicious that all the overt interactions of god(s) with men suddenly ceased with the advent of technology that could actual record and analyze these interactions?
Acknowledge, yes (hence Dawkins' acknowledgement of the possibility of panspermia after being asked leading questions in Expelled). Fund, no. There's limited funding in the science world these days; only the more credible hypotheses can get funding. But don't worry, the Discovery Institute and others are getting plenty of private funding for their ID "research." I'm sure they'll come up with results...one of these days...
I can't say unequivocally that it's wrong, but I can say that it's pretty damn unlikely. And that the supposed "evidence" in favor of it is irrational.
Oh really? Let's see what you claim so-called evofundies do say.
True
False. Evolutionary biologists do say that based on logical interpretations of currently existing evidence this seems unlikely, though.
True. Science is not about belief. And the "scientific" arguments that are presented over and over for ID are anything but.
I don't think belief was responsible for the Inquisition. I do think that dogmatic organized religion -- with its ability to seep into political power structures -- was.
You're mischaracterizing me again. I never said there were no dogmatists in religion. I said there are dogmatists and non-dogmatists in both the theistic and atheistic camps.
Yikes.
There is a dogma about everything, to include stamp collecting."
nope, you clueless berk.
I was trying to point out to you that there is a dogma to atheism in exactly the same fashion that there is a dogma to not collecting stamps. Which is why you can't compare the dogma of religions to a dogma of atheism. there isn't one, hence why it's a false comparison.
It's really a simple concept, and I'm not the first to employ it, but you are the first to have totally missed what it meant.
congratulations, again!
now I feel like I'm talking to a four year old.
man, this is beyond shooting fish in a barrel, and more like watching concrete set at this point.
I'm tired of trying to guess what you won't know next.
I'm almost afraid to mention this in present company, but...
All this talk about "dogma" has gotten me thinking:
Do you reckon it's about time we scientists think about re-naming the unaptly named "central dogma of molecular biology"?
You're mischaracterizing me again. I never said there were no dogmatists in religion. I said there are dogmatists and non-dogmatists in both the theistic and atheistic camps.
Yikes.
I'm not mischaracterizing you, I'm asking how any of those are not dogmatic in totality, not if they had no members that were dogmatic. Apparently, you should try comprehending things, it happens to be of great benefit.
I can assure you, while I may give some slack to religion in general by your very definition anyone who believes in ID is currently dogmatic or extremely ignorant and lacks very large amounts of basic high school education.
Either way, you pretty much just stepped in your own bear-trap by claiming dogma is bad then defining dogma to fit the ID belief perfectly.
one, last comment...
and it's unscientific to believe that someone intelligent did
would you say that to an anthropologist, you clueless berk?
I'm tired of trying to guess what you won't know next.
Everything seems to be a good bet at this point, given the trend.
ungtss said:
Stalin also murdered Evolutionary biologists, as well, exploiting 100 years of the God-like reverence and subservience to the Tsar, thereby creating a quasi-religious state.
Ever heard of Lysenko's miracles? Heresy hunts?
Me thinks that you are making quite a category error if you think that the so called "atheistic" tyrants weren't religious. It's all about the dogma, baby, and whatever you say about atheism there ain't no dogma involved. Good luck with justifying the logical steps between the rejection of God (and only that), and anything else.
Do you reckon it's about time we scientists think about re-naming the unaptly named "central dogma of molecular biology"?
Congratulations on finding the one, single thing the creobots have contributed to the advancement of science! They have forced us all to utilize more clearly defined jargon.
I can think of more productive ways to have accomplished the same task, however.
You know, if the Christians and Muslims would at least accept this, that would be a major step in the right direction. JUST AS bigoted and ignorant. So no need for their fucking doomsday predictions about increasing atheism if everyone is potentially JUST AS bad.
If we could get that out of the way, we could then discuss with the Christians and Muslims why their religion does not seem to bring them GREATER understanding and LESS bigotry, what with religion being the source of morality and whatnot.
I know it is probabljy a bit early for it but I must say that I think Etha Williams is already more than worthy of an OM nomination this month.
@339 Ichthyic --
I'm tired of trying to guess which of his own previous statements he's going to contradict next. It's hard enough trying to guess what an ignorant person won't know next, but when the few things they do claim to "know" contradict each other...it gets to be a real headache....
Thanks for that, Ichthyic. I have looked at it before, but there are just so many books and it is difficult to identify the better ones.
By the way, do you know that Richard Carrier is attempting to raise $20,000 from secular donations to produce a book about the historicity of Jesus? After reading Earl Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle", Carrier reckons there is a pretty solid case for a mythical Jesus, and that it may be possible to shift the balance with the majority of scholars who have traditionally favored a historical Jesus.
ungtss, or should that be ugh, Stalin didn't attack religion because of their belief in god but because religion was a powerful force in Russia and it represented a very real threat to the power of the state because of the organisation behind it and the support of the people. Much like the Burmese junta attacked Burma's religious leaders in the recent protests.
Thus the soviets either eliminated and/or controlled and/or co-opted religion. Which they did at any one time depended purely on how the state thought it could be best used to its own advantage.
Exactly in the same manner and for the same reason that they attacked their own trade unions when those trade unions, originally one of their principle supporters, started asking where was this utopia promised by the state. The result of the unions actions in questioning the soviet, the state eliminated those it couldn't co-opt or control and replaced them with those it could control.
In other words, at no time where xians attacked because of their belief but simply to eliminate them as a possible powerful opponent. If you can't see the difference between that and attacking them for their xian beliefs, then there isn't much hope for you. Then again, after following you in this thread, we are way past that conclusion anyway.
@#347 John Phillips --
Thanks for the recommendation. I'm honored :).
On that note, I think I'll (finally) return home for a well-deserved early-morning nap that will hopefully last well into the afternoon...good night, all. It's been fun.
I have been studying these alleged "debunkings" for years, and personally, I haven't been impressed. Scientists are not trained in philosophy, or the evaluation of evidence. While I will accept a scientist's authority on things that are within their purvue of training, I do not feel obliged to accept their authority on things they know nothing about.
Philosophy of science is, unfortunately, something most of them know nothing about.
These "debunkings" fall squarely within the category of philosophy of science. They are not, in fact, debunkings; they are competing, unfalsifiable interpretations of the evidence masqueraded as debunkings.
You cannot "debunk" the impression that even the simplest forms of life are too tightly integrated and complex to have reached that configuration spontaneously, unless you can show how it happened. No one has done that. Some people think they've done it, by pointing out uses for partial mousetraps. But that's not science. It's an argument, made by people not trained in how to make or analyze philosophical arguments.
And that is another point of empirical disagreement. Lawyers call it a "question of fact." And reasonable minds can disagree. Personally, I think there's an enormous amount of evidence to support it, from the complexity evidence in the simplest cell to the fact that the orbital periods of the planets are arranged in proportion to the golden ratio, phi. Civilization appeared around 4,000 BC fully developed and highly advanced, and subsequently declined in its organization until only very recently. And the histories of every ancient culture on Earth describes themselves as created, and as interacting and interbreeding with the gods.
I find those facts persuasive. I understand another might not. But I also understand that in every jury and every supreme court ruling, there are different weighings and evaluations of the evidence. For one side to allege that theirs is somehow privileged based on its consonance with their own presuppositions is the same arrogance exhibited by fundamentalists of all stripes.
Actually, many of the ancient texts explain that phenomenon rather plausibly -- consider Timaeus, Critias, Genesis, Jubilees, and Enoch. Josephus also gives a great synopsis of other ancient texts that have unfortunately been lost through time.
I don't care about funding. I care about the acknowledgment that the intuition of the vast majority of people -- that we were created -- be acknowledged as possible, rather than as an idea proven false by science. It appears we agree on that.
Evidence cannot be rational or irrational. Only inferences from evidence to a conclusion can be rational or irrational. As to whether those inferences are rational or not, I will continue to try and sharpen my mind by striving to see the evidence from all sides and perspectives; you can keep excluding what you've already determined is irrational. Life will go on.
They write books called "The God Delusion," arguing that theism is delusion. They claim that "Religion spoils everything." They don't bother to prove these things. They don't bother to falsify the alternatives. They substitute rhetoric for reason, and do the cause of atheism a huge disservice.
Again, logical interpretations differ. In fact, no one knows how life began. There's no "evidence" to "interpret logically."
You're a fair-minded person; I appreciate it. I also don't blame atheism for the purges -- it was power and dogma, as you rightly pointed out.
But there are evofundies writing books with a radically different premise; that religion may well be "The Root of All Evil?"
This sort of bigotry does the cause of atheism a great disservice. Religion is not the root of all evil. Religion is often the victim of evil (both from within and without), as is everything else.
Have you actually read the God Delusion, ungtss? If all Dawkins said was "religion is bad" and then didn't bother trying to prove that, it'd be a very short book.
So I'm hoping you didn't read it. If you did and you still say things like this, you're either crazy or a liar.
I suppose I'm to blame for your unwillingness and/or inability to coherently make an argument. You throw out a half-ass analogy and then say "Don't you get it!?"
Your argument still carries no content except proof by assertion. Dogmatism is defined as holding an opinion with unwarranted strength or arrogance. Some atheists fit this bill. Others do not.
I do not know of any "anti-stamp collectors," much less arrogant ones. But I do know some arrogant atheists whose beliefs rest on unexamined premises. I also know some wonderful ones with whom I love to discuss the issues.
Your analogy to stamp-collecting is even more nonsensical than I thought.
As a philosophy student, Ungtss, to claim to be defending a philosophical standpoint you utterly disgust me. Call this bigotry if you will but I see it as you defecating upon what I enjoy and I call you out on that.
Additionally, I completely love how you've ignored how I've asked you to defend ID as 'non-dogmatic' by definition.
Also, you seem to be standing on the horrid idea that 'possible = plausible/rational' which I can't even begin to fathom someone who's arguing for philosophy can honestly do, it boggles my mind.
Possible does not mean rational by any means, unfortunately you seem to have a mental disorder which allows you to commit such horrid mangling of logic while continuing to rationalize it with even more mangling. I weep for my dear friend logic, mayhap one day it shall recover from these horrid wounds.
You honestly make me sad to be a philosophy major. I can only hope that (assuming you did/do) go to a college it was a Christian one, so I don't feel all that bad for its utter failure.
Goodnight.
...I'll pray for you
Do a quick word search for "religion is bad" in my post. Not there! Doh! Dawkins alleged that belief in God was a delusion -- but what he argued in the book was that 1) belief is unwarranted; and 2) belief is bad. The word "delusion" means something very specific. It remains unproven in the book.
Well I've been arguing with a number of people, many of whom made more coherent arguments than that one. I apologize for missing yours.
As a philosophy major, I'm sure you've heard of "begging the question" or "circular reasoning." That's what you do here. You assume that ID is wrong. You then define ID as dogmatic, because it is belief in that which is wrong. But of course, your premise that ID is wrong is the issue in dispute. And if ID is correct, then believers in ID are not, in fact, dogmatic.
You've simply begged the question.
Hope those philosophy classes work out for you.
ungtss again, we'll ignore the fact that the mousetrap analogy used by Ichthyic was simply an example of how an artefact designed for one thing when used as a complete entity doesn't become useless when parts are removed and look at the real claims for irreducible complexity. Actually all the so called irreducibly complex structures claimed by the IDiots, (and yes I use the term IDiot deliberately as they have earned the sobriquet time and time again, so cry me a river) such as the flagellum, blood clotting and so on, have all been proven not to be irreducibly complex. The flagellum has been shown to consist of substructures that have uses in their own right and from which the flagellum evolved from. Blood clotting has shown many different but related structures that all work to different degrees, irrespective of whether there are parts missing or not. Thus the refutation of the irreducible complexity has been done not by wishing it away but by demonstrating, through experiment and observation, that sub-structures that make up the human blood clotting agent have similar or different tasks in organisms other than humans even when parts present in the human agent are missing and/or different. The same has been shown in every example the IDiots throw up. Do they give up? No, they simply look for another gap in our existing knowledge and claim that as irreducibly complex.
Thus IDiotism, ignoring its political basis, is based purely on incredulity. Its not the evolutionist fault if IDiots refuse to look at the evidence with their fingers in their ears going na na na I can't hear you. As Dumbski demonstrated in the Dover trial that not only had he not read the wealth of peer reviewed papers that refuted his arguments but even stated that he had no intention of reading them. This leading light of IDiotism even went so far as to admit that using his definition of science, astrology had to be acknowledged as valid science. If this is the best you can come up with as your leading advocates, you really do have problems when it comes to criticising real scientists on how they approach their work and reach their conclusions.
But ... but ... science isn't a belief system!!??!!
What. The. Fuck?
I like to think that parodies are efficient tools. But are they really ?
On the downside, we will get accused by the moderates of battling carricatures of theism, instead of having the moderates attacking the real fundamentalists.
Mind you, they seem to keep quiet on the fundamentalists anyway, so what's the risk ?
Maybe the trick is to make parodies like this guy, which are that good, that one can't see the difference with a real fundie. The problem is that he is honest (which is in his honor) and says it on his profile, but then his parody looses its efficiency.
Sorry, Etha, I can't resist ......
"Etha Williams,
Not old enough to drink,
Quite old enough to THINK."
Ugh. I'm reading the same circular arguments over and over again, with certain nameless people thinking they've discovered the rhetorical equivalent of perpetual motion. All this wasted effort on the exact same set of false premises, day in and day out.
There has got to be a better way.
@#332 (Ichthyic):
Thanks for that reference. I wonder if there is comparison between Mark Ridley's and that one?
(A bit late for me!)
Minor correction to John Phillips: It was Michael Behe at the Dover trial.
Thanks Duncan, I always get the IDiots mixed up, obviously even writing about IDiotism kills brain cells dragging me down to their level of IDiocy :)
the fact that the orbital periods of the planets are arranged in proportion to the golden ratio, phi. - ungtss
Here's a table of orbital periods, taking that of Earth as 1:
Mercury 0.206
Venus 0.6152
Earth 1.000
Mars 1.8809
Jupiter 11.862
Saturn 29.458
Uranus 84.01
Neptune 164.79
Pluto 248.54
(I've included Pluto as the Neptune/Pluto ratio is one of the better ones from ungtss's point of view, but drop it if you like.)
Phi is 1.618, to 3 decimal places.
The successive ratios between orbital periods, also to 3 decimal places, are: 2.986, 1.625, 1.881, 6.307, 2.483, 2.852, 1.962, 1.508.
Ungtss, you just repeated your piece of numerological garbage without even bothering to check it, didn't you?
Civilization appeared around 4,000 BC fully developed and highly advanced, and subsequently declined in its organization until only very recently. - ungtss
4000 BCE there were proto-urban settlements (showing evidence of occupational specialisation) in Mesopotamia, use of copper in tools across south-west Asia, Egypt and eastern Europe, agriculture there and also western Europe, much of Asia, central America and Peru; no bronze, no iron, no writing, no wheeled vehicles. Going back in time from there, copper use appears in the 6th millennium BCE, pottery rather earlier, agriculture around the ninth... (I could go on). Going forward in time we find bronze use in the 4th millennium BCE, writing starting around 3000 BCE, wheeled vehicles late 3rd millennium, iron late 2nd millennium - ungtss, the depths of your ignorance are enough to daze the mind with horror.
That was great! I actually thought he was real at first -
Do you agree with this description of ID?
It's very disingenous of you to act as if it's mostly about how the "simplest forms of life" originated and to add the diversification of life just as an afterthought. Evolutionary biology deals primarily with the latter. The bulk of the debunkings of ID have concentrated on their stupid claims about evolution, not abiogenesis. For example, Behe's claims about the evolution of new binding sites have been debunked.
Ungtss is a super duper Idist!
He's almost Hovindian or Hamist.
ID has been dismantled so many times by so many scientists it's not even that we're assuming it's wrong. It's been shown to be an empty idea. It's this empty idea that assumes that everything is just too perfect and too balanced for not it to have been designed in someway by a designer... when you can prove a designer exists get back to us. Meanwhile science will keep doing research.
IDists will just keep whining.
RE: Etha Williams is too young to drink
As I get older (not that I am very old) I am finding it hard to accept that there are people who are not only regularly as eloquent and insightful as I am on my best days, but who are also considerably younger than me. Etha, you're a credit to the scientific tradition. Could you take it easy for a bit so us old gits can keep up?
Do all IDists or apologists argue by randomly pulling terms out of the logical fallacies wikipedia article and assigning them to arguments basically at random?
I was willing to cut ungtss a bit of slack in his pretense of being open-minded, until that fundie-ignorant bit:
Apparently he's never even read a junior-high ancient history book, or glanced at the articles in National Geographic.
So has Ungtsss bothered to put forth a reason why we should take Young Earth Creationism Intelligent Design "theory" seriously, or is he just getting his jollies off of accusing us of being Christian-killing Communazis?
He shouldn't complain about elitism.
God, with his "chosen" people, is the ultimate elitist.
Maybe if he spent less time mindlessly adding God comments to science discussion boards and more time following those discussions... but no, that would require thought and, apparently, that's not his forte.
Of course not: he was taught that thinking is the "Devil's personal indulgence."
In the first place, you're misrepresenting Dawkins' claim in the video you're criticizing. In response to an audience question about what creationists would have to do to prove that dinosaur fossils were 3,000 years old, Dawkins said:
"What they would have to do is to find igneous rocks which were found in proximity to or sandwiching the fossils, and date these by radioactive dating..."
Note the "or sandwiching" bit, which you left out of your transcript.
Dawkins did not say that any igneous rock would be sufficient to accurately date the fossils, regardless of its shape or size or composition or context or relative position; he said igneous rocks would be necessary. Obviously, yes, a random pebble embedded in the stratum next to the fossil will be less informative than a pair of lava flows or volcanic ash deposits closely sandwiching it. But do you really expect Dawkins to give a lecture on stratigraphy in a brief Q&A session?
In the second place, even in the worst-case scenario you lay out above, that igneous rock does provide valuable dating information. By the principle of inclusion, we can say that the stratum and the fossils it contains may be much younger than the igneous rock, but they can't be older. There's half your dating job done right there. And, coincidentally, it's the half most relevant to the question Dawkins was asked: how would you prove fossils were actually very young?
So you've created a strawman of Dawkins' position and then failed to refute it anyway. Well done!
I don't know about that, but on this topic he's evidently much better-informed.
I got a kick out of the claim that scientists aren't trained to evaluate evidence. Is that true?
Mr. Ungtss repeatedly claims that a proposition must be considered until it is falsified, without once acknowledging that in order to be considered at all, it must be falsifiable. Odd.
I dunno, I could be wrong. I just woke up... 8-|
Kseniya,
Nah, you just made the mistake of trusting ungtss to accurately describe Dawkins' position. That's the problem with atheism, it makes us all kindly and open-minded and trusting of our fellow man. :-)
Try to exercise your capacity for crabby suspicion this weekend.
Anton,
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but in this case it wasn't so much about whether or not Dawkins was right, it was about how igneous rocks can or cannot be used to accurately date the sedimentary layer in which they appear. That's what I got wrong, irrespective of Dawkins' statements. Serves me right for trying to think at 3 a.m. (A common error of mine...LOL)
Looking back on it, I can only file it under "What was I thinking?!?" :-)
I am amazed at the trolling capacity of ungtss. He has managed to maintain this thread growing without having to exert one single synapse.
So, there you go ungtss: You are the troll extraordinaire. Can you go back to your bridge now?
Wow. ungtss gets his personal thread with 379 comments. Have I missed anything?
When scrolling through, I noticed this, in any case:
As Kseniya alluded to in comment 377, if it cannot be debunked even in principle, it is not science -- it can explain everything and its opposite, in other words, nothing, and must therefore be ignored as a waste of time.
And you of all people brought up science theory? I suppose I should be glad you know it exists, which is a big advantage you have over most cdesign proponentsists that have wandered in here so far.
And I completely managed to forget mentioning Ockham's Razor. When faced with competing interpretations that are all falsifiable and have not been falsified so far, we must choose the one that requires the fewest extra assumptions. ID requires the assumption of a Designer. ID loses.
It's difficult to satirize something that is essentially a satire of itself. I had to listen to this for a few minutes to realize that this might be beyond even what the IDiots would say. Anyway, it's funny.
@372
"Apparently he's never even read a junior-high ancient history book, or glanced at the articles in National Geographic."
No, no--he's talking about Atlantis. Which has not yet been disproved! Thus it is perfectly valid evidence. You can't possibly understand history and archeology if you dogmatically limit it to stuff we've actually found!
There's also the highly-advanced pre-historic Papuan culture--which nobody has been able to disprove, either.
Steve "Yes, TV shows are, too, evidence." James
"This sort of bigotry does the cause of atheism a great disservice."
Criticism of an idea can be wrong, can be right, can be a matter of opinion, but it can never be bigotry.
You were not born religious. You are not genetically a creationist. You have a choice in the matter. You have made that choice, and right or wrong, your choice can be criticized.
Charging that criticism of your beliefs is bigotry is utter cowardice. If your belief is criticized, defend your belief.
If you defend it successfully you may look wise.
If you defend it unsuccessfully you may look like a fool, perhaps at least an honest fool.
If you refuse to defend it, you look like a fool and a coward.
If you refuse to defend it and claim that it should be beyond criticism (as claiming bigotry does) then you look like a fool, a coward, and a hypocritical asshole.
"It's only a flesh wound!"
As with all brilliant satires, its not clear until you
the whole video whether the man is sincerely espousing
his beliefs, or whether he is satirizing those beliefs.
Its a devastating caricature: i think 90% of
creationist-activists would, if given no other information
but the video itself, enthusiastically embrace it and
post links to it.
Wow. That guy should have looked up "logical fallacies" first. No wonder he got kicked from those groups.
For a moment I thought he was actually seriously speaking.
ungtss, you aren't as smart as you think you are. People who constantly take apart the smallest things people say and suck the fun out of genuine satire are only looking to prove they're Smarty McSmarty-Pants.
And, no, I don't have to prove what I am saying. You make yourself obvious to everyone here - if you can't see it, then you need to examine yourself for a while.
If you *want* to have an actual argument with rules and everything, then just say so.
ungtss #292 wrote:
The video above is a satire of the movie EXpelled and the kind of arguments it's promoting. Currant is portraying the "ideal" member of the audience, one who has bought into the film's basic premises and is following its reasoning.
1.) There is a "major controversy in science."
2.) Scientists are unfairly sticking together and being "close-minded."
Those two statements contradict each other. The way the film supports both is being made explicit by the comedian in the video: what makes a "major scientific controversy" is being redefined. The criticism doesn't have to come from within the scientific community -- it's perfectly fine for ordinary people to criticize it from the outside, and try to "force a new theory into science without performing any actual research." Current is Joe Ordinary, miffed that his lack of competence in a field is "expelling" him from being able to have his say. If the majority of Americans don't like a science theory, then the controversy is, by definition, a major scientific controversy. Scientists don't get to rule on which scientists are wrong: it's up for democratic vote.
I think it's a sharp hit against the way Intelligent Design is being promoted to the general public. ungtss apparently agrees that the guy is being irrational -- and would probably agree that this is the wrong way to promote ID, too.
So I fail to see any bigotry here.
This thread seems to be dying at last, which is probably for the best, but I just wanted to point out a few things.
To #354 ungtss:
Evaluation of evidence has nothing to do with the philosophy of science and everything to do with science. And your knowledge of philosophy of science seems incredibly misinformed and willfully ignorant anyway.
This seems to be a new strategy, then: redefine the principles you wish to dispute as not falling "within [scientists'] purvue of training"; then don't accept it. The really stunning thing is, I think you actually believe you're right.
Others have already debunked this particular claim, but for information about how other complex patterns are by no means evidence for an outside intelligence, please see Emergent Phenomena. (And then there's also coincidence, which allows you to detect various patterns even when they don't exist, and which would explain why a few, but by no means all, of the planetary orbits sort of kind of conform to the golden ratio.)
Also, science is not about what you *personally* believe. (And this is the second time you've used that word in a single post, so please don't accuse of quibbling over a single word; it's an important point.) Science is about what the impersonal evidence, independently investigated by numerous separate persons, suggests.
and
Do you believe that ID "theory" has any application at all to actual evolutionary biology, ie, the study of the diversity of life? Because every argument you've given thus far is related to abiogenesis.
And no, we don't yet have a comprehensive theory of abiogenesis. What of it? The evidence from the Miller-Urey experiment and the article on LUA amino acid sequences I previously linked you to, among other things, are compelling arguments for life arising spontaneously out of the prebiotic environment, though. And certainly warrant further investigation, unlike the untestable, unsubstantiated arguments for intelligent design.
Oh no! The argument from majority and from intuition. Please see the very interesting article Ichthyic posted back in comment 137.
I assume by "their own presuppositions" you're talking about the presupposition of the scientific method. Well, if favoring interpretations based on logic and empirical, observable evidence rather than intuition and unsubstantiated historical accounts is fundamentalism, then I guess there's no way around it -- I'm a fundamentalist.
Thanks for the compliment, but based on your comment #294 and your statement in this comment that "...I will continue to try and sharpen my mind by striving to see the evidence from all sides and perspectives; you can keep excluding what you've already determined is irrational", I don't think you really mean it. Or maybe you do. You've said enough internally incosistent, contradictory things that I really can't tell.
Well said, Etha... and hey, I see that you really are younger than I am. I thought people were kidding about that "too young to drink" thing... lol. :-)
@#362 --
Well, if nothing else, they're evidently efficient tool for generating comments -- this approximately four and half minute video has generated almost 400 comments in less than a day's time....
And parody seems to be efficient at creating tools as well. ungtss, if you're still reading this, you really need to educate yourself and gain an appreciation of satire before you start feeling personally offended by people trying to let you know you're acting stupid. If you can at least accept that the video portrayed actual opinions you have had and that you felt offended by the fact that those opinions were made to seem unreasonable, then perhaps you should examine your own opinions more closely before blaming everyone else for your obvious failings.
I love the air quotes he makes, especially when he refers to "actual research."
I see this thread has come to an end for the most part. I was up last night reading it. Sometimes I would be laughing, other times feeling frustrated but it was interesting. I almost made a few comments but I just felt other people would do better and I would just end up distracting them.
Thanks for the good discussion (I don't know if it really can be called that, I don't think ungtss really discussed much, just played with words, never defined much of what he meant and accused others of playing mean and making poor arguements while doing the same thing).
I'd just like to point something out (mostly for ungtss): strawmen, intentional mischaracterizations, etc. are only fallacious when used in ARGUMENTS. Ed is not arguing. He's having fun. And so are we. And so can you. And if you realize this, try not to be offended so easily. And if you are offended, try to keep it to yourself. Just a suggestion; although I believe you have every right to speak up when you're offend, I have every right to tell you to grow a pair.
this must be a parody.
he claims to "research" on "the internet". the laptop looks like it's from the 80s, doesn't even feature a network socket.
"this must be a parody."
O RLY?
Lol, momo! Impeccable logic indeed :) The laptop's the clue, yeah.
Eddie Current was responsible for The Atheist Delusion video. http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
If you don't laugh at the "scientist FREAKS" part, you don't deserve access to the internet.
The comment about the impossibility of Sumerians' creating glue before the creation of the Earth was only trumped by the threat of sodomy with a cross in plain sight, "godless scientist, bed over and take it where it hurts."
Now I'm TOTALLY confused... I mean, YOU GUYS are the ones joking around now, yeah? pretend he's not funny to you, 'cause of the stance he takes against the stuffy old men who are all-like, "set-in-the-way, and always using science to explain what religion is too afraid to talk about? (?porn? is an example of this)
Hey, I supposedly saw a "BIOLOJIST" poking around near this very website not too long ago...with his hands all crammed down in his pants, like he was whippin up more so-called "biologism" to mix w/his buddy's evolutionjism, (No, I'm actually making up stuff now).
First I thought this guy was a little confusing, like he had a car-accident involving his head and a windshield when he was younger and too 'wild' for his seatbelt.
There was guy like that in my high school. Anyways, he got into a pretty serious carwreck that almost gave him permanent brain-damage, and afterwards, he was never the same again.
From then on, he was basically a lot like this guy...he always talks real loud like this guy and he will also get these little wads of white creamy spit "balls" stuck around his mouth and he never wipes them off or anything...just seems like he went gone down a couple notches...closer to a mongoloid or something...
Anyways, I'm only here for 1 thing: to hear a good supporting argument. i.e. "...the same way we know that Jesus is real---because most Americans believe in Him."
And who will ever forget comments about scientists bending over and taking "that" because of their conviction that "life just pooped into existence."
I love this site. You guys are nutty, but I see what you're saying here...this site is mostly like a way of saying things that are um, opposite of what you mean...but then you turn them around AGAIN, so you're back to what you REALLY believe, but you're still pretending to try and make it sound like you believe the OPPOSITE of what you're acting like you're really saying! It's all about making the people you agree with look like a god-damn bunch o mongoloids, huh? ;)
Cool cats unite! Thanks