It's a somewhat odd article in which I apparently attributed evolution to nothing but chance, since the only alternative is Design. This, of course, is not my view, but there's enough other stuff in there to stir up controversy that maybe we'll stir up a contentious audience.
There is, apparently, an intelligent design creationism proponent on the faculty of Southern Oregon University, and they got a few comments from him.
Professor Roger Christianson said there are alternative explanations of how diversity happened, and "people who believe in intelligent design feel the complexity of life is too great to come about by naturalistic forces."
Christianson, an evangelical Christian, said he has brought up intelligent design and creation science in class to show the swing of the pendulum between the two schools of thought, and "I suggest the truth is somewhere in the middle."
"I talk mostly about adaptation that can be seen from either point of view," he said. "... I see the world as an evolving pot, with natural selection as the driving force, but I certainly don't rule out that an intelligence or a creator is involved."
Charming. Of course, my talk tonight is specifically a counter to that silly and ignorant notion that the fact that organisms are complex must imply that they were designed. And no, there aren't two schools of thought: there are religious kooks on one side, and the scientific evidence on the other…and only in the minds of the deluded is the correct answer "somewhere in the middle".
Experience tells me, though, that Professor Christianson will be nowhere near my talk tonight.
- Log in to post comments
Christianson, an evangelical Christian, said he has brought up intelligent design and creation science in class to show the swing of the pendulum between the two schools of thought, and "I suggest the truth is somewhere in the middle."
Christianity teaches that there is an omnibenevolent God and an evil Devil. I suggest the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Or, as Twain put it, the Devil is the victim of lies spread by the Opposition...like PZ is.
There can exist multiple levels of tardensity. Some tards are merely particle tards while others clearly constitute conspicuous chunks of mass/energy density that make them mega tards. So you see, there is an entire range of tards—especially of the Roger Christianson type.
Once again, all they offer is their own ignorance as supposed "evidence." I can't believe that, therefore it's false. All one can say is DUH!
My response to the "argument from personal incredulity" is always: OK, now we know something about your knowledge and reasoning abilities. Now, how about some evidence?
Either evolution didn't have help from any god(s) or it did? How is there a middle ground? Cognitive dissonance par excellance.
Bah. I'm glad I didn't got to SOU and have Christianson for a professor.
What does Christianson teach, anyway? Sounds like a tard.
I'd note, too, that there are various ways of discussing "chance." In one sense, I think it's true enough to say that those of us who see no evidence for god indeed ascribe it all to chance. That's because we doubt that the workings of physics can be credited to anything but chance (don't know for sure, but would need evidence to suppose otherwise).
Creationists/IDiots, of course, try to turn that into the sense that evolution is pure chance, when clearly natural selection is how the laws of physics end up with anything but chance adaptations. Nonetheless, since we don't think that the laws of physics are "non-chance" factors at the "deeper level," I think the newspaper came pretty close to getting it right.
It's grist for the IDiots' dishonesty mill, but close to the role of chance in the universe, as we see it. Equivocation of "chance" is easy, since we never see the classical realm as being irreducibly random, while the whole universe appears to be purely a matter of chance (possibly due to quantum effects).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
I honestly don't know what "somewhere in the middle" is supposed to mean in this context. Either there is design or there isn't, no? Either natural selection works as an explanation for speciation or it doesn't? What exactly is the middle ground and why would anyone want to occupy it exactly? Bizarre.
At least someone seems to have their head on straight.
In fairness, the complexity of life is too complex to have come about by "naturalistic" forces. Natural forces however suffice.
...Whoops forget some commas in the last sentence.
Is there any school where poor reasoning has taken root? sadly no. Even here in Southern Oregon, there are plenty of evangelicals and Christians (though less than my previous haunt, Jacksonville, FL).
I'll be out tonight to support you PZ! Can't wait to finally meet you!
Why is it always christian-centric anyway? Has it ever occurred to those creotards that it's another religion that has it right? It's always, "our Bible has right because no other religion is right". They say the want to teach alternate theories (note the plural) but present only one alternative. How would they react if someone wanted to present Buddhism as an alternate theory to christianity?
abbie has more stupid up right now... sheesh
My internal response to the "life is too complex" argument is usually "What amount of complexity would you accept as a result of evolution?"
Like "too sensitive" or "too judgmental," "too complex" doesn't actually have any associated metrics.
Errr - is a pendulum that's stuck in the middle really a pendulum? Isn't it more like a stone on a stick. Hanging.
From the linked article: "Religious beliefs help find the best way to behave in the world and help us find peace."
How's that working out so far?
This damn false dilemma comes up all the time, because we don't have another example of a naturalistic process that produces complex objects with the illusion of design apart from evolution.
So when presented with an object of given complexity, there are really three possibilities for its origin: a rock arrived by chance; a watch by design; and an organism by evolution. But how do you get that across to tards who are trying to reject the third possibility to begin with?
My best example is still jokes. When a politician catches his cock in his zipper, sophisticated jokes about the event are on the street within days. They aren't made in a factory: they evolve.
What does he teach?
If this is the same Professor Roger Christianson
He's Professor of Biology, is Coordinator, General Biology Program and teaches:
So I expect he will be at the talk. maybe he was misquoted too.
Hopefully, some of his past, current and future students will be there, so you can help reduce the harm he causes to their education.
Oh, FSM -- that guy's a biology prof? Trying an all-or-nothing argument?
Even a little bit of casual bird-watching will reveal that all sorts of birds peck at trees (and other stuff), with varying degrees of vigour. Presumably the hardness of the peck is governed partly by the strength of the bird, and partly by the point at which it starts to get a headache. (I mean, I can whack my head on things far harder than I actually want to!) A bird with a little extra cranial padding can peck a little harder than its brethren....and you have the basic ingredients for selection.
Can I get a job teaching biology now? (Never mind: I'm sure my current job pays better).
Christianson...ironic name choice?
I find his use of "the woodpecker" amusing. One assumes that only space constraints precluded him from discussing bombardier beetles and other favorite creationist tropes. And I suspect that Christianson's beliefs aren't as close to "the middle" as he lets on, though we can't rule out the possibility that his remarks were as garbled by the writer as were PZ's.
It's odd that his web page shows exactly zero publications. What's up with that?
While he doesn't come out and explicitly support ID, he does seem top be ready with a noncommital quote when the movement wants one (a la Berlinski):
Discovery Institute
"How can you arrive there from natural selection? You would have had to have the padded brain in place already," he said.
This is a professor in SOU's biology department? A YEC professor sneakin in the YEC with the ID shuffle!
Don't be so Aristotelian (as a Korzybskian might say). Most things aren't that absolute. Somewhere in the middle between separate creation and natural evolution is theistic evolution, shading from frequent, major intervention to infrequent, perhaps even trivial intervention. Somethings might be designed, others not, and others just nudged a bit. Both Michael Behe and Kenneth Miller are somewhere in that middle ground.
As to why one would want to, I presume the answer is to allow acceptance of most of reality while retaining a desired religious faith. It's a compromise solution.
But if Christianson really thinks that woodpecker adaptations couldn't have evolved in the normal fashion, he's pretty far to the interventionist side of that "middle ground".
He scores quite well at Rate my Professor (score out of 5)
No. of Ratings: 7
Average Easiness: 2.9
Average Helpfulness: 4.0
Average Clarity: 4.0
Hotness Total: 0
Overall Quality: 4.0
Compared to PZ
No. of Ratings: 14
Average Easiness: 2.4
Average Helpfulness: 3.6
Average Clarity: 3.9
Hotness Total: 0
Overall Quality: 3.8
He (Christianson) teaches biology for non-bio majors I=(this could be worse -- he can indoctrinate and not get any informed opposition from the students.) But he was also the ED of a branch of AAAS, which is pretty scary. We may want to contact them (http://www.sou.edu/AAASPD/Index.html) and express our concern that their ED was (his term ended in 2008) promoting creationism.
THe Psycho-Troll that used to decorate his outbursts with these:
is all over that article at the Medford Mail Tribune.
I guess since he can't get in the door here anymore, he's going to froth and rave over there.
Poor Psycho-Troll. He really needs a "Meds-minder." They can nicotine into a patch, why not anti-psychotics?
The middle ground between science and creationism is like being sort of pregnant.
I was looking at his website and I love that his bio is listed in a number of Who's Who publications. How does one get selected for that? I remember something about it being a vanity press, but perhaps I am wrong.
we're leaving in a couple of hours here, haven't decided if we're taking the crazy-ass route 66 or the more pleasant but longer route 140 yet.
Hopefully i can find the library before the talk starts!
Are you planning anything after the talk?
This is off topic, but I was hoping some of you could write a 'Letter to the Editor' in retort to the following pious blather printed today. I'm in an extremely conservative town, and it would be great to see an influx of rational letters. Also, despite what the site says, it’s their policy to print all letters as long as their format is followed. Thanks to anyone that can help! (e-mail letters here: http://www.ocala.com/article/99999999/XSENDMAIL/100595487?template=art_… ):
Reckoning is near
Of all the problems facing America, which is the greatest? S-I-N.
Take a deep breath and consider: God has been legislated out of all public places, nothing Christian can be on display. Fifty million babies aborted. Greed, lying and dishonesty rampant among our leaders. Drug and child abuse. Adultery, murder and mayhem. Homosexuality, profanity and same-sex marriage. And on and on. Our esteemed lawmakers pass laws protecting what God calls abomination.
Our president said we are not now or ever will be at war with Islam and bows down to a heathen oil man who sent 15 of the 19 fanatical nuts to attack our nation and killed over 3,000. His statement couldn't be further from the truth.
Spiritual warfare began in the Garden of Eden and continues to this day from Abraham's descendents. Islam is out of Ishmael and Jews/Christians out of Isaac. I trust the Bible, not man.
What can Christians do? Deal with personal sin, confess and repent and then cry out to God to intervene on our behalf and praise Him for all past blessings upon America. Be available to assist anyone in need, because as the world would say, "It's about to hit the fan." Because righteous judgment has begun.
Ken Sizemore
Ocala
"in the middle" between intelligent design and evolution is the "theory of halfassed design" -- which states that we are the result of tinkering by a vastly incompetent but very powerful being. Most of us believers in halfassed design like to point to the "evidence" such as the vagina being placed next to the anus - only a halfassed designer would come up with an idea like that. Or teeth. 'Nuff said.
Seriously, though - I'm not sure which is stupider; thinking that creationism makes sense, or thinking there's a midpoint between objective reality and wishful thinking.
His name is Christianson‽
I know why Professor Christianson "...suggest the truth is somewhere in the middle."
It is where he keep his brain. In his buttocks. That way he can hide from the evidence and, instead, use his 'faith'.
One is a complete wacko and the other quite sane, so let's agree to meet somewhere in the middle? It's a quaint strategy that might work in a financial transaction if fairness were the goal. But Christianson's goal is to undercut any logical argument in support of his wedge of doubt. Fairness has nothing to do with it or him no matter how nicely couched his words are. A wedge of doubt is still a wedge of doubt. Another way to think about it is as if the one were serving creme brule for desert, and the other a little dab of sugar coated shit on a cracker. Meeting somewhere in the middle would still leave the taste of shit in that creme brule.
You guys are out of the loop. The facts are out the calculations have been done and now the scientists and mathematicians realize: "Darwinism does not compute"
The Darwinists are now trying a last ditch attempt to keep opposing ideas out of research journals and universities as well as high schools to try to get everyone to think they have credibility. However the dissent is growing and they cannot stop people from finding out about the scientific controversy.
You guys should watch this video by a scientist named Kirk Durston. If Dembski is "the Isaac Newton of Information theory", then Durston is the Gottfried Leibniz of computational Biophysics.
http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=441f2c3e44361e91801f
http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=61111e89397f87960ff9
Can't you see all he scientific papers he cites and all the mathematically equations he used?
Clearly he has scientifically refuted Darwinism with his equations. You cannot refute math.
Don't you see the probabilities? It is 10^22 times more likely for intelligent design. Darwinism literally does not stand a chance.
Someone in the comments said "That poor Professor what a lost sole."
Is he saying you lost your shoe? Or that you ARE a shoe that is lost? I'm confuzzled...
Marcus Ranum:
Ah. The designer is "God of the Short Attention Span." Suddenly the universe makes much more sense.
Ineffable #35
That's really chuckle-worthy.
Wasn't someone talking about cargo-cult science on here just yesterday?
If the math contradicts empirical observation, there is something wrong with the math.
P.S. love the mention of the 'imminent demise of evolution' - http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html
Ineffable just doesn't effin' get it.
Marcus's main point (after the point that we did in fact evolve) is that evolution is blind, and builds upon past success even when it would work better to redesign completely.
And here I thought it was Claude Shannon
#39- Ineffable is being sarcastic.
Did they intentionally pick a picture in which you appear to sneer?
How can you make fun of him? He has given the world a new scientific tool. See how useful it is:
1) Some people believe there is one and only one god.
2) Some people believe there are 0 gods
By the Christianson "somewhere in the middle" principal, there are 0.5 gods.
I think ineffable is about to get ‘effed in the aye.
Hey, SOU bio alumni here. I managed (thankfully) to avoid Christian as a prof, but he had a reputation among the majors to be a bit quacky. Some of the others in the department were fantastic though, so don't think too poorly of us!
We see the calculations. Nothing about probabilities, as he has no idea about the probabilities of evolution.
Most crucially, there is literally no chance calculable for "intelligent design". Absolutely no intelligent design has been observed or legitimately inferred for anything like life. So one cannot compute the probabilities for "intelligent design" creating life according to evolutionary constraints at all.
All we can do there is to ask what the probability of life exhibiting all of the hallmarks of evolutionary constraint (whether "good design" or "bad design") and to have actually evolved.
And although one cannot actually quantify, we know that the odds of the predictions of evolution showing up throughout life without life evolving, are extremely poor. The only way of changing those odds is if you were to find evidence for the equivalent of Satan/God burying the fossils to fool us, but in this case, burying evidence for evolution in the genomes/morphological patterns of life.
Don't know if you're a Poe or not. Did think it was worth pointing out what probabilities involve, which are solid predictions of theory. Since ID has no theory, and no entailed predictions, it's as good as wrong.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
The theory of halfassed design - or - what you get if you take only six days for a whole universe.
masculine singular: alumnus
masculine plural: alumni
feminine singular: alumna
feminine plural: alumnae
feminine pedantic ass: SC
[Above due to low blood sugar.]
May I suggest strawberry (or fruit of choice) daiquiris, to be repeated as needed.
It's worth noting that Prof. Roger Christianson is also Executive Director, Pacific Division of AAAS
So we shouldn't be too surprised that the AAAS also engages in accommodationism
"Did think it was worth pointing out what probabilities involve, which are solid predictions of theory. Since ID has no theory, and no entailed predictions, it's as good as wrong."
ID does make predictions. Kirk Durston predicted that the intelligently designed organism would have much more functional information , than if the orgasm was produced by unintelligent forces. He calculated the amount of functional information that could be produced by unintelligent forces and compared it .... and surprise, the organisms did have more functional information, just like his prediction said.
"Entailed" was the operative word.
Baptizing known facts, like that life has a great deal of functional information, as "predictions of ID" is only game playing.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
#52 ineffable
Brilliant. So Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc predictions are all the rage.
I predict that chinese people speak chinese because they're in china!
You're missing “ani”, which, coincidentally, is the Latin plural of what you're talking through.
I just got home after a long day and am relaxing with a rum & Coke - it's going straight to my head.
To Ineffable ....
Verbosity is not evidence: verbal diarrhoea just indicates that you are full of shit.
hat tip to RDF
Durston's "math" was pretty well thrashed by PZ a few months ago: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/durstons_devious_distortions… .
The theory of halfassed design - or - what you get if you take only six days for a whole universe.
It's obvious god futzed around for five days and pulled an all-nighter.
SaraJ @ #36 said:
No need for confusion, he's not lost his shoe, he's cast it off.
Cast off the Shoe! Follow the Gourd!
I think that was the banned troll, I'll not name him, lest I inadvertently summon him or something, that I mentioned earlier.
Maybe he got separated from his school. :(
How's that rum goin', SC?
Quite well, thank you. And I stand by my pun.
*giggles*
Randomfactor - Enjoyed the comment as we all know God was omnipotent and probably spent the first five days on a bender before he pulled that all-nighter.
Careful SC. Friends don’t let friends drink and conjugate.
I don't know where else to put this. I got it from Derren Brown's blog and it looked like something this crowd would be interested in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR7F_mBJxoc
Somewhere in the middle between separate creation and natural evolution is theistic evolution, shading from frequent, major intervention to infrequent, perhaps even trivial intervention.
ahhh, so THAT'S where my unicorns and dragons are hanging out.
Thanks! been looking for them ever so long.
:P
Ineffable #52: Except that he had no basis in reality for determining how much "functional" information could be produced by unintelligent forces. He just made up some numbers based on random fantasy, and fiddled the equations until number B came out to less than number A. He also did not adequately define or describe what the hell he meant by "functional" information.
Personally, I believe in Intelligent Selector Theory. The Selector clearly didn't design anything, but He does come around every eon or so and bumps of the naturally evolved forms He doesn't like. There is a lot of smiting in the good book, after all.
"That poor Professor what a lost sole."
Well, when you are used to your religeon walking all over you, it must become second nature to think of a person as a sole.
only in the minds of the deluded is the correct answer "somewhere in the middle".
...that works for both the religious and not. I hearken back to Coyne's recent essay on the NCSE.
for those unfamiliar with the fallacy of the middle ground, I rather think Larry Moran did a good job explaining it here:
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution…
Some of us have a hard enough time doing that successfully when we're sober.
Uh oh, Ichthyic's here. Now he'll be informing me that my pun is shit 'cause sole don't travel in schools or something. I demand punetic license.
I just got home after a long day and am relaxing with a rum & Coke - it's going straight to my head.
I would suggest Piña Coladas.
You'll taste better, if the anecdotal evidence from that rather odd thread (another of Coyne's) is accurate.
;)
sole don't travel in schools or something
*ahem*
well, they don't.
:P
In my present condition, I'm not touching that with a ten-foot sole.
I have to admit I did a double take on reading #75.
ID does make predictions. Kirk Durston predicted
those two things are unrelated. All other things that were wrong with what you posted of Durston aside.
ID has no hypothesis, nor can it even develop a testable hypothesis, since nobody knows what the putative designer actually IS, let alone have any idea how it might interact with the natural world.
all they have is fantasy.
Damn you!
...Really? Out of curiosity, how do they?
Why? We're just perched here for your answer.
Here we go. We're going to be swimming in puns.
...Really? Out of curiosity, how do they?
They're flatfish, living independently of each other on sandy bottoms. No need to school, since they utilize very effective camouflage and are ambush predators.
speaking of which, i got a nice pic of one before I left California:
It's in my Dana Pt. folder on flickr.
See? I can't even try to avoid it without it dripping with innuendo. Another salty thread, I guess.
Josh, there's a time and a plaice for puns.
Dennis Markuze in Montreal, IIRC. Rumor had it that his account was suspended after stalking PZ Myers and posting the same post hundreds of times in one night.
Probably has happened numerous times before.
At some point it stops being trolling and starts being illegal. Internet stalking is illegal in many jurisdictions. Death threats are a federal felony.
In my experience, people that far out tend to have short lifespans and check out in strange ways. One woman died of anorexia in her 40's to cite just one example.
Drowning, more like.
oh hell, let me hook this before the puns start to shoal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yp9ASVUg_A
Yeah, one has to roe with the tide.
Nice Pic Ichthyic. Your blog ready yet?
Your blog ready yet?
meh, more or less.
It's started, but so far it's just the intro, and some warnings about the biological horrors you'll face if you ever visit here.
I've been busy getting down to finding some work round these parts, but I'll be posting my pics from both the north and south islands next week for sure.
cheers.
oh, here tis:
Poke it With a Stick
Oh, and all of our bad fish puns combined won't compare to this.
Sadly, as I'm none too sharp right now, I'm sure if this continues I'll just flounder about while others take over. (Seriously.)
Eeeeeee.* Awesome.
*My-family speak for very cute.
too late, James.
:P
James, you smell like carp.
It's okay though. I'll float along.
In all seriousness though, I love flatfish.
#86
Holy mackerel, that was fast. GMTA.
Clearly he has scientifically refuted Darwinism with his equations. You cannot refute math.
2+2=5
has been refuted.
so I guess we can refute math after all.
go figure.
Have fun in Ashland. It's a beautiful little town, and also the place where my religious friends took me to see a talk about why evolution was wrong when I was in high school (I lived about an hour away.) Ashland is a blot of blue in an ocean of Southern Oregon red. If you get a chance, check out the local public radio, JPR, one of the best in the country, in my opinion.
Eeeeeee. = My-family speak for very cute.
you're part Delphinidae?
I knew it.
;)
All of the fishy puns make this Australian feel a bit wobbegong...
Biological horrors? Sounds interesting. Let us know when you have some pics posted.
We might need an e-schtick to poke SC after a couple more drinks.
Let's do fish puns for the halibut.
"Christianson, an evangelical Christian..."
Handy, that. Dickens would approve.
I wonder where that fish has gone?
Fish puns? No, no. The whole thread would just go to pisces.
Okay, if we're gonna do this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bJOIqVAD-s
Hey, Aussie, you can flake off!
Yup. I'm out.
Hee. Never thought of that, but I have always suspected... Can those ancestry companies test for that? (Man, not many words could be more beautiful than "Delphinidae.")
BTW, song/album I've been listening to for the past several months. You might like some:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z3NtGyNoI4
Hey, if we can't have fin, why post here? The overlord's away, so the ilk can play.
You do recall that we got into a wee bit 'o trouble the last time...
And the tapestry that is SC continues to display ever increasing richness.
What amazed me is that the newspaper published a story supposedly about you PZ and your lecture. But they interviewed you only by phone and devoted almost as much space to the creationist Christianson as they did to you.
This is a textbook example of the credulousness of the media both the reporter, Darling, and his editor. Both were/are asleep at the switch or closet creatonists. I'm surprised Darling didn't phone the DI and a devote half the article to their comments.
New takes on Sea Chanteys.
kewl.
I liked the picture of the mag cover in the vid:
"Mermaid: Selected Man-Pleasing Features"
heh.
...reminds me of when I used to teach maritime history to kids on board a replica of the Pilgrim (Brig) in Dana Point.
used to sing chanteys all the time.
Ichthyic @ 81
You may have a beautiful soul, but that is one buttugly sole.
Keep the firearms out of it, no problem.
Yes, I've noticed that too--except when the Redhead is around...
Did his mathematics match empirical evidence? i.e. did Dembski actually apply his mathematics to reality? Mathematics is all well and good, but it is useless if it doesn't match what scientists observe. If Dembski's data matches up with observed instances of mutations, with observed instances of selection, and observed instances of adaptation (which have all been observed and mathematically quantified) then he might have a point. But in the absence of that, all you have is mathematics. Science uses mathematics, but it always comes back to observable empirical evidence.
That should have only aroused a mild smile, but I just laughed my ass off. I blame the Glenfiddich.
I had Dr. Christiansen as my biology teacher at SOU in about 1995. I couldn't believe it when he introduced the idea of god in the middle of a biology class. I was appalled and dismayed, needless to say. Yes, he's still there, and still apparently teaching about god. Yuck.
Looking forward to seeing your talk tonight.
*BLUSH*
Really, you had me (though it wasn't directed at me) at "can get you into all kinds of great trouble."
;)
OK, now you're all just trying to be cute. Cut it out.
I had Dr. Christiansen as my biology teacher at SOU in about 1995
curious if he does anything other than teach?
does he do any research of any kind?
My impression is that SOU is a small uni, like UMM, and primarily focuses on teaching instead of research.
Is that correct?
If so, while a bit surprising to find a creationist teaching biology at a non-religious uni, it surprises me less than if it were at one of the big State unis like Corvalis (OSU) or UO.
OK, now you're all just trying to be cute. Cut it out.
nope.
really-really.
In fact, the reason I went back to Dana Point (aside from visiting Gary Hurd), was to visit the Marine Institute there where I used to teach marine bio and maritime history.
the pics of the brig are in the dana point folder on flickr, and the pic of the flatfish is from there too, coincidentally.
*sigh*
It's so much bigger now (like 10x!) than when I used to teach there way back in '87/88.
ok, enough nostalgia.
You had me before I wrote that.
The question of course, is whether or not it's working.
NEVER! At least not when we're talking about flatfish.
Man, Ichthyic, that sandfly thing was gruesome! You be careful down there.
I hear on the radio that NZers are thinking of new names for their islands. North I and South I are considered a bit boring. The names, they mean.
I hear on the radio that NZers are thinking of new names for their islands
meh, if there's one thing I've learned about Kiwis, it's that "good enough" is practically a mantra.
I highly doubt they'll get around to bothering with it.
:)
Damn it: flatfish puns (the worst I've read in dace, just stinkin' up the plaice), SC drinking, blushing, and playing sea chanteys (I bet Tom Waits has heard that)...
But I gotta go pick up some supplies for The Dead this weekend; the Nausea Mausoleum tomorrow and Madison Square Garden Saturday--hoo!! I'm going with people I used to tour with back in 1980; talk about yer nostalgia.
Anyway--best to all Pharyngulistas from the real meat-world.
This article is written by a man who doesn't even think his own name is worth capitalizing.
Here I perch my bivalve down and fire up the turbot processor for no other porpoise than to skate over the info-sea. Dace'd and confused, I find it more rewarding to squirt back into my shell like a hermit and iterate among my recursion instead.
I am so envious of anybody enjoying Ashland right now, that I can barely stand it. Especially when they must have, in the back of their mind, the knowledge that they'll be going to Standing Stone soon. I'd lobby for a road trip to Newport* myself, but that's a fur piece.
*Rogue Brewery.
I know. I was just teasing. That I know you aren't makes it all the cuter.
Mmm?
Have you always been such a flirt?
Oh, while I'm doing the music links, this just started on my iPod:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNrbiZoKQLU
A classic.
I hope Mr. Christianson's students tell him he's an asshole and a moron for believing such crap and trying to push it onto students.
@flaq#15:
It's a very simple idea elucidated in an ancient MAD magazine parody of "The Gunslinger". When everyone's dead there's be peace on earth because, as the usual gang of idiots at MAD put it, "there ain't nuthin' more peaceful than a dead man."
Uh, nope.
*looks at shoes*
Enjoy the show! *jealous*
Will you be around next weekend, btw?
Ah. Missed the leaving part. Will email. Not that you'll see this, given that you've left...
Going way up in the list, My take on Dembski: The Isaac Newton of Information Science is that,in a General Semantics sort of way (my bow to the the Korzybski comments) is that he is the Ann Coulter of Informaton Science.
Bob
Phew - at least I'm not the last comment.
Oh, wait...
I had Dr. Christiansen as my biology teacher at SOU in about 1995.
I think he might be a young earth creationist. All the signs are there. Truth, woodpeckers, complexity, ummmm, swing of the pendulum thingy, incessant pecking, the world as an evolving pot (huh?). All the classic signs are pretty much there.
Ineffable 35
That's pretty cool! Lemme try:
Average number of sperm/ejaculate: 25,000,000
Average number of eggs/human female: 1,500,000
Chances of you being conceived - 1 in 37.5^12
Not looking good. But it gets worse:
Number of humans on planet: 6,000,000,000
Number of parents: 2
In this case, we're looking at 1 in 6^9 * 1 in 6^9, or 3.6^19
And of course those have to be combined: 3.6^19 * 37.5^12, or 1.35^33.
Hmm. Clearly you are far too unlikely to exist. The math proves it, and you cannot refute the math.
"I talk mostly about adaptation that can be seen from either point of view," he said. "... I see the world as an evolving pot, with natural selection as the driving force, but I certainly don't rule out that an intelligence or a creator is involved."
Christianson, an evangelical Christian, says he "certainly don't rule out that an intelligence or a creator is involved." Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Totally off topic, but I have a small PZ tribute post here. http://thecanberracook.blogspot.com/2009/04/its-all-pzs-fault.html
First of all, I found a reference to his Ph.D.:
CHRISTIANSON, ROGER GORDON (1976). STUDIES ON THE CIRCADIAN RHYTHM OF BIOLUMINESCENCE IN THE MARINE DINOFLAGELLATE GONYAULAX POLYEDRA. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, United States -- California. Retrieved April 23, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 7716132).
There was an expression when I was a graduate student: a Ph.D. candidates studies more and more about less and less until he knows everything there is to know about nothing. I realize this unfairly maligns Ph.D.s who actually learned and continue to retain the greater breadth of knowledge of their subject area. I use this to illustrate the point that in some cases it's possible to obtain a Ph.D. by focusing on an area that does not contradict a badly biased and unscientific belief, then ignore the information that would contradict that belief. In other words, a Ph.D.'s continued output and performance goes a longer way to verify his/her standing as a scientist than the dissertation alone. One can skirt any sort of "sanity requirement" by keeping the crazy out of the text of the dissertation. Then you get to put it into the classroom.
Thus, if it's true that Christianson teaches biology to non-biology majors then he remains consistent with the usual strength of character and depth of integrity that we have come to expect from creationists.
Also, the Who's Who publications are survey based, another way of saying "vanity press." I mentioned in another comment to another post that if one of those survey forms falls into the wrong hands, wackiness ensues. My library stopped buying those books years ago.
awww, fuck.
Christianson graduated from the place I did my undergrad work.
Well, all I can say is you can't blame the institution; UCSB has a fantastic marine research dept., filled with excellent instructors.
When I was there, we had Alfred Ebeling (who was there for sure when Chistianson was there), Bob Warner, and John Endler.
no way would any of these guys have not chastised him for such nonsense.
OTOH, Jonathan Wells got his graduate degree from the same place and at the same time I did.
*shudder*
Kwok alert!
*Decides to hide out for the night in hopes Kwok will go away.*
'night all.
Kwok alert!
LOL
more like "anti Kwok", as I'm certainly not proud of the fact that he was there at the same time.
That's UC Berkeley, folx.
Did you know him at all? Or were you in Integrative Biology and he was in whatever the other one is? (Disintegrative?)
Did you know him at all? Or were you in Integrative Biology and he was in whatever the other one is? (Disintegrative?)
disintegrative?
LOL
I'd bet the old Zoology folks there would get a kick out of calling Molecular and Cell biologists "disintegrative".
I entered Berzerkeley the year Integrative Biology was imposed on the various separate depts. 100 years of Zoology, ended. *sigh*
I was in Zoology, and Wells was across the hall in MCB.
I used to have lunch with him on occasion, and while his ideas seemed strange to me, he seemed fairly sane.
...Then came the talk he gave at the Museum (vert zoo) lunch about reconciling science and "faith".
I've never before seen professors actually catcalling and booing a student presentation before. My own major prof (now deceased, unfortunately) actually was so pissed off his face was turning bright red. It was shocking to me at the time.
In fact, that moment, right there, was when I finally started asking questions about wtf "creationism" was, because up to that point, I hadn't paid any attention to it at all.
so, in a way, I guess I have Jonathan to thank for all the efforts I have subsequently put into learning about, and attempting to crush like the bug it is, creationism.
It's quite remarkable how over the last 20 years that I've actually been aware of it, their shit just keeps having new flashy wrappers put on it, but it's still the same shit.
PZ and friends - a friendly reminder - recent polls continue to show roughly half of adults in US don't believe in evolution. Don't believe that's changed much in recent years - you'll need to try harder - maybe more government funding for "science" foundations, whose main purpose is to combat creationism and ID, and control textbook content. It would be interesting to see how much is spent yearly (taxpayer expense) funding the anti-creationist programs. Good discussion point - if all creationists and ID'ers are of the low intellectual caliber you say - why are so many dollars and programs needed, and time spent, to offset? If there is no scientific basis for the creationist point of view, why do you spend so much time on the topic? Always good to end with some truth: Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
It takes a lot of shovels to clean up that much shit.
Where's the truth? All I saw is some nonsense about someone's god. How is that 'truth' when it can't be verified?
Of course, if that were actually true, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?
Good discussion point - if the idea that the Earth is the center of the solar system was of such low caliber - why was it so difficult for the Sun-centered model to take over?
Answer - because there are lots of people like you who would rather believe what makes them feel good regardless of what's plainly evidenced.
okay, so what if these is an intellgience that isnt like a human intellegience? maybe what people call god is in the vacuum energy. what if it like makes tjhe decisions for which way to collapse the wave function and that makes eveerytrhingf happen? that could be right>? like you cant rule it out can you? if you foolllloooowww scinece how can you know whether or not some other force controls how the wave functino in qunatum mechaincs collapses? You can;'t! its fundamantel to qunatum mechians that you cant control it,m so how do you know something else isnt and that that something 4else is intellginet? fvor that matter how do you define intelleginece? does it relaly make sense to say that life didn't evolve at least in part due to some intelligence if you cant even define what intelligence is? Seriously PZ, define your terms. NO I am justr kidding but I am kind of serious too, but really I am just drunbk and nothing here nevcerisaly rpresents what I actually think. Buit thanks anyways for your invaluuable cunsideration of what I think. I love you guysl.
"....fht...iku.....what if it like makes tjhe decisions for which way to collapse the wave function and that makes eveerytrhingf happen? that could be right>? like you cant rule it out can you? if you foolllloooowww scinece how can you kno.....gsea......uttg4...44......."
Waiter, I'll have what he's having.
@HenryM
Nice argumentum ad populum you've got there! Never seen that one before! ::rolls eyes:::
I think that you need a reminder that the only places left in the world where large portion of the population still believes in creationism are the USA and the Middle East, both hotbeds of religious fundamentalism. Curiously those two regions are also the only two areas left that still have many people that believe the Earth is flat, hardly a coincidence. Meanwhile the rest of the world is moving forwards, and belief in creationism is in the minority and dropping. Even the friggin catholic church is saying that the YECs have the heads up their collective backsides! Scholars of Jewish theology think that it's laughable that a small percentage of christians (worldwide) see genesis as literal rather than metaphorical.
The creationism that you love is just a repeat of the strategies of the Flat Earth movement at the end of the 1800's. As with that group, the creos know that they've lost the fight for science, since they have no science only dogma. Instead they are just trying to put on the appearance of science to impress the gullible (such as yourself). They trot out bogus "evidence" that any credible scientist wouldn't use to line their bird cage, and rant about the big bad conspiracy to hide that the Earth is flat/young.
The only differences between the flat Earth movement and today's creos, is that the croes are better funded, better organized, and they learned from the mistakes from the flat Earthers. They are focusing on trying to mislead children in addition to adults by attacking evolution rather than actually defending their own position in the appropriate forums.
Answer... because creationism is spending fortunes of other people's money to try and make appeals to the lowest common denominators in society, and turn the USA into a third world theocracy (rather than use the money for something actually productive). Unfortunately the decades of neglect in the current school systems in the USA has allowed many people to reach adulthood without the mental competence needed to properly evaluate the conflicting claims. Fixing the issue, and preventing the USA from backsliding any further, requires resources.
Tell us Henry...how has creationism helped to develop new crops to feed the world, or developed new medical treatments? How does saying "godidit" answer those questions? It hasn't, but evolutionary theory has. Yes, we all know that there have been some famous scientists that were also creationists, but most of them were from a long time ago. Also, none of them have made any discoveries that actually involved creationism. All of their advancements were pure science, not from creationism.
Finally Henry...No, bible verses don't count as evidence, and they are not persuasive to anyone that tries to view the issue objectively.
Christianson?
The clue's in the name.
Dear Henry, this reminds me of a dialogue in South Park:
Kyle: "Only retards believe 9/11 was caused by the government"
Cartman: "But 25 % of Americans do believe 9/11 was indeed caused by the government. Are you saying that a quarter of all Americans are retards?"
Kyle [thinks for two seconds]: "Yes".
*reads paragraph*
"They're very ignorant people, like the people who believed the Earth was the center of the universe. They will disappear. It may take a century. We will all be laughing about it."
*looks at picture with smug smile*
i lol'd. (and i agree)
Waiter, I'll have what he's having.
heh, it sounded like Max Headroom on acid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2fkIidxp74&feature=related
oh wait...
I'll order some of that too, plz.
said there are alternative explanations
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no "alternative explanation". No account for the diversity of life which does not involve "descent with modification". Nothing which tells us what happened and when. No explanation for why the human body is more like the body of chimps and other apes than it is like trees or rocks. (After all, if "common design" is the case, didn't the designer(s) also "make a tree"?)
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no "alternative explanation".
not one that actually is useful to explain or predict anything, anyway. There is indeed only one that actually works, though there are a metric fuck-ton of stories that are sometimes quite creative.
the hindu creation myth is a good one. Much better than the abrahamic one.
http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-…
Still does fuck all to actually explain or predict anything useful.
Science works. someday even the religiotards will get this, and stop clinging to the tattered remains of their blankies.
I think you appear disingenuous, since with fear-and-ignorance-based-faith the issue is having ANY significant randomness in the system.
This means that no one is "in charge," good things could happen to bad people and there is no assurance of safety at any level (from neutrino damage to eternal consciousness).
This means that no one is "in charge," good things could happen to bad people and there is no assurance of safety at any level (from neutrino damage to eternal consciousness).
"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! ..."
-PV
Ichthyic @ 81,
So are you saying that the sole is the sole sole in the sandy hole so it can swallow its prey whole, unless it flounders?
That is a nice pic btw :-)
Let's say you just got a shiny new high-end laptop. Then a violent idiot beats it into little bits with a baseball bat. Does the fact that the attacker was a violent idiot make the laptop any cheaper to replace?
Because appealing to the lowest common denominator, like creationists do, automatically gets you the widest audience of people who don't want to be challenged. Just ask Hollywood.
Anyone can spout off mindless bullshit. See www.timecube.com and www.icr.org for a couple of examples. Making shit up is easy; there's no research to perform, no experiments to run, and no need for fact-checking and peer review. Buckling down and doing hard work, however, takes time and effort, and therefore money.
I realize I'm a day late and a dollar short, but:
"Careful SC. Friends don’t let friends drink and conjugate."
SC was actually declining, not conjugating.
Is that a double pun, though fishy only in the metaphorical sense?
And now I'm OT, but you might stop in at Orac's place and 1) Pharyngulate the LA Times poll, and 2) sign the petition supporting research
"... I see the world as an evolving pot"
Lolwut?
Keep fighting the creationists seeking a home in academic biology.
When you're done, come help us get the "complimentary and alternative medicine" or "integrative medicine" airheads out of academic medicine. They're entrenched in over 40 of our leading medical schools, including Harvard, Yale, and UCSF.
I just read a book that explains all about evolution of the species and also about geology.
Ita a very good book, and you should advice your creationist/"inteligent design" friend to read it right away.
What is the book...?
"Metamorphoseon", Pvblivs Ovidivs Naso
:D
As we all know, the world was created by a dung beetle who took no further interest in the matter.
Thanks for stopping by PZ!
I'm an undergrad bio student at SOU, and I very much enjoyed your talk last night!
I haven't formally met Dr. Christianson, but all the other biology professors I've had here have thoroughly squashed ID. I don't know how this guy got into the department in the first place, but he's an embarrassment to the whole university.
And to Ichthyic @ #117: We are a small university and a small department, but all of the upper division faculty I am acquainted with are very active in various research pursuits, which primarily focus on the ecology of the Pacific northwest and the taxonomy of various local plants.
Dr. Christianson is on sabbatical this year. I wonder what the hell he's doing if not research...
Don't feel too bad. My undergrad school was San Francisco State, and when I was there, Dean Kenyon was a professor in the bio department. Look him up if you want to see some embarrassment. Tenured, too, so there was pretty much nothing anyone could do. They just tried to keep him away from students as much as possible, and in fact I never met him.
Wow, thanks for the perspective John. At least Dr. Christianson stays below the radar most of the time.
#117
I could see this at OSU -- they do/did tend toward ccc (not Cthulu at all)when I was at UO. My Karate sensei was run out of there for teaching 'some Eastern religion called Karate.'
Ah, Corvallis.
Where men are men
women are scarce
sheep are nervous
and animal husbandry takes on a whole new meaning.
Some guys think their phalluses are on their right thigh, some think it's on their left. The truth is somewhere in the middle..
A few quick responses from someone who knows what he's talking about, knowing that none of you do.
1) Professor Christianson is an active, outstanding educator, regardless of what any of your emotions permit you to
B - E - L - I - E - V - E.
When he's not on sabbatical, he is an entertainer of snobby, half-developed egomaniacs who greatly misjudge the quality of their previous education (like those who inhabit this board). His average grade tends to be a "C", and not because he's asking tough questions (or religious ones for that matter), so you can just imagine how impressed he'd be with the adolescent arrogance, uncurious intellectual failure, and unfounded hatred that gets thrown around here.
2) Professor Christianson never, ever discusses religion in his science class, excepting a singular 3-minute utterance practically apologizing for the existence of the "intelligent design" controversy as an alternative model which some use to interpret the overall picture of how people view the formation of substance and material in the universe. ID is NOT advocated at SOU, or preached by Christianson, and no, it is not a part of his course material. You'd have to be absolutely stupid to believe that such a thing is occurring. A brief mentioning of ID might rape the intellect of this fragile gang of thugs, but to hear it wouldn't faze most adults. You people... have problems that science has not yet solved.
3) Here's a shock: Christianson WAS quoted out of context in the Mail Tribune article by a well-meaning but clearly incompetent journalist who somehow did not realize the importance of getting his language straight when covering this topic. The journalist misrepresented Professor Myers as well, but no one's trying to destroy HIS credibility using a freaking news blurb as their solitary source of information. With the woodpecker comment, Professor Christianson did nothing but parlay to the journalist the typical argument made by ID supporters, and was not throwing any support (much less his career) behind the idea. Do you feel stupid yet? Because that would be the only reaction many you could responsibly have.
4) Professors are busy people with lives of their own. If they consider an event to be interesting or important, they attend it. You know, like you and me. Or, if they have prior commitments, they don't. SpooOOooky, right?! Most professors aren't the least bit shy of controversy, especially when someone unscrupulous attempts to create an unfair stigma to buttress their delusion of infallible credibility. Have any of you ever set foot in a college classroom so that you have some frame of reference here? This isn't exactly Astronomy 621.
5) Christianson is not "promoting" a Creationist "agenda" or any of that "wedge" crap, either. Where do you get that? Well, obviously, YOU MADE IT UP. Not very scientific, are we? This man is not your father, he's a highly successful, credentialed, up-to-date and educated science teacher who in his personal life happens to have a religious identity which does not interfere with his ability to teach good science. Your desire to "contact" people to "alert" them because of some baseless fear YOU have is.. BEYOND IRRATIONAL. For crying out loud, THINK before you FAIL at someone else's expense.
6) SOU bio grad who NEVER took a class with the professor (apparently never even MET him...) just happened to have a negative opinion to dish about him? What the hell? Is this a witch hunt?
7) Unicorns descended from narwhals, obviously. Their horns were an aphrodesiac such that the world has never seen since. By contrast, alcohol is a pathetic substitute, and we should all be humiliated that it is used with our consent. No, I'm not serious about the unicorn, but yes, I am about the alcohol.
8) The student who says she was shocked when Christianson "introduced the idea of God" most likely just didn't get the grade she wanted. If she had REALLY never heard of God before the professor "introduced" it, and honestly had no idea that for a huge percentage of Americans there's a controversy over Darwinism and its implications and that over 50% of them reject it (mostly without even knowing what it is), and that therefore it bears mentioning however briefly, then she didn't belong in an adult classroom. Outspokenly anti-religious professors will bring up the exact same God/Creationism/Intelligent Design issue in exactly the same side-note context and fashion as Christianson does without anyone's life being totally jarred by it. It was 1987 when God was ruled out of science classrooms as science course material by the Supreme Court, and it was 1995 when this woman took his class -- so we know there was no preaching about God in his science class because he would not still be teaching, and this woman has NO EXCUSE for being so confused. Are you starting to get the picture, here?
9) Why speculate so wildly about what the professor personally believes? If his thoughts are truly important to you, email him and ask him what he thinks. Wouldn't that be the responsible thing to do?
10) Christianson is anything but an "embarrassment", you nuts. You should be on your feet applauding the fact that an evangelical Christian is on your side of the vast majority of scientific literature, including this issue. Imagine the discussions you could have with him! But you don't even know who your enemies are. Maybe they don't exist.
About me:
- Not an SOU student,
- Not an SOU staff member,
- Not Roger Christianson,
- Not being paid to write this,
- Not Illuminati/alien overlord/Rush Limbaugh
- Not a brainwashed zealot representing either side (though I do take sides on a personal level... you'll never guess which). But unlike irresponsible, hate-blogging numbskulls, I care enough to check up on things before I open my big fat mouth.
How are you presumptuous jackalopes any different than the most ignorant among those you oppose? You're part of the problem, not the solution.
Bob:
I would advise you to lose the attitude. It would make correspondence much more pleasant for everyone.
If you note, my initial response, among other things, was to ask if he had been quoted correctly.
But taking all the actual claims of truth out of your rant, one important question emerges: how do you know the truth of all the things you're saying? I'm not doubting that you do, but a little information on this point would be welcome.
I am Roger Christianson. And I’m quite disappointed at the low quality of responses to your blog, P.Z. Myers.
1. SHAME ON YOU, P.Z. MYERS, for being upset at the fact that you were misquoted but not considering that I might also have been misquoted.
The reporter asked me to answer a few questions about ID, not own it. I truly believe the reporter tried to be as accurate as possible. I asked to be able to read the final article prior to publication but he said it was newspaper policy to not allow that. He did read back to me his notes, and I was able to correct a few things he wrote. But he didn’t fully understand the subtlety of certain words I used, so mis-shadings crept into his article. For example, my quote, “there are alternative explanations of how diversity happened,” is accurate as far as it goes. But it wasn’t intended to reflect science singularly but society in general. Had you been able to read the article in advance, some of the wording would have been changed to more accurately reflect your position. The same is true for me.
2. SHAME ON YOU P.Z. MYERS ADORERS. 174 responses to his blog and how many of you thought it important to contact me for verification? Two more than the times P.Z. contacted me. I spoke with TWO people regarding the quote in the newspaper, only one, I believe, who responded to the blog and none of them with the name P.Z. Myers.
Had any of you decided to contact me, you would have discovered a few interesting things. Yes, I do teach biology for non-majors. In fact, I’ve coordinated and taught this class for 29 years. Spring term includes a discussion of evolution. If you’d bothered to ask, you’d have found out that I spend approximately six hours (four 1.5 hour lectures) on the topic. You’d also have learned that of that six hours, I spend about 15 minutes describing creation science as an alternative societal model for the diversity of life on earth. And of that 15 minutes, you’d have discovered that I criticize the model for not being scientifically testable and I criticize the practitioners for being focused on disproving evolution rather than developing evidence for their position. I welcome you to review my entire course by going to http://home.sou.edu/~rchristi/courses/GenBi/RC/103revue.html and paying special attention to lecture reviews 7, 8, 9 and 10. One of you (“Prince of Darkness—response #7) lauded my Chairperson for her quote. I do the same thing in my class and you all come after me like a pack of starving jackals. I hope, P.Z. Myers, that when you write a paper you actually read the references you use and don’t just believe what someone else says.
In the future, I encourage each of you (with a few exceptions who already appear, from their responses, capable of seriously and considerately responding to an issue) to take time to think before posting inane, reactional comments that could wind up really embarrassing you, because you can’t blame them on the filter of a well-meaning reporter. They come straight from your minds.
There seems a singular lack of response to Roger Christianson's comment. Is that because everyone is embarrassed? In retrospect, it would seem odd that a raging creationist could become both department chair at a real university and a regional AAAS director. And we should all know by now that newspaper stories are not reliable guides to scientists' views.
However, if Roger is still reading anything, it would be nice to have some more clarification of what you really said/meant, not just in the newspaper article, but in the other quote that's been posted:
"It's a pretty elaborate device, especially for bacteria, which have a fairly simple kind of cell construction," said Christianson, explaining the complexity of bacterial flagella. He is not a design theorist. "You look at something like this and say, 'Where did it come from?'"
"There is really no fossil record showing the fine structure of ancient bacterial flagella. On one side you've got people who say, 'It evolved over time; we just don't know the process.' On the other side you've got people who say, 'It's so complex, it's impossible to imagine how it could have evolved, therefore that's evidence for design.'"
All true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far, and stops at an odd spot. Was there perhaps more that was cut off, in which you attempt to refute the latter viewpoint?
If you have any interest in avoiding further misunderstanding of your position here, it might be advantageous to be completely clear and explicit. Mind you, any evangelical Christian will be severely criticized on pharyngula, regardless of his views of evolution. But you might prefer to be criticized for your actual beliefs.
Why would you create a response telling someone to "lose the attitude"? This board is filled to the brim with ridiculous, out-of-line personal attacks and emotionally-leading language regarding the credibility of real people, and you get the bright idea to start criticizing "attitude" on post #174? Hey, I have an idea for you: why don't you create a place where despicably arrogant, abusive, ignoramuses don't run like wild dingos (in the name of scientific altruism, of course), and then you'll get the respect you think you deserve. Sound about right?
Bob, lose the attitude. If you don't like being told that, don't post here again. See how that works?
Bob:
Yes, lose the attitude. There's a fair amount of rudeness here, but is "Billy hit me first" a good argument anywhere past third grade? And your post was extreme even for Pharyngula.
That aside, you could continue the discussion by answering my question. How do you know the things you claimed?
Nerd and John, thanks for the insults and advice. Unfortunately your advice is a bit of a disaster, given the attitude with which it was delivered. I also have some advice, but I suspect you're not all that interested.
You see, I, too, feel that people have a lot to "Lose", like some of the people in this virtual microcosm. I want to say to them: Lose the arrogance. Lose the hate. Lose the intellectual failure and deliberate lack of curiosity. Lose the whole realm of idiocies which you engage in when talking about another human being when you don't think anyone's watching. Lose the delusion that you are authorized to tell grown adults what to do and how to do it without establishing any personal responsibility yourself. Lose the desire to conspire against good people. Lose the blame you harbor against strangers for things they never did. Lose the stupid assumptions and phony sense of righteousness. Lose the belief that taking a position on something means you don't have a LOT to learn.
I could lose a few pounds. But I'm not concerned about my attitude...
{my attitude: arrogant frauds are arrogant frauds}
...see, because it's in accordance with fundamental geometry and logic. And I like that.
How do I know the things I stated? Well... remember, a bit was silliness, and some was speculation. But, as for the rest... I just, you know, took an interest. I checked.
I don't think a lot of people are still reading this page, but it came to mind, so here I am. It seems inappropriate to me that you should be so hungry for information now, when you weren't earlier. Anyone can see that this thread was a tragic flogging of a straw man, but I don't want to be inhospitable to your curiosity. What conversation are you wanting to continue? That I don't understand.
I'll try to check back again.
Bob:
There seems little point in continuing when you don't respond to questions, and when you respond to honest attempts at communication with paranoia and insults.