Bill Maher Rules Out ID

Posted 24 August 2005 by Wesley R. Elsberry

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/bill-maher-rule.html

From Bill Maher’s “Real Time with Bill Maher”* for August 23^rd, 2005:

And finally, New Rule: You don’t have to teach both sides of a debate, if one side is a load of crap.

(Transcript of “New Rules” segment)

It’s a bit sad that many of our journalists don’t have the insight shown by our comedians.

Hat tip to Bill Farrell. *Correction on title of show provided by Bill Gascoyne.

111 Comments

Bill Gascoyne · 25 August 2005

Quick correction: The name of the show is not "Politically Incorrect". That was the ABC show that got canceled. It's "Real Time with Bill Maher" according to the link provided.

steve · 25 August 2005

When journalists talk to astronomers, they don't 'balance' by giving equal time to astrologers.

But, sometimes they do semi-sympathetic stories on psychics and 'remote viewing' &c. Since this stuff has been known to be crap for decades, and is older than ID, we can at least rest assured that they're not biased regarding evolution--a lot of them are just uninformed.

GCT · 25 August 2005

It's a bit sad that many of our journalists don't have the insight shown by our comedians.

"Journalists" like Larry King who recently asked:

KING: All right, hold on. Dr. Forrest, your concept of how can you out-and-out turn down creationism, since if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?

Russell · 25 August 2005

If evolution is true, why is there still Larry King?

Andrea Bottaro · 25 August 2005

I think there are probably more people on that list who have genuine objections or doubts about mainstream evolutionary theory, but are (or should be) upset at the exploitation of their name by the DI to promote a fake controversy about ID. Stanley Salthe comes to mind. Heck, even good old John Davison thought ID as pushed by the DI stooges was mostly a bunch of baloney.

GCT · 25 August 2005

Stanley Salthe comes to mind.
— Andrea Bottaro

Funny you should mention Stanley Salthe. From the DI's "Journalists are so mean to us" blog on 8/23:

New York Times Story About God and Science The New York Times has another front page story about the origins debate, "Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science." The reporter, Cornelia Dean, does a good job of interviewing both theists and atheists, but she leaves out of the picture scientists like Michael Behe, who has made it clear that his religious background left him perfectly open to the possibility that God had front-loaded design into the fine-tuned laws of nature at the instant of the Big Bang, allowing it to evolve from there all the way to our living earth. Behe and other Darwin-doubters, like quantum chemist Henry F. Schaefer III and evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, reject the Darwinian story simply because they find the evidence for it unconvincing.

An Enquiring Mind · 25 August 2005

Speaking of funny guys, Lewis Black once observed that there is no reason to debate creationists. "We got the fossils. We win."

Joshua White · 25 August 2005

"It's a bit sad that many of our journalists don't have the insight shown by our comedians."

My favorite comedians for this very reason are; Lewis Black, Bill Maher, John Stewart, and Dennis Miller. Go out and rent them now.

It was on an episode of Babylon 5 where Penn and Teller said something along those lines as the characters Rebo and Zooty. I paraphrase "Politicians always do such funny things in a serious way. Comedians always talk about such serious things in a funny way."

Pierce R. Butler · 25 August 2005

If journalists didn't report on a statement or event just because it was full of crap, the words "White House" or "Congress" would not have appeared in print for years.

Greg Peterson · 25 August 2005

I'm finding that a few pop culture folks are doing a much better job of explaining science than are the media or even many scientists. In addition to Maher, I recently read something that former SNL cast member Julia Sweeny ("Pat") wrote on her blog about evolution that was quite good, and yesterday I copied in a review of "War of the Worlds" that Roger Ebert wrote that did a good job of stumping for evolutionary science and against ID. How can it be that some people on the entertainment side seem to get it better than the supposedly skeptical and objective journalists do? Or maybe journalists often feel more constrained by the sensibilities of their readership than do entertainers, seeing how they're writing for a more general audience and not just "fans."

Adam · 25 August 2005

I don't usually like Bill Maher, but this one-liner of his is great.

Ric · 25 August 2005

Bill Maher is astute on a lot of things. It comes as par for the course that he sees through ID. If you watched the segment, he has more pithy criticisms of this scientifically bankrupt movement.

steve · 25 August 2005

Speaking of funny guys, Lewis Black once observed that there is no reason to debate creationists. "We got the fossils. We win."

That's pretty good.

Mike · 25 August 2005

I'm curious, what fossils actually "win it" for you? Why are you trying to "win" in the first place? Shouldn't science be about getting at the truth instead of trying to indoctrinate one into one's own ideology? If ID is such a ludicrous idea then wouldn't an honest, open dialogue and debate quickly repudiate it? Why not open it up for debate and quickly debunk ID then? Just curious.....I hold to ID and would be up for the scrutiny. Why aren't evolutionists?

Christopher Letzelter · 25 August 2005

Mike: ".....I hold to ID and would be up for the scrutiny."
Scratch beneath the surface and in nearly every case, ID = ideology. The scrutiny is up for public inspection all over TalkOrigins.

frank schmidt · 25 August 2005

If ID is such a ludicrous idea then wouldn't an honest, open dialogue and debate quickly repudiate it?
— Mike

The honest, open debate has already happened, as far as the science and the logic are concerned. The Modern Synthesis settled the issue of whether there is a plausible mechanism to generate diversity around 1945 or so. The argument from design, which is what ID is, was shown to be insupportable by Hume in the latter part of the 18th century. A more modern treatment by Sober sums it up:

The problem is that the design hypothesis confers a probability on the observation only when it is supplemented with further assumptions about what the designer's goals and abilities would be if he existed.

These assumptions are the stuff of theology and not science. I will pray for your faith to be strengthened so that you can see this.

Spirula · 25 August 2005

Mike,
The problem with ID is there is no science to it to scrutinize. With evolutionary biology, EVERY publication of any merit is peer reviewed, so it is always being scrutinized. Maybe if you IDers were a even a little bit intellectually honest, you'd understand the overwhelming scientific evidence for current evolutionary theory.

BC · 25 August 2005

Why are you trying to "win" in the first place? Shouldn't science be about getting at the truth instead of trying to indoctrinate one into one's own ideology? If ID is such a ludicrous idea then wouldn't an honest, open dialogue and debate quickly repudiate it? Why not open it up for debate and quickly debunk ID then? Just curious.....I hold to ID and would be up for the scrutiny. Why aren't evolutionists?

Mainly because creationists and IDers are motivated by religious concerns. Even when you show them they're wrong, they don't change their viewpoint. Instead, they keep cranking out the books that religious Americans love so much. Heck, have you ever read any of Kent Hovnid's stuff? There are claims in some of his books that are so patently false that I can't imagine that he did anything but make the claim up on the spot. Yet, if it were true, it would be a slam-dunk against evolution. The problem is that people read his book, think he's telling the truth and then believe that evolution has been completely debunked. Here's a quote from Kent Hovnid:

Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them. Not proof for evolution. It's proof of a common Designer!

I looked up the information on cytochrome-c (http://www.turbulentplanet.com/Writings/Evolution/CytochromeC/cytochromec.html). Human cytochrome-c is nearly identical to chimpanzee cytochrome-c, and vastly different than sunflower cytochrome-c. Human eyes are NOT built like octopus eyes.

Additionally, creationists and IDers are "poisoning the water" by telling people that evolutionists are liars so that people don't listen to the powerful counterarguments against them. Many people listen to their pastors and religious people like AIG and don't ever read TalkOrigins or Panda's Thumb. In short, most people have made-up their minds to believe in creationism or ID and avoid information that might change their minds.

Patrick · 25 August 2005

First, I really liked this line from Bill's article:

Now as for me, I believe in evolution and intelligent design. I think God designed us in his image, but I also think God is a monkey!
— Bill Maher

Second, Mike, ID has been repudiated repediatedly. The truth has been gotten, and no matter how many times the vacuous assertions and arguments of ID are shot down, they simply act as though nothing happened. If you can actually state "I hold to ID and would be up for the scrutiny" then you are clearly totally clueless and oblivious to the fact that ID (and creationism) has been killed to death. The supporters of ID keep holding up its dead body claiming it can't be killed. It's dead! It's been dead. It was never alive to begin with, and the only way anyone can pretend it's alive is to ignore the massive evidence to the contrary. The only people claiming that anyone's "trying to indoctrinate one into one's own ideology"[sic - is that indoctrinating oneself?] are the ideologues who willfully ignore all the facts, all the (valid) logic, and keep propping up a dead body. No IDaught has ever honestly engaged in an honest debate because they simply pretend it never happened after they have lost. Your post is another example of that same willful ignorance. The scrutiny has been done. The debate has been won. Evolutionist are scientists. Science is all about debate and discussion, evidence and facts. The problem is, scientists do honest debating. There is no place in ID for honesty, facts, or evidence. That's just one more reason why ID's not science.

Russell · 25 August 2005

I'm curious, what fossils actually "win it" for you? Why are you trying to "win" in the first place?Shouldn't science be about getting at the truth instead of trying to indoctrinate one into one's own ideology?

Lewis Black is a comedian.

If ID is such a ludicrous idea then wouldn't an honest, open dialogue and debate quickly repudiate it? Why not open it up for debate and quickly debunk ID then? Just curious.....I hold to ID and would be up for the scrutiny. Why aren't evolutionists?

I don't think I can give you a better reason than BC did. This dishonesty thing is a real problem with the IDers. The controversial ID-oriented lesson plan here in Ohio is clearly derived from Jonathan Wells's "Icons of Evolution", which is the most dishonest popular book (supposedly) on science I've ever seen. The point is that the "evidence" the IDers are trying to wedge into the school curricula, unlike the evidence that forms the basis of legitimate science, has not been vetted by any body of scientists except those recruited by the Discovery Institute. Now if I have to explain why the Discovery Institute is a less reliable broker of information than, say, the National Academies of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and dozens of other respected scientific and scholarly organizations that oppose "intelligent design", I give up. Speaking of which: here's a challenge I'd like you, Mike, or any other ID sympathizer to address. Name one scientific or scholarly organization that does endorse ID. And if you can't, I don't understand why Bill Maher didn't answer your question at the top of this thread.

Ron Zeno · 25 August 2005

I visited your website Mike, and I'm going to assume you're honest with your questions:

Shouldn't science be about getting at the truth instead of trying to indoctrinate one into one's own ideology?

You are offering a false dichotomy, neither of which is a real option. Science is about finding the best explanation for the scientific evidence. "If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." (Indiana Jones) As for ideology, I think you're confusing science with religion. I have no other explanation for why you would offer such a choice, given that I'm assuming you're being honest with your questions.

If ID is such a ludicrous idea then wouldn't an honest, open dialogue and debate quickly repudiate it?

Yes and it has. ID proponents have responded with dishonesty, asserting they have scientific evidence backing their claims, offering none, and hoping people are too ignorant of science to notice that what they are offering is not scientific evidence.

roger tang · 25 August 2005

"Why not open it up for debate and quickly debunk ID then?"

It HAS been.

The ID folks have been ignoring the results and keep claiming they're "winning."

Same sort of technique as the Pat Robertson School of Diplomacy.

Matt McIrvin · 25 August 2005

Now if Maher will only take his own advice on the germ theory of disease, we'll be golden...

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 August 2005

Why not open it up for debate

You can start. What is this scientific theory of ID, and how can we go about testing it using the scientific method. Let the debate begin. (sound of crickets chirping) Hmmm, seems as though we have sort of a problem here . . . . .

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 August 2005

I hold to ID and would be up for the scrutiny. Why aren't evolutionists?

I'm game. Let me start with a question, a very simple question: All I want to know is this: what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method? I do *NOT* want you to respond with a long laundry list of (mostly inaccurate) criticisms of evolutionary biology. They are completely irrelevant to a scientific theory of creation or intelligent design. I want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing---- the tne you want taught in public school science classes, the one that creationists and intelligent design "theorists" testified under oath in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas and elsewhere is SCIENCE and is NOT based on religious doctrine. Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that evolutionary biology is indeed absolutely completely totally irretrievable unalterably irrevocably 100% dead wrong. Fine. Show me your scientific alternative. Show me how your scientific theory explains things better than evolutionary biology does. Let's see this superior "science" of yours. Any testible scientific theory of creation should be able to provide answers to several questions: (1) how did life begin, (3) how did the current diversity of life appear, and (3) what mechanisms were used in these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today. Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able to give testible answers to other questions: (1) what exactly did the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (2) what mechanisms did the Designer(s) use to do whatever it is you think it did, (3) where can we see these mechanisms in action today, and (4) what objective criteria can we use to determine what entities are "intelligently designed" and what entities aren't (please illustrate this by pointing to something that you think IS designed, something you think is NOT designed, and explain how to tell the difference). If your, uh, "scientific theory" isn't able to answer any of these questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we perform, in principle, to answer these questions. Also, since one of the criteria of "science" is falsifiability, I'd like you to tell me how your scientific theory, whatever it is, can be falsified. What experimental results or observations would conclusively prove that creation/intelligent design did not happen. Another part of the scientific method is direct testing. One does not establish "B" simply by demonstrating that "A" did not happen. I want you to demonstrate "B" directly. So don't give me any "there are only two choices, evolution or creation, and evolution is wrong so creation must be right" baloney. I will repeat that I do NOT want a big long laundry list of "why evolution is wrong". I don't care why evolution is wrong. I want to know what your alternative is, and how it explains data better than evolution does. I'd also like to know two specific things about this "alternative scientific theory": How old does "intelligent design/creationism theory" determine the universe to be. Is it millions of years old, or thousands of years old. And does 'intelligent design/creationism theory' determine that humans have descended from apelike primates, or does it determine that they have not. I look forward to seeing your "scientific theories". Unless, of course, ID is nothing but religious doctrine, and IDers are simply lying to us when they claim it's not. . . .

Orac · 25 August 2005

Yes, Bill Maher, for all his self-proclaimed "skepticism" is really quite credulous about a lot of pseudoscience. He's right about "intelligent design" creationism, but he's so wrong about vaccination and the germ theory of disease that it isn't even funny.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 25 August 2005

MAHER: I don't believe in vaccination either. HEALY: Oh, dear. MAHER: That's --- what? That's another theory that I think is flawed. And that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory even though Louis Pasteur renounced it on his own death bed and said, "Beauchamps was right; it's not the invading germs, it's the terrain. It's not the mosquitoes, it's the swamp that they're breeding in." [applause]
— Real Time with Bill Maher

Uh, you do know that this is an allusion to a classic antievolution myth? Don't you?

Matt McIrvin · 25 August 2005

I'm not sure it's so much an allusion as another iteration of a classic pseudoscientific argument that keeps coming up over and over like a bad penny.

Matt McIrvin · 25 August 2005

Hmm, some problem with the previous post...

What I was trying to say is that, while I'd like to believe that Maher was just making a clever allusion to antievolution arguments, I'm afraid that his version of the "Pasteur recanted" story is popular among anti-medicine conspiracy theorists. I have no idea whether Pasteur actually recanted (to an actual scientist it would hardly matter), but I do know that stories of deathbed recantations by founder-figures seem to be pretty popular among scientific cranks; it's not just Darwin.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 25 August 2005

I think that arguing that Maher's lines on deathbed recantation were less likely to be said in satire than in some sort of comedic fulmination because cranks so often use deathbed recantation is self-defeating. I've sent off a question via the web form for "Real Time". I guess I'll wait and see if Maher or a minion takes note of the question.

Orac · 25 August 2005

I don't think Maher was being satirical in his claim that Pasteur "recanted" on his deathbed, nor do I think he was making a clever allusion to antievolution arguments, specifically the Lady Hope story. Read my post in question, which includes a link to a good article by Peter Bowditch discussing the myth of Pasteur's deathbed recantation. Pasteur did not recant, as Peter shows.

Rather, I think it's a characteristic of cranks to attribute deathbed recantations to their enemies. These stories have the advantage of being very difficult to refute.

mww · 25 August 2005

Mike wrote:

If ID is such a ludicrous idea then wouldn’t an honest, open dialogue and debate quickly repudiate it?

Got 2 hours and Realplayer? Cliffsnotes: Some of the top dogs of non-evolution (I don't know what else to call it, some don't buy ID, some argue for it). Religion, philosophy, science, are all represented on both sides, and debated vigorously. Cliffsnotes (I've listed times if you'd like to listen yourself): Behe is represented, and makes his argument for IC (irreducible complexity) beginning at about 28:00. A biologist argues against his point, cites a Behe example of IC (a mousetrap), and Behe really tries to hang on to it. The biologist then cites a biochemical system that cannot function without all of its parts, and performed experiments have shown that removing critical components of this system cause the bacteria to evolve the missing component. Behe does not address this, then cites favorable reviews of his book as evidence or something. More: At about 43:30, an evolution dissenter applies social ills to Darwinism and states that evolution is unable to explain biodiversity. Several evo's take issue, (including the creationalist's assertion that women should have grown tails to be attractive, thats right, after a few drinks at a bar you'd be more likely to hit on the ladies with feline tails). During the course of this discussion, the creationalist admits he doesn't understand evolution's explanation of how species develop different adaptations according to their environment. Several exchanges follow about missing gaps the creationalist finds in the fossil record, from what I take from this, it appears that the creationalist wants a degree of accuracy in evolution's predictions like I can achieve in my load models as an engineer. The biologists counter the argument very well IMHO.

ben · 25 August 2005

Does Maher think we should teach both sides of the germ theory of disease debate? Or is he content to be full of crap by himself?

steve · 26 August 2005

Mike wrote: If ID is such a ludicrous idea then wouldn't an honest, open dialogue and debate quickly repudiate it?

Everything about ID has been repudiated. Is there an ID argument which has gone unobliterated? I'm not aware of one. IC: obliterated. CSI: obliterated.

ts (not Tim) · 26 August 2005

I think that arguing that Maher's lines on deathbed recantation were less likely to be said in satire than in some sort of comedic fulmination because cranks so often use deathbed recantation is self-defeating.

I can't make any sense out of this sentence. What is clear to me is that Maher was being neither satirical nor comical (are those supposed to be opposed to each other?), but seriously believes what he said: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/idiot_week.html

Why do we need so much healthcare if we weren't sick? And why are we sick? What is the main thing we do to ourselves? Eat.
... I don't believe in vaccination either. That's a... well, that's a... what? That's another theory that I think is flawed, and that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory, even though Louis Pasteur renounced it on his own deathbed and said that Beauchamp was right: it's not the invading germs, it's the terrain. It's not the mosquitoes, it's the swamp that they are breeding in.
... You're in denial, about I think is a key fact, which is it is the at... people get sick because of an aggregate toxicity, because their body has so much poison in it, from the air, the water... Yes, much of it is not our fault and we can't control it. But a lot of it we can and even the food people think is good for them, is bad, and I'm not presenting myself as a paradigm. I do cruddy things to my body too and I enjoy them. But when I do them, I'm not in denial. I'm not eating fat free cheese and saying: "You know what, I'm healthy for eating this." I'm saying: "Oh yeah, this is chemical goop and it's killing me."

ts (not Tim) · 26 August 2005

Hmm, some problem with the previous post...

See KwickXML formatting: "The following tags are disabled by default in comments: a, eqn, img, and note." Use <url>, not <a>.

jamie morris · 26 August 2005

Wow, what a shock! Bill Maher against ID? He is against anything that would suggest that he himself isn't the supreme intelligence of the universe. What a clown!

jamie morris · 26 August 2005

Maher will take any and every opportunity to discredit the thought of a God Period. He has been on an anti-God crusade since he started his television show on ABC. Take God out of the equation, people can do as they wish, and basically be their own god. That is what the whole evolution thing is all about. I reject this utter rubish , and I promise you the Creator of the universe (not Bill Maher), almighty God will have the final say.

jamie morris · 26 August 2005

Hey Ron, I couldn't help but laugh out loud at your post. "ID proponents have responded with dishonesty asserting they have scientific evidence backing their claims". Like the evolutionists are pillars of honesty. What a joke. What about all the scientific fraud over the years from the other side of the issue. Come on dude, don't be a hypocrite.

SEF · 26 August 2005

What about all the scientific fraud over the years from the other side of the issue.

Do you plan on: substantiating that claim; demonstrating that there was ever a scientific consensus/conspiracy about it (ie that it's relevant at all to the general rather than the individual); and showing that anything other than scientists applying the scientific method (ie self-policing being part of the whole point and being why the system of science does so much better than theology) were responsible for exposing any examples?

roger tang · 26 August 2005

"Take God out of the equation, people can do as they wish, and basically be their own god. That is what the whole evolution thing is all about. "

No.

It.

Isn't.

Fer cryin' out loud, wouldya at least bother to READ what you're criticizing--what you're talking about and what evolution is about are two entirely different things.

jamie morris · 26 August 2005

For crying out loud will you just admit your sad devotion to that ancient religion please.

roger tang · 26 August 2005

"Like the evolutionists are pillars of honesty. What a joke. What about all the scientific fraud over the years from the other side of the issue. Come on dude, don't be a hypocrite."

I challenge this statement. I think you're just regurgitating what somebody else told you and you really don't know what you're talking about.

C'mon, back up what you wrote--and don't just cite one or two instances of fraud. One or two isolated cases of fraud would not support your statement---but a systematic, concerted effort at fraud that extends throughout the scientific community would.

I want you to put up evidence for the latter...NOT the former.

Spirula · 26 August 2005

Jamie,
So our morals come from the Judeo-Christian god? Hmmmmmm....wonder how all those Buddists, Taoists (lets not forget the oodles of tribal people the missionaries wiped out....er, converted) etc. managed all those years without that knowledge...and its not like Jews and Christians have any history of killing, torturing, maiming, or stealing.........SHIT.....just opened a bible to the old testament. Actually, I was raised fundy Xian...judgmental, bickering (why else all the denominations?) intellectually dishonest (none of them ever spotted scientific frauds...that was done by SCIENTISTS).

Wesley R. Elsberry · 26 August 2005

[...] but seriously believes what he said:
— ts

I've read the transcript. Sorry, no sale here. Let's try another approach on the sentence you had trouble with: P1: Bill Maher is a comedian. P2: Bill Maher referenced a deathbed recantation story during a comedy show. P3: Cranks often utilize deathbed recantation stories. McIrvin then argues: C1: Bill Maher is a crank. I think that the argument made there is self-defeating. Like I said, I've submitted a question. I'm willing to try to find out whether Maher was simply delivering comedy that McIrvin didn't get, or really is a crank concerning the efficacy of vaccination as a medical technique. I haven't noticed anybody else saying that they've tried to consult the source on this.

ts (not Tim) · 26 August 2005

I've read the transcript. Sorry, no sale here.

What isn't here is any reason to think that Maher didn't mean what he said. He has in fact talked on this subject before, expressing the same views.

P1: Bill Maher is a comedian. P2: Bill Maher referenced a deathbed recantation story during a comedy show.

Perhaps you have never seen the show. Maher is a wisecracker, but he is also a cultural commentator, often satirically, and much of the content of his show is serious political discussion -- do you think Janet Reno is a comedian, or on the show to be made a butt of jokes? It is definitely not "a comedy show", and "comedian" is not an accurate characterization of Maher's role -- both P1 and P2 are false. Maher is, for instance, quite a bit more serious than Jon Stewart, who does a semi, and only semi, humorous news program. Stewart's show is not like SNL Weekend Update, which is comedy, but confusing the two would be similar to the mistake you are making.

McIrvin then argues: C1: Bill Maher is a crank. I think that the argument made there is self-defeating.

McIrvin pointed out that Maher's claim is common among cranks; that provides supporting evidence that Maher is a crank. Your "self-defeating" claim seems to be related to your being seriously misinformed about Maher and the nature of his show.

monolithfoo · 26 August 2005

Look ID is crap. Bill Maher is a crank. Both can be true. Evidence, in his own words he stated that he was a sitting board member of PETA.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 26 August 2005

Monolithfoo, you've convinced me. Board membership for PETA is unambiguously cranky.

Bob Davis · 26 August 2005

Posting on this site makes one indisputibly a crank. I hope.

monolithfoo · 26 August 2005

I'm fairly certain that he wasn't joking. It was in a serious response to a serious question.

Here is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher. Caveat Emptor about online references and all that.

ben · 27 August 2005

Jamie, there is fraud in every field where there is an advantage to be gained over others. However, there is a huge difference between the ongoing intellectual fraud committed by the IDiots and the incidents of scientific fraud you refer to in post #44984. Each act of scientific fraud inevitably ends up being exposed by other scientists, using science, and the perpetrators' reputations and influence are forever destroyed. With the endless "scientific" fraudulence of ID and creationism, each fraud is piled on top of the last while the group just draws tighter, congratulating and rewarding one another for their lies and mendacity.

The anti-evolution crowd just can't get that if there were significant cracks in evolutionary theory, there would be no end of eager young scientists who would jump in with both feet, looking to make their names and their careers expanding the evidence and formulating new theory. They'd all love to be the next Darwin, if there were a better theory to be found. The cracks just aren't there.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 August 2005

What about all the scientific fraud over the years from the other side of the issue.

Indeed, what about it . . . . (1) Piltdown was never accepted by all biologists. Right from the beginning, there were a large proportion of paleo-anthropologists who assumed that the skull and jawbone did not belong together. This is because Piltdown never fit into the evolutionary lineage that was being illustrated by the other hominid fossils that had been found. Oddly enough, it was most of the British scientists who wanted to accept Piltdown, and most of the rest of the world that rejected it. That may or may not have something to do with where it was found. (2) the Piltdown fraud was discovered and publicized by EVOLUTIOANRY BIOLOGISTS, not by creationists. The creationists just stood around looking stupid, while the EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS did all the lab work and investigations that uncovered the fraud. (3) The Piltdown fraud was discovered using the sequence of the fossil record and dating techniques, BOTH of which were (and still are) rejected by creationists. As noted, most biologists (while not suspecting a hoax) asserted that the skull and the jaw did not belong together, because they did not fit into the evolutionary sequence that was known from other fossils. Indeed, one of the reasons that Piltdown was flourine-tested in the first place was to see if the skull and jaw were really the same age (if it could be shown that they were different ages, then they did not belong together, as many scientists were assuming). The flourine testing revealed the fraud, and later radiodating confirmed it ------ the very same radiodating techniques, take note, that CREATIONISTS keep telling us are so wildly inaccurate and untrustworthy. The odd thing is that if one rejects the dating processes and the fossil sequence (as creationists do), then there is NO REASON to conclude that Piltdown IS a fraud. So not only did creationists NOT discover the fraud, but they COULD NOT have. They "did not believe in" the very methods that were used to uncover the hoax. (4) as for Nebraska "Man", the person who found it said in his scientific papers that it was hard to identify and might be a hominid tooth or might be a pig's tooth. It was NEWSPAPER REPORTERS, not scientists, who presented the tooth as evidence for early humans. (5) Not one scientific paper published any where in the United States of America ever asserted that the tooth was definitely that of a hominid. Not one. Nor did any science textbook published in the United States of America ever claim it as evidence for evolution. Not one. (6) As with Piltdown, it was EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS who correctly identified the tooth as that of a pig, not creationists. As with Piltdown, the creationists were just standing around looking stupid, again. (7) If you want to talk about teeth, let's talk about "Dr" Baugh and his "Cretaceous human tooth" that he crowed about for a long time, declaring that it "proved evolution wrong". The tooth was later identified (once again by EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS, not by creationists) as a fish tooth. May I humbly and respectfully suggest, Jaimie, that you stop blithering stupidly about topics that you don't know anything about? All you do is make ALL "Christians" look silly, stupid, uneducated, medieval, backwards, and pig-ignorant. May I also suggest that if you want to get some science information, you get it from science books and not from fundamentalist religious tracts written by creationists who have never done a single hour of scientific reseach in their entire lives?

jamie morris · 27 August 2005

Hey Rev, I don't think I was blithering stupidly about anything, but you sure took some time to refute my silly, stupid, uneducated, medeival, backwards, and (my favorite) pig-ignorant comments. To say creationists have been dishonest and evolutionists have not is just incorrect.
Mr Haeckel's embryo sequence trying to show a common ancestry with humans and animals has been known to be fraudulent for 100 years folks. Was that not an example? Piltdown man was just an honest mistake right? What about the trasitional fossils, Colin Patterson said "there is not one fossil for which one could make a watertight argument". The Nebraska Man,come on people! Dr. Pierre Grasse of France called evolution a "pseudo-science". I don't think this guy was a religious fanatic either. I'm sure you have some bull-shit response to every example I've given, so spare me. Just be fair-minded and acknowledge that there are human beings on both sides of the issue and humans are known to lie.

ts (not Tim) · 27 August 2005

Piltdown man was just an honest mistake right?

Either the troll doesn't know what "fraud" means, or it is immoral and dishonest. I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

Grey Wolf · 27 August 2005

ts, I'm not sure if the troll is immoral and dishonest, as you are leaning towards, as much as a simple ignorant. It's particularly interesting that he has used the same old 4 examples every creationist uses, immediately after Lenny had explained two of them. Of course, he also conveniently forgot to address the criticism on his side, because he has never heard of them and that probably means that we are lying evil atheists bent on some nefarious plan.

Tell me, jaime, I realise that you cannot actually explain ID to me nor provide evidence and testable claims, but are you at least able to explain what evolution says? Clue: "pure chance" is not part of it. Any attempt to use it in the definition will make you look like a retarded parrot, so to save accusations of ad hominems, try to at least do a little research before shooting yourself on the foot. Alternatively, you could get a proper education.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

jamie morris · 27 August 2005

Hey lobo boy, still no acknowledgement of my point. People lie and distort truth. Even our dear firends the evolutionists. You can't erase history, the frauds happened.

Grey Wolf · 27 August 2005

4 instances corrected by other scientists in the course of 150 years, as oposed to thousands of hand wavings, distortions of reality and plain lies from ID in the course of a few years. Yes, I can tell that they're exactly alike, jaimito.

Science is self correcting. Your examples were uncovered, as has been patiently explained to you three times now, by other scientists. Unlike ID, who wouldn't have been able to tell they were false. And of course, it is also scientists that have pointed out the miriad lies of creationism and ID. Sorry, but when for each of your "frauds of evolution" I could bring up a hundres "frauds of ID", claiming that they are equal is so completely dumb that I have to assume you *are* a troll, here only to try and start a flame war.

You have my answer to your point, jaimito, now lets see you be honest and answer my challenge to your knowledge. Or are you talking about something that you can't even explain?

Paul Flocken · 27 August 2005

jamie morris wrote in Comment #45068:

Mr Haeckel's embryo sequence trying to show a common ancestry with humans and animals has been known to be fraudulent for 100 years folks. Was that not an example?

jamie, please provide the name of the creationist who exposed Ernst Haeckel's subterfuge. But, though Haeckel was wrong in detail he had an concept with merit and if you stick your nose in a book about evo-devo you might discover there is a lot of biology you are completely ignorant of. Try cruising around Pharyngula(http://pharyngula.org/) or The Loom(http://www.corante.com/loom/). There are loads of good science on both sights. Right now on Pharygula there is that piece about Bicoid and on the Loom is another about malaria which demonstrates how learning about the co-evoloution of man and parasite can give us the knowledge we need to fight the disease.

Piltdown man was just an honest mistake right?

No, piltdown was pretty much straight fraud.

What about the trasitional fossils, Colin Patterson said "there is not one fossil for which one could make a watertight argument".

You know, there is indeed no ONE fossil that makes a watertight case for evolution. What makes the case watertight is the collections of millions of fossils in each of dozens of collections across the world from Beijing to Moscow to Paris to London to New York to the Smithsonian and all the smaller collections in cities between. Why don't you take a trip to the Museum of Natural History sometime. Educate yourself with something more credible than a creationist screed.

Just be fair-minded and acknowledge that there are human beings on both sides of the issue and humans are known to lie.

Indeed humans do lie. And unless jamie is an alien from pluto, I presume he or she is a human being. Should I make the obvious inference? Or would you prefer I didn't.

jamie morris · 27 August 2005

Wolf , I believe it was Dr. Michael Richardson of St. George's Medical School in London who formed a team of scientists who actually systematically proved Haeckel's claims to be false. Maybe you can tell me why they still apear in some text books like "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas J. Futuyma.

Paul Flocken · 27 August 2005

jamie morris wrote in Comment #45079:

You can't erase history, the frauds happened.

Yes, they do. But what matters is not that the occasional scientist gets carried away with his research (self-deception is atleast understandable) or seeks glory through deceipt (which IS very definitely wrong); what matters is that science is a self-correcting enterprise. No scientific fraud will ever carry on as self-sustaining for very long, because other scientists will examine in, try to use it to carry on with further research, try to poke holes in it, and so on. Scientific fraud cannot stay hidden. Cold fusion died because other scientists couldn't reproduce it in the lab. Lenny just explained that piltdown was exposed by other scientists. Scientist are always poking and prodding the work of their predecessors and peers. Fraud will always be found out(even if it takes some time). Please tell us what self-correcting mechanism creationists use to uncover their own mistakes and fraudulent claims. I bet you can't.

jamie morris · 27 August 2005

Wolf, you can name hundreds of ID frauds? Come on dude...I doubt that.

Russell · 27 August 2005

Maybe you can tell me why they [Haeckel's false claims] still apear in some text books like "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas J. Futuyma.

I think discussions like this can serve a useful purpose in holding textbooks to a high standard of accuracy. So please, for the sake of all honest scientists and educators, identify Haeckel's false claims in Futuyma's text and let's make sure they're brought to the author's and publishers' attention.

SteveF · 27 August 2005

Hmm, evolutionary frauds. 150 years of evolutionary theory, thousands upon thousands of scientists. Number of frauds? A couple.

Given the fact that many human beings are deceitful, thats a pretty small number.

What was the problem again?

jamie morris · 27 August 2005

Paul,I would like to believe that since creationists consider themselves scienitists as well, that they would use the same process of "poking and proding" that you talked about. Time will tell if their theory holds up. Evolution has been under scrutiny for a long time now too. Time will tell.

Grey Wolf · 27 August 2005

Wolf , I believe it was Dr. Michael Richardson of St. George's Medical School in London who formed a team of scientists who actually systematically proved Haeckel's claims to be false. Maybe you can tell me why they still apear in some text books like "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas J. Futuyma.

So, was Dr. Richardson an ID follower? Or was he a pro-evolution scientist? I'm not claiming that scientists never get things wrong, on purpose or by error, only that science self-corrects and that the number of false claims of science is several magnitudes smaller than that of ID, who isn't even science. Again: Percentage of evolution mistakes/frauds corrected by scientists: 100%. By ID followers: 0%. Percentage of ID mistakes/frauds corrected by scientists: 100%. By ID followers: 0% (error margin: 0.1%) Also, please present a scan of the page in the text book using Haekel's embryos. Or else, I think I will claim that you are lying, or parroting long-dead arguments. BTW, you should read the recent article on Haekel here on PT. You might learn a thing or two. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf

jamie morris · 27 August 2005

Wolf, I think I will read that article. thanks. Maybe we can all stand to learn a thing or two.

jamie morris · 27 August 2005

Wolf, I think I will take you up on that article. I will check it out. Maybe we could all stand to learn a thing or two.

Russell · 27 August 2005

I think I will read that article. thanks. Maybe we can all stand to learn a thing or two.

Don't get too distracted, though, because you were going to point out the specific errors in Futuyma's text. Let's not let that slip through the cracks!

Grey Wolf · 27 August 2005

Paul,I would like to believe that since creationists consider themselves scienitists as well, that they would use the same process of "poking and proding" that you talked about

Interestingly, not one ID-defender has *ever* done the process of "poking and proding", even if you believe otherwise, jamie. I challenge you, again, to prove me otherwise by producing evidence of any ID experiment carried out, ever. But I know - better than you, obviously - that there are none. Which is why they are not scientists. Sincerely, I don't have neither the time nor the energy to list the hundreds of false claims and frauds of ID people. Thankfully, I don't have to. Go to talk origins, to the list of creationists claims. Every single one is a false claim of ID/creationism. Look up the list of quote mining in talk origins, too. Every time an ID has used one of those, it has been fraud. Look at this site. Every article examining ID antics explains scores of mistakes, false claims and outright lies made by ID people. Browse the rest of talk origins, just to see the amount of lies that have been spewed. From Kent Hovind to Irreducible Complexity, there is so many frauds that are beyond counting. References: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Hope that helps, Grey Wolf

Paul Flocken · 27 August 2005

jamie morris wrote in Comment #45088:

Wolf , I believe it was Dr. Michael Richardson of St. George's Medical School in London who formed a team of scientists who actually systematically proved Haeckel's claims to be false. Maybe you can tell me why they still apear in some text books like "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas J. Futuyma.

Do you realize what you just wrote. Maybe I should point it out again.

team of scientists

It was scientists who did this. QED As far as the biology text is concerned, are you referring to this book? Because the Haeckel controversy is old enough (Icons was published in the early nineties and that is the book you are cribbing from, isn't it) and this text is a new enough(1997) edition(3^rd) my first impression would be that Futuyma is presenting Haeckel in historical context. So I will order this text for my bookstore this afternoon when I go to work. I will have it by the end of the week and we will see about jamie morris's assertian that humans lie. Won't we. Will you still be around?

RBH · 27 August 2005

jamie wrote

Wolf , I believe it was Dr. Michael Richardson of St. George's Medical School in London who formed a team of scientists who actually systematically proved Haeckel's claims to be false. Maybe you can tell me why they still apear in some text books like "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas J. Futuyma.

Hm. This from Richardson's Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development:

Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution. While some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate, others are more tendentious. In opposition to Haeckel and his embryo drawings, Wilhelm His made major advances towards developing a quantitative comparative embryology based on morphometrics. Unfortunately His's work in this area is largely forgotten. Despite his obvious flaws, Haeckel can be seen as the father of a sequence-based phylogenetic embryology. (Emphasis added)

Jaime falls way out on the tendentious end of Richardson's scale. RBH

jamie morris · 27 August 2005

Ok wolf, please man, you didn't just say that "not one ID defender has done the process of "poking and proding"? How can you possibly prove that statement? Prove that they haven't. I challenge YOU.

jamie morris · 27 August 2005

Hey paul, I'll be here. When you get the book, maybe then you can answer my question.

Grey Wolf · 27 August 2005

Noone can prove a negative, jamie. I have never, ever, seen a single ID experiment carried out, nor have I read of one, and have been following this "debate" for years. On the other hand, it should prove rather easy for you to present *one* ID experiment.

Thing is, jamie, that there are none. And if you're at least slightly honest with yourself, you'll look on your own for one, and after a long search you will realise that ID is as empty as we state.

BTW, the article I was refering to isn't actually in PT, but in pharyngula:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/wells_and_haeckels_embryos/

Let me repeat myself, though: I cannot, nor can anyone, prove a negative "there are no ID experiments". But *you* can prove me wrong by presenting *one* ID experiment. But I have to point out that ID doesn't even have a theory, so there are no experiments to be done. One ID friendly scientist admitted as much. Don't have his name or exact quote, unfortunately, but he pointed out that until ID becomes a theory, there is no experiments to conduct. I'm sure some helpful soul here at PT can help me out here and tell me the name of the guy and/or the quote, if you rather believe an ID follower.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

jamie morris · 27 August 2005

Fair enough...later

steve · 27 August 2005

Young Earth wacko Paul Nelson said: Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.

Russell · 27 August 2005

When you get the book, maybe then you can answer my question.

But in the meantime, it would really be helpful if you would identify the specific false claims whose presence or absence we're attempting to verify. I assume you have the book, or at least access to it, if you're accusing it of these errors. No?

Paul Flocken · 27 August 2005

Russell,
You actually expected him to have the book. I didn't think you were so naive. ;> I presume he lifted the title and author from whatever source he is cribbing from. I have seen Futuyma's name bandied about before with similar tripe. Well, off to work.

TTFN, Paul

Grey Wolf · 27 August 2005

Thanks, steve. You're a pal!

You know, maybe I should start a sticky note in my computer to save those quotes and questions I find useful, sort of how Lenny keeps around those set questions for creationists. I particularly like that quote from Paul Nelson, though, if nothing else because hearing truth from a creationists is a blue moon event. Mind you, I didn't know he was a YEC. I'm glad a good argument is a good argument regardless of who uses it, because except for flat-earthers, I can't think of a word I would trust less than that of a YEC.

That did help ;)

Grey Wolf

Paul Flocken · 27 August 2005

I don't have time to peruse these, but here are just the hits on Panda's Thumb.
http://www.google.com/custom?cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pandasthumb.org%3BGL%3A0%3BAH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3A38e0a0f7f4d5f984%3B&domains=pandasthumb.org&sitesearch=pandasthumb.org&q=Futuyma&sa=Search

ts (not Tim) · 27 August 2005

One ID friendly scientist admitted as much.

It was Paul Nelson, but he's not a scientist. According to his web page (http://www.arn.org/authors/nelson.html), he, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer are "currently collaborating ... on a book formulating a scientific theory of biological design". Imagine that -- a philosopher, a mathematician, and a geophysicist -- what an astounding fund of biological experience and expertise. For the sort of contribution that Nelson might make to this effort, take a look at his "Thinking About the Theory of Design" at http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or152/152main.htm It reminds me of the philosophers who argued that the reason it wasn't possible to have an object that was simultaneously red and green all over was because of some logical or conceptual incompatibility between the terms "red" and "green". Of course, the actual explanation is to be found in the opponent process model of human vision. But these philosophers or, more properly, sophists, think that they can solve empirical problems by syllogistic reasoning. Such reasoning has its place, but it is error prone, and philosophy lacks the sort of error correcting methodology found in mathematics or, of course, science.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 August 2005

Hey Rev, I don't think I was blithering stupidly about anything

Hey Jaimie, you were. Now quit stalling and answer my questions. Forget them already? No problem: *ahem* All I want to know is this: what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method? I do *NOT* want you to respond with a long laundry list of (mostly inaccurate) criticisms of evolutionary biology. They are completely irrelevant to a scientific theory of creation or intelligent design. I want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing------ the tne you want taught in public school science classes, the one that creationists and intelligent design "theorists" testified under oath in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas and elsewhere is SCIENCE and is NOT based on religious doctrine. Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that evolutionary biology is indeed absolutely completely totally irretrievable unalterably irrevocably 100% dead wrong. Fine. Show me your scientific alternative. Show me how your scientific theory explains things better than evolutionary biology does. Let's see this superior "science" of yours. Any testible scientific theory of creation should be able to provide answers to several questions: (1) how did life begin, (3) how did the current diversity of life appear, and (3) what mechanisms were used in these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today. Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able to give testible answers to other questions: (1) what exactly did the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (2) what mechanisms did the Designer(s) use to do whatever it is you think it did, (3) where can we see these mechanisms in action today, and (4) what objective criteria can we use to determine what entities are "intelligently designed" and what entities aren't (please illustrate this by pointing to something that you think IS designed, something you think is NOT designed, and explain how to tell the difference). If your, uh, "scientific theory" isn't able to answer any of these questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we perform, in principle, to answer these questions. Also, since one of the criteria of "science" is falsifiability, I'd like you to tell me how your scientific theory, whatever it is, can be falsified. What experimental results or observations would conclusively prove that creation/intelligent design did not happen. Another part of the scientific method is direct testing. One does not establish "B" simply by demonstrating that "A" did not happen. I want you to demonstrate "B" directly. So don't give me any "there are only two choices, evolution or creation, and evolution is wrong so creation must be right" baloney. I will repeat that I do NOT want a big long laundry list of "why evolution is wrong". I don't care why evolution is wrong. I want to know what your alternative is, and how it explains data better than evolution does. I'd also like to know two specific things about this "alternative scientific theory": How old does "intelligent design/creationism theory" determine the universe to be. Is it millions of years old, or thousands of years old. And does 'intelligent design/creationism theory' determine that humans have descended from apelike primates, or does it determine that they have not. I look forward to seeing your "scientific theories". Unless, of course, ID is nothing but religious doctrine, and IDers are simply lying to us when they claim it's not... . Put up or shut up, Jaimie.

SEF · 27 August 2005

Wolf, you can name hundreds of ID frauds? Come on dude...I doubt that.

Well I'd start with the list of ID "witnesses" to the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt - and the board members themselves. I believe every one of them was committing fraud quite literally because they were taking money under false pretences. They pretended to be experts on the matter yet they each (all or not?) admitted under oath that they hadn't even read the standards which they were claiming weren't good and that they were fit to judge. I think an inability or unwillingness to read them renders them wholly unfit to judge and thus fraudulent. Additionally, to be experts in ID they would have to have some sort of properly peer-reviewed work in ID or recognised qualification in ID (which doesn't exist).

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 August 2005

You know, maybe I should start a sticky note in my computer to save those quotes and questions I find useful, sort of how Lenny keeps around those set questions for creationists.

Indeed, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Fundies make the same silly claims, over and over and over and over. Why waste time on anything more than a standard cut-and-paste response (or question) for every simple-minded moron who comes along and thinks he's springing something new on us?

RBH · 27 August 2005

Just bookmark the Index to Creationist Claims on TO.

RBH

Grey Wolf · 27 August 2005

Indeed, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Fundies make the same silly claims, over and over and over and over. Why waste time on anything more than a standard cut-and-paste response (or question) for every simple-minded moron who comes along and thinks he's springing something new on us?
— Lenny

That reminds me: there is a typo in your set of questions, one I always puzzle over for a little while. Immediately after the long slash, it says "the tne" (full context "I want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing------ the tne "). I think it should be "the one". Don't you just love peer-review? (Mind you, I still haven't bought my own reverendship or doctorate from diploma mills, so I'm not qute your peer, so lets call it hunchback assistance review). ;) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf

jamie morris · 27 August 2005

Rev, just what I thought a long list of "can you prove it" bullshit. I notice you didn't say anything about the frauds I addressed. Here is my "scientific theory" for ya, you're an ass! Any information I could present you with would just be discredited as creationist propaganda, so I'm not playing the game. You, however cannot deny the facts of fraudulent science from the evolution camp. That was my entire point!

ts (not Tim) · 27 August 2005

That was my entire point!

Great. You made it. And it's been acknowledged. So now it's time for you to stick your head so far up your anal orifice that you disappear.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 27 August 2005

Here's an essay on Haeckel by Troy Britain.

Russell · 27 August 2005

So now it's time for you to ... disappear.

No! Not just yet! He's going to present a list of specific errors in Futuyma's text that need correcting.

Grey Wolf · 27 August 2005

Damn, and for a second there I thought you had gone to look at the article I gave you and to look for an ID experiment. A pitty, jamie. I had expectations for you. See, we *have* addressed your point. We have pointed out that yes, there have been a few (so very few!) frauds in the last 150 years of evolution science, and that those attempts have been long discredited by other evolution-friendly scientists, because that is how science works. Those arguments have not been used since in science.

On the other hand, ID has hundreds of frauds, all of which have been pointed out by non-ID scientists for years before ID people accepted that they had been caught lying. What is worse, many ID people continue to use the same false arguments for years after they have been proved false. For example, the "recant in death bed" or, more modern, "IC structures" ("blood clotting cascade", anyone?). This is one of the big differences between real scientists and cranks: when a scientist is caught lying, he is forever suspect, and everything he said is examined to see what else is false. When and ID-er is caught lying, he goes on as if nothing has happened.

jamie, Lenny's list is a pre-made post that doubles as a troll/crank detector. Faced with the very basic questions that ID would have to answer to be science, anyone claiming that ID *is* science must admit that it is not, since they cannot address those question. Fact is that your point has been addressed five times already in this thread and you have yet to acknowledge that the one fraud (piltdown), the one distortion of evidence (Haeckel) and the two overblown by the press possibilities are *nothing* compared to the hundreds -or thousands- of creationist/ID lies and frauds. You must also admit that science self corrects, for it was other "evolutionists" that caught the Piltdown hoax and found problems with Haeckel's theory and so on, while ID people are incapable of self-correction (for God's sake, they won't even state how old the Earth is! "somewhere between 6000 and 4500000000 years" is not a scientific answer!)

If you are to have an intelligent discussion, jamie, you must address the points of those who answer you. In this particular case, you must admit that ID is crank science and evolution is nowhere near ID's level of lying and fraud and that scientists at least try to discover false claims, while ID-ers hope no-one notices that they made stuff up.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf · 27 August 2005

Oh, damn, I forgot to add this to my previous post:

Any information I could present you with would just be discredited as creationist propaganda
— jamie

How do you know that, jamie? You have yet to present a single peice of evidence for your position. Unless you are gifted with future seeing capabilities, you cannot know what we will do. As a matter of fact, we have asked you to 1) show us that text book that uses Haeckle's embryos and 2) show us the record of an ID experiment. I, for one, would be very interested to see either one of them. BTW, please note that just having Haeckle's embryos wouldn't make the science book wrong. It could be presented as a historical perspective, just like a geography book might mention that some cultures used to believe the world was flat, and show a drawing of a flat world (sort of like the one deduced from the Bible, with columns under it and a solid sky with windows for water to fall trhough and so on). So when you show us the text book, include some of the context, not only the pictures. And do read the article in pharyngula - you will learn what Haeckel got right and what he got wrong. Believe me, he did get *some* things right. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf

jamie morris · 27 August 2005

ts, all debate and rhetoric aside, honestly, your last post cracked me up. Anal orfice! that was great.

jamie morris · 27 August 2005

Wolf, I agree with you that the science book could have Haekle's embryos just for historical perspective. Nothing wrong with that , I just want to know if that is the case. If it isn't then we have a problem.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 August 2005

Rev, just what I thought a long list of "can you prove it" bullshit. I notice you didn't say anything about the frauds I addressed.

I notice that you didn't say anything about my detailed description of why the ID/creationuts are full of it about Piltdown and Nebraska Man, as well as the, uh, "cretaceous human tooth" (not to mention the, uh, "paluxy footprints" and the "squashed trilobite" and the "jurassic human finger"). I also notice that you've not answered the original question i asked of you. Here, I'll ask again: *ahem* All I want to know is this: what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method? I do *NOT* want you to respond with a long laundry list of (mostly inaccurate) criticisms of evolutionary biology. They are completely irrelevant to a scientific theory of creation or intelligent design. I want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing------ the tne you want taught in public school science classes, the one that creationists and intelligent design "theorists" testified under oath in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas and elsewhere is SCIENCE and is NOT based on religious doctrine. Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that evolutionary biology is indeed absolutely completely totally irretrievable unalterably irrevocably 100% dead wrong. Fine. Show me your scientific alternative. Show me how your scientific theory explains things better than evolutionary biology does. Let's see this superior "science" of yours. Any testible scientific theory of creation should be able to provide answers to several questions: (1) how did life begin, (3) how did the current diversity of life appear, and (3) what mechanisms were used in these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today. Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able to give testible answers to other questions: (1) what exactly did the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (2) what mechanisms did the Designer(s) use to do whatever it is you think it did, (3) where can we see these mechanisms in action today, and (4) what objective criteria can we use to determine what entities are "intelligently designed" and what entities aren't (please illustrate this by pointing to something that you think IS designed, something you think is NOT designed, and explain how to tell the difference). If your, uh, "scientific theory" isn't able to answer any of these questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we perform, in principle, to answer these questions. Also, since one of the criteria of "science" is falsifiability, I'd like you to tell me how your scientific theory, whatever it is, can be falsified. What experimental results or observations would conclusively prove that creation/intelligent design did not happen. Another part of the scientific method is direct testing. One does not establish "B" simply by demonstrating that "A" did not happen. I want you to demonstrate "B" directly. So don't give me any "there are only two choices, evolution or creation, and evolution is wrong so creation must be right" baloney. I will repeat that I do NOT want a big long laundry list of "why evolution is wrong". I don't care why evolution is wrong. I want to know what your alternative is, and how it explains data better than evolution does. I'd also like to know two specific things about this "alternative scientific theory": How old does "intelligent design/creationism theory" determine the universe to be. Is it millions of years old, or thousands of years old. And does 'intelligent design/creationism theory' determine that humans have descended from apelike primates, or does it determine that they have not. I look forward to seeing your "scientific theories". Unless, of course, ID is nothing but religious doctrine, and IDers are simply lying to us when they claim it's not... . Put up or shut up, Jaimie.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 August 2005

That reminds me: there is a typo in your set of questions, one I always puzzle over for a little while. Immediately after the long slash, it says "the tne" (full context "I want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing------ the tne "). I think it should be "the one".

You are right. Generally, I post my messages either before I go to work in the morning, or after I get back while dinner is cooking. In either case, I'm usually ina hurry and so don't proofread any of my posts. And because I type very fast, I tend to make lots of typos (oftentimes the very same ones over and over again). Alas, it did drive my copy editors nuts. ;>

Russell · 27 August 2005

in #45088, it was:

...they [Haeckle's false claims] still apear in some text books like "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas J. Futuyma.

Now (#45145) it's

I just want to know if that is the case.

Was this whole discussion about the relative honesty and credibility of evophobes vs. evophiles?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 August 2005

Any information I could present you with would just be discredited as creationist propaganda

Ahhh, the old "Ralph Kramden" response: "You think I'm not gonna tell you, Alice? You think I'm not gonna TELL you? Well just for that, I'M NOT GONNA TELL YOU!" It is a longtime favorite of creationuts and IDers. Ranks right up there with the "I won't answer you because you are a big meanie." As for whether any information "you" cut-and-paste, er, I mean, present to us is or isn't creationut propaganda, I guess we will never know, will we, since you seem to have some sort of lethal allergy to PRESENTING any. (shrug)

Dave Carlson · 27 August 2005

Maybe you can tell me why they [Haeckel's false claims] still apear in some text books like "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas J. Futuyma.
— jamie morris

Luckily for us, I happen to have a copy of Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition on hand. I looked up Haeckel's Embryos in the index and found that the major discussion of this topic takes place on pages 652 and 653. I was going to type the entire relevant section word for word (and even started to do so), but I've gotten lazy. In short, Futuyma starts the section on Ontogeny and Philogeny with Von Baer's law that the features common to a more inclusive taxon often appear in development before the specific charaters of lower-tax. He gives a short description of this then goes on to talk about Haeckel and his Biogentic Law that "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." He briefly summarizes what Haeckel meant by this and then uses the next five paragraphs to show why Haeckel was largely wrong (using Gould 1977). He ends with this: There are, to be sure, many cases in which certain features of an ancestor are recapitulated in the ontogeny of a descendent; for example, the metatarsals of a bird, as we saw above, at first develop separately (the ancestral condition) before becoming fused together. Still, the biogenetic law is honored more often in the breach than in the observance and it is certainly not an infallible guide to phylogenetic history. Interestingly enough, the drawing of Haeckel's embryos that was reproduced in Romanes' (1901) Darwin and after Darwin is shown in the text, but it is used as an illustration of Von Baer's law, not Haeckel's Biogenetic law. Overall, it seems that those people who predicted that Haeckel's claims would be treated in a mostly historical context have proven to be correct. Futuyma does not claim that Haeckel's ideas are accurate. To the contrary, he carefully shows what is wrong with them.

Grey Wolf · 27 August 2005

Wolf, I agree with you that the science book could have Haekle's embryos just for historical perspective. Nothing wrong with that , I just want to know if that is the case. If it isn't then we have a problem.
— jamie

Well, Dave Carlson has now shown that it was, indeed, a historical perspective. jamie, I hope you realise that this means that you made an unfounded and unsupported accusation right at first. Now, you have shown a much better quality than our average creationist, so I am going to give you a honest advice. Please don't take it the wrong way, for I do mean it: *Never* take a creationist at their word. They have been peddling false arguments for a good 300 years now (predating Darwin, since they had, and some still have, a beef with Old Earth). Whenever you are given a reason why 150 years of scientists are wrong, your first impulse should be to doubt the argument, not the scientists. Check the argument yourself. On-line resources like talk origins help, but if you don't feel you can trust it, talk origins always refers to other sources, many quite prestigious, that you can check for yourself (a well-stocked university library can help there). At this point, you have two major options. You can dig trenches and self delude yourself that your arguments about the fraudulent methods of science being as bad as that of ID is true, or take this chance to examine both alternatives. Check talkorigins to see the evidence for evolution, and visit the creationist arguments list, and check those you have heard the most. And, by all means, if you feel that there is any argument that still stands, bring it here. But don't do so confrontationally - that just puts people on the defensive, and insults might start to fly. Seriously, you ahve a nice chance for learning here. Don't spoil it. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf http://talkorigins.org/ http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Henry J · 27 August 2005

Re "Whenever you are given a reason why 150 years of scientists are wrong, your first impulse should be to doubt the argument, not the scientists. "

That one sentence sums it up very well.

Henry

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 August 2005

Well, let's see if Jaimie will be the first creationist I can remember who will have the ping-pongs to stand up and say "I was wrong, the creationist argument I parroted was wrong, and next time, I will make an effort to check facts *before* I go spouting off more drivel from soem creationist crapsite."

Or, will Jaimie do the standard creationist routine, shout "You all just hate God!!!!!!", and then run away to spout out the very same argument somewhere else.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 August 2005

Overall, it seems that those people who predicted that Haeckel's claims would be treated in a mostly historical context have proven to be correct. Futuyma does not claim that Haeckel's ideas are accurate. To the contrary, he carefully shows what is wrong with them.

So IDers are lying to us, yet again. I'm shocked. Utterly shocked.

Grey Wolf · 28 August 2005

Well, let's see if Jaimie will be the first creationist I can remember who will have the ping-pongs to stand up and say "I was wrong, the creationist argument I parroted was wrong, and next time, I will make an effort to check facts *before* I go spouting off more drivel from soem creationist crapsite."
— Lenny

The fact that jamie (for a while I thought it was jaime, but she's consistently used jamie) has left without a "final word" does give me some hope, Lenny. The usual pattern for a creationist troll is to dig trenches, call us all deluded hell-spawned atheists and repeat their original claim. Call me hopelessly optimistic, but the fact that she mellowed her position from "evolutionists are as bad as IDs" to "I don't really know that my argument is correct, and am willing to forgive historical perspective". The real clincher right now is that I *have* asked her to read through talk origins, and that is going to take a while. Of course, the modus operandi of the standard troll is also to leave for a few days till they forget they got their arguments demolished, so the fact she has left is not, in itself, an indicator of "trolldom". If the next time she drops by is to repeat the same baseless acusation, Ã la davison, then we can declare her a troll and ignore her. I am hoping that next time, however, she comes with a variant of "I read that IDs claim to detect design with some kind of formula - isn't that an experiment?" so we can point her to the uselessness of Behe's Black Box or whatever. Sometimes I feel that we're a little too brusque and heavy handed to the visiting creationists. Of course, from our perspective it is justified, since we get so many that look cloned that are simple trolls unwilling to listen, but I fear that every so often we get someone who might be willing to listen and our short patience turns them off. That is why I take the time to gently engage them. Mind you, in all previous occasions I tried, they turned out to be trolls, but that's not going to stop me. As I said, hopelessly optimistic.

So IDers are lying to us, yet again.

That doesn't worry me as much as the fact that they lie to each other. At least *we* know that they are going to lie to us - it's the people that are viciously lied by Behe and D*mbsky (not to mention the Kent Hovinds of the world) that I feel worst about. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who wonders if we should move this over to BW, except that the article *is* about someone buying into creationist propaganda and then realising what he signed into Disclaimer: I have assumed in this post that "jamie" is a female name. I am terribly sorry if this is not the case.

SEF · 28 August 2005

but that's not going to stop me. As I said, hopelessly optimistic

:-D That's what the god-botherers are though - hopelessly optimistic. Some want to believe they can argue equally about science without actually knowing anything much about it. Many are hoping to get away with multiple crimes (including dishonesty which ought to be a crime) and still get forgiven by their god. All(?) want to believe that their god both exists and is nice despite the preponderance of evidence against it.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 August 2005

Sometimes I feel that we're a little too brusque and heavy handed to the visiting creationists. Of course, from our perspective it is justified, since we get so many that look cloned that are simple trolls unwilling to listen, but I fear that every so often we get someone who might be willing to listen and our short patience turns them off. That is why I take the time to gently engage them. Mind you, in all previous occasions I tried, they turned out to be trolls, but that's not going to stop me. As I said, hopelessly optimistic.

Well, I salute your patience. And I wish you the best of luck. Me, I long ago gave up on even attempting to "convert" the nutters. In the 20-plus years that I have been "debating" creationist/IDers, I can count on one hand the total number of people whom I have seen abandon creationism/ID. And in terms of the creationist/ID political movement, each of them was promptly replaced by ten more. No political movement in history has ever been beaten by "converting" a significant proportion of its members. So I view the attempt as simply not worth the effort. My target has always been the lurkers who come in here for a short time just because they have seen something in the newspaper about ID and want to see "what the fuss is all about". I've gotten enough emails from lurkers over the years to know that when IDers keep getting asked simple basic questions like "what the heck IS this scientific theory of ID that you are on about" and consistently run away from those questions, it doesn't take long for the lurkers to understand that ID simply has nothing scientific to say, that ID is nothing but an attempt to force religious apologetics into a science classroom, and that IDers are simply lying to us when they claim otherwise. Since I think that has much more practical effect than does trying to convert the nutters, that is where I have chosen to put most of my efforts. But hey, as a political activist, I'm all in favor of attacking on every possible front. Any usable weapon, should be used. Convert their members. Exacerbate the ideological schisms in the Big Tent. Cut ID off from its funding. Show that their "science" is crap. Document their dishonest evasions. Tell the whole world about ID's extremist political agenda. Point out that most of their funding comes from a single lunatic billionnaire who for 20 years preached a political program that is indistinguishable from that preached by the people we are currently dropping bombs on in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let the Wedge-ites be forced into defending themselves everywhere at the same time.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 August 2005

who wonders if we should move this over to BW

Has the plumbing been fixed yet?

Grey Wolf · 28 August 2005

That's what the god-botherers are though - hopelessly optimistic. Some want to believe they can argue equally about science without actually knowing anything much about it. Many are hoping to get away with multiple crimes (including dishonesty which ought to be a crime) and still get forgiven by their god. All(?) want to believe that their god both exists and is nice despite the preponderance of evidence against it.
— SEF

Hopefully you don't classify me as a God-botherer, SEF. Mind you, I am weird since I am a conservative-at-home Catholic who would vote liberal if they weren't so hopelessly corrupt in my country (i.e. I believe that everyone else can do whatever they want with their lives as long as they don't hurt me or mine but that, given the freedom, I'm conservative enough I suspect fire as too modern ;p ). Mind you, I don't try to ram conversion down anyone's throats. I *know* God exists, I *know* that trying to convince you is stupid, and I am told that we can learn what He expects of us by attending church, were people who have spent their lives wrestling with that old pile of documents known collectively as "the Bible" have taught the local priest the most likely interpretations, and who then passes it on to me. And that I am free to disagree as long as it is not a dogma (there aren't that many, thankfully). But hopefully, as I say, I don't belong in the same group of cronically insecure people who, lacking personal revelation, try to ameliorate their lack of faith by converting others or otherwise pretending that science supports their faith. Maybe they missed the lesson on why any faith needing support is not a good faith. Anyway, I just wanted to clear up my position, SEF. Try to remember that not all religious people are nutjobs. We could have an interesting discussion on the cruelty of God, but I am afraid that I am no authority, so all I could give you is my own personal view, mostly unsupported by previous reasoning, and this is the wrong place to do so anyway. Not that I think you are that interested in my views, but we *could* continue over email, if you want. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf

ts (not Tim) · 28 August 2005

Disclaimer: I have assumed in this post that "jamie" is a female name. I am terribly sorry if this is not the case.

"she" also calls itself "james morris" (judging by the same style and same message) in another thread.

ts (not Tim) · 28 August 2005

Oops, make that "james cohen", as in http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/oreilly_intervi.html#c45085

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 31 August 2005

The page attached to that link for the New Rules segment has changed. The archived segment under discussion is here