Of Wiker and Witt: The silliest thing I've read all week

I have to agree, and I just finished Scalzi's "bacon on my cat" blog entry.

Benjamin Wiker (a DI senior fellow who not only doesn't like evolution, but is still fighting the evil materialists about atomism as well).

Wait, so are they saying that Peano arithmetic was "undercut" by Darwin? That by making the species uncountable he moved closer to real numbers? And real numbers are for some reason more divorced from reality than whole numbers?

That's a serious case of cake taking.

How Platonic; natural numbers are more real than real numbers.

InterVarsity Press is a Christian publishing company dedicated to serving the university, the church and the world.

One would expect Monty Python's Graham Chapman to burst into the meetings at the DI in military officer's garb saying, "Alright, what's all this then? Stop, that, stop it! This has all gone very silly - much too silly indeed. Put that away. Move along now and turn that camera off..."

"Thus, this is the silliest thing I have read this week."

Alas, the week is not over. You need to go over to Evolution News and Views and read how Darwin hates women.

That's the stupidest thing I've read in months.

Thank you. After reading that passage, I am now dumber, and my brain feels like it is beginning to curdle. I had a hard day -- got three abstracts submitted. Now instead of relaxing and reading about ACC basketball tonight with a couple of beers, I will have to read something requiring thought to re-tune my synapses.

Like the fairy tale sisters, "each more beautiful than the others," the series of articles currently posted is each more neuron-curdlingly moronic than the next...

(Puts neurons through rinse cycle, heavy on the bleach)

I guess D.James Kennedy will have to host another circus to include this item. If I change my diet to Cap'n Crunch washed down by gallons of beer three times a day, how long will it be before I can write like those guys?

If that's the silliest thing you've read all week, then you haven't read Casey Luskin's most recent excrement. Casey, as you recall, is the Jonathan Witt chair of Science advisor to the Disco Institute. That and two bucks will get you a Grande Coffee of the Day at Starbucks in Seattle.

Re "[...] "species" are not absolute, [...] he undermined counting and mathematics."

Darwin undermined mathematics! Tsk! He should be ashamed of himself. Wasn't formal mathematics undergoing its own paradigm shift around that same time (introduction of transfinite set theory)? and Darwin tried to mess that up?

Re "but is still fighting the evil materialists about atomism as well"

So the 116 elements on the periodic table are just materialistic propaganda too? Who'da thunked it.

Re "And real numbers are for some reason more divorced from reality than whole numbers?"

Well, keep in mind that most real number are irrational, after all. ;) (Even the ones that are also transcendental!)
(And let's not get into the imaginary number system...)

Henry

To clarify, Wiker does not really deny atomic theory (the scientific assembly of the periodic table of the elements is one of the major examples used in the book), but he does seem to always be engaging in a running argument with atomism (which has metaphysical as well as physical versions historically) in some form or other. I think this part of his thesis that evolution ("Darwinism") is derived from Epicurus, which is unconvincingly argued in his previous book Moral Darwinism.

As a math teacher, I am most distressed to learn that Darwin was attacking mathematics as well as God and the Bible and stuff like that. How dare you, Chuck! I've always been devoted to the natural foundation of counting and it's so very clever of Wiker and Witt to discover after all these decades that "Darwinism" sabotages that foundation.

This is good stuff, clearly breaking the parody barrier. Could someone please refer Wiker and Witt to a competent brain care specialist?

well, we do count using the 10 base system which was probably derived from counting the fingers on our hands. Now Darwin showed that the human species and any species with ten digits is just a temporary form (much like a shifting cloud,which is 99 percent watermelon BTW) So our ten based system is not real, and counting should be thrown out the window.

We should append this to the creationist claims FAQ, I'm not sure what number it would be. I stopped counting ages ago.

Just because I can - let it be noted that Darwin did *not* say that species were not real. Agassiz tried that one on him, and Darwin responded to Gray I am surprised that Agassiz did not succeed in writing something better. How absurd that logical quibble "if species do not exist how can they vary"? As if anyone doubted their temporary existence?

What Darwin did deny as real, and what he attached the convenience tag to, was the *rank* of species. The difference between variety and species was arbitrary. But the things themselves, the taxa, were real enough, albeit temporary. Posted by: John Wilkins | September 15, 2006 10:14 PM

If that's the silliest thing you've read all week, then you haven't read Casey Luskin's most recent excrement. Casey, as you recall, is the Jonathan Witt chair of Science advisor to the Disco Institute. That and two bucks will get you a Grande Coffee of the Day at Starbucks in Seattle.

Alas, the week is not over. You need to go over to Evolution News and Views and read how Darwin hates women.

— Joe McFaul

For Darwin, it was a mistaken view of genetics which lead him to claim in The Descent of Man that "the characters thus gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring." It's an interesting story, but one without any scientific credence. Darwin never understood how genetic traits are inherited. We still don't understand fully, but we do know that children receive genetic traits from both parents, refuting any sexual selection theory that assumes otherwise.

WHAT???????

OK, that's just bizarre. You might as well blame married couples for occasionally turning two people into three or more by having kids.

I'd say this one definitely needs to go into the Index of Creationist Claims. Has the T.O. archive been made aware of this? It's so rare to see an actual new argument from these people.

"And let's not get into the imaginary number system ..."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Kansas School Board want to delete any mention of pi in schools because it is an imaginary number?

"Alright, what's all this then? Stop, that, stop it! This has all gone very silly - much too silly indeed. Put that away. Move along now and turn that camera off..."

We still don't understand fully, but we do know that children receive genetic traits from both parents, refuting any sexual selection theory that assumes otherwise.

W&W may want to check out some very early theories of atomism in http://tinyurl.com/kfjnq - more for the pot out here. Nick say that you are writing about this silliness only because it is the weekend? Right?

Anton Mates, quoting Anika Smith: "We still don't understand fully, but we do know that children receive genetic traits from both parents, refuting any sexual selection theory that assumes otherwise."

Incidentally, does anyone else suspect that the DI is working on the basis that the more rationality they discard the more they can wrong-foot us? It's like trying to argue with Hovind - you can't plan ahead because there's no way to come up with ideas as bizarre as his.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Kansas School Board want to delete any mention of pi in schools because it is an imaginary number?

So is that what a couple of monkeys typing at random came up with?

Golly? Undercuts "counting"?

Now, that is some heavy stuff dude.

Perhaps they should call themselves Cheech and Chong.

I see that the Wiker & Witt book has ***** 5 stars out of five from readers on amazon.com.

1. Pi is not an imaginary number; it is a real (transcendental) number.

Anton Mates said: "However, she achieves world-champion silliness when she tries to refute Darwin's argument that male braininess is due to sexual selection. You'd think the easiest way to do this would be to point out that women aren't on average mentally inferior to men, so far as modern psychology can determine. But no, that would be far too easy. Instead, Smith chooses to deny the existence of sex-linked traits:"

Well, this is picking nits a bit, but it merits pointing out that the vast majority of sex-linked traits appear in *both* genders, not exclusively in males. X-linked recessive traits appear much more frequently in males, but that's a statistical phenomenon, not a cased of gender exclusivity. Only the very, very few Y-linked traits are exclusive to males.

However, of course, there *are* sex-limited traits, which express in only one gender, and sex-influenced traits which express differently in males than in females. Those she's clearly denying ;^) But most of these traits are, genetically speaking, autosomal, not sex linked.

Lynn

2. There was an April Fool's joke about legislating the value of pi to 3 some years ago that far too many people actually believed.

— Robert O'Brien

about pi: according to Petr Beckmann (History of Pi) it was in Indiana. It did pass the lower house. A Purdue prof who came to see Purdue's budget get funded heard about the pi legislation & helped got it stopped in the state senate. The promised payoff for Indiana was that the author promised to let their schools use the new value forever without paying him the royalties that schools in other states would have to pay.

While looking at the ratings on amazon.com, I also see that that Wells' Promiscuously Incorrect Guide (see http://tonywhitson.edublogs.org/2006/09/15/promicuously-incorrect/) has 3 stars out of five, based on 32 customer reviews. I think it gets 4 stars from 3 reviewers, with all other reviewers giving it either 5 or 1 (I don't think there's a zero option).

It is imaginary if P is real. :-)

"Alas, the week is not over. You need to go over to Evolution News and Views and read how Darwin hates women.

That's the stupidest thing I've read in months."

Trying to make fundamentalism look like real bona-fide book lernin always results in something ridiculous. Just stick with the tent revivals... at least they have a charming local color aspect.

Posted by Corkscrew on September 16, 2006 09:19 AM (e) .... Yeah, since women and men both have X and Y chromosomes, of course there can't really be any diff.

I am pretty sure Corkscrew was being sarcastic.

Anyway my understanding was that almost all important sex-linked traits are in fact genetically present in both genders, but those genes have coded themselves to activate or not activate or do different things dependending on what hormones are present. I was under the impression that the genes on the gimpy Y chromosome don't do much except produce lots of testosterone so that the other genes know it's time to be male.

that undercuts the natural foundation of counting

I am pretty sure Corkscrew was being sarcastic.

We still don't understand fully, but we do know that children receive genetic traits from both parents, refuting any sexual selection theory that assumes otherwise.

Of course, the larger point, that We still don't understand fully, but we do know that children receive genetic traits from both parents, refuting any sexual selection theory that assumes otherwise.

These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,- that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection, that is, from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty,*(2) and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. Thus, man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise, it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.

The very same character, such as deficient or super-numerary digits, colour-blindness, &c., may with mankind be inherited by the males alone of one family, and in another family by the females alone, though in both cases transmitted through the opposite as well as through the same sex.*

What the? What is the argument to that conclusion?

Nick (Matzke): There are some sort of evolutionary views in Epicurus, but Empedocles actually postulated a version of evolution by natural selcection in c.450 BCE. Problem was he had next to no positive evidence in its favour.

"Undercuts the natural foundation of counting"?!?!?!?!?!?!

Wowza.

Head. Still. Reeling. From. Reading. Extreme. Stupidity... Must. Consume. Alcohol.

Are we certain that that that article isn't some kind of mad lib?

I wonder if Darwin is also responsible for that Biblical passage by Paul forbidding women to speak in church.

After 2 beers in the hotel bar here outside Baltimore, in a very public lobby terminal, I've got a number of people looking at me funny 'cause of how loudly I had to laugh at the "natural foundation of counting" bit.

Tut, tut, Lenny, an old seminary salt like yourself should know, Darwin didn't tell women to hush up. Darwin contributed, for example, in David's response to Saul: "You are pursuing a dead dog; a flea."

Hey Heywood, you are, uh, blithering again.

The universe is certainly mathematical as Galileo and indeed just about every respected man of science understood. Sure, Newton and whoever-it-was had to dig up calculus to meet the advancing technology of their time; Einstein, Stephen Hawking or whatever-his-name-is went close to reducing eveything to numbers (with the notable exception of gravity, for reasons we shall not here pursue): the simple facts are, DNA probably is re-programmable by quantum "computer". The ultimate mathematical base of all physical things, organic and inorganic, is a foundational principle of Science. The mathematics of quantum computation, needless to say, will be a true quantum leap beyond calculus or any of these other more simple sorceries and incantations. However anyone can understand them, beats me.
At WWW.CREATIONTHEORY.COM we have now posted a "playing with blocks" setup to try to more easily enable students to comprehend genetics/heredity. The basis of species origin is heavily involved with mathematical concepts. I don't know how some of the comments on this page align with Mendel's discoveries, but critical evaluation of the Genetics Lesson in the Education Segment at CREATIONTHEORY.COM would be appreciated. You get to play with blocks! Darwin must have had something in common with Mendel, because he wrote a book titled 'ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES .... ", implying that species exist, over against being ephemeral.
As Kelvin implied - get it down to numbers, and controversy ceases.

...part of a larger materialist and reductionist program that undercuts the natural foundation of counting and distorts the natural origin of mathematics. ...burn away the original ties that bound the meaning of mathematics to the world and instead leave it stranded on a solipsistic island of the human imagination.

To state it somewhat whimsically but quite accurately, the ability to count depends on the existence of sheep, that is, the existence of individuals belonging to obvious, natural kinds or species. The interesting thing is that humans abstract from the variations that occur among individual sheep and concentrate on each sheep as a representative of what is common to the species. From this commonness rooted in the species, we abstract the notion of unity: one sheep, or if we might bend grammar to make a point, one of sheep, one of this kind of thing we call sheep. And so, in all such instances, the reality of the counting depends on the reality of the species. From this, we note that in learning mathematics, humans naturally go against the grain of Darwin's argument. Strange though it may seem to neo-Darwinists, Darwin's assumption that the terms species and variety are merely given for convenience's sake is part of a larger materialist and reductionist program that undercuts the natural foundation of counting and distorts the natural origin of mathematics. To put it more bluntly, in assuming that "species" are not real, Darwinism and the larger reductionist program burn away the original ties that bound the meaning of mathematics to the world and instead leave it stranded on a solipsistic island of the human imagination. (Wiker and Witt, 2006, A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature, Intervarsity Press, Downer's Grove, IL, pp. 236-237.)

We still don't understand fully, but we do know that children receive genetic traits from both parents, refuting any sexual selection theory that assumes otherwise.

Those who accept the message of the book are possibly eager to accept also a view that theory of relativity etc are foolness and spoil simply easy mathematics..
(I've seen believers to fight against quantum mechanics and einsteinien theories because they are against common sense).

I attempted mathematics, and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra. This impatience was very foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics; for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense.

— Charles Darwin

Why, if it isn't Duncan Harris, one of the people who is trying to suppress Peezee's "unspectacular" publication record from his wikipedia article. What a surprise!

I am reminded of the scene in Cryptonomicon where Turing and Von Hackelheber explain to Waterhouse that mathematics has nothing to do with counting bottlecaps, but that this doesn't make mathematics useless, as others might contend. It is my understanding that divorcing mathematics from counting has actually led to miraculous advances in the usefulness of mathematics, so if darwin is repsonsible for this as well as formalizing evolution, wouldn't that make him not just a great scientist and thinker, but also a great mathematician?

Wow! Just Wow!

Counting and mathamhamatics? Gee, Mission Accomplished!

Does the solipsistic island of the human imagination have a resort?

From this commonness rooted in the species, we abstract the notion of unity: one sheep, or if we might bend grammar to make a point, one of sheep, one of this kind of thing we call sheep. And so, in all such instances, the reality of the counting depends on the reality of the species.

Nick: I don't think they are thinking of any weird math. ...The only way this makes any sense at all is if the authors are special creationists who think that "real" species = the unevolvable "kinds" of Genesis, and the thought of evolution causes them so much psychic discomfort they have generalized angst against anything that is not strictly typological.

You might be thinking of Jay Richards's embarrassing crusade against einstein. It appears the post by Richards has been disappeared, but here are some commentaries on it:

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/04/richards-on-relativity_05.html
http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_preposterousuniverse_archive.html#111267441192632973
http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/04/richards-revisits-relativity.html

There's a comment I've trying to make here since yesterday, related to Russell and Whitehead and the idea of founding the ideas of counting, addition, multiplication, "successor to one" etc by defining them as operations on classes and sets, and how this paradigm relates to the question of "species" as an objective entity versus a subjective human classification.

But every time I try I just start laughing too hard to finish.

Pretty clear what "creation" means there, I would say.

It makes prefect sense. The reason while modern biology and all other sciences make mathatical sence and Id doesn't is because evolution perverted the mathatical system. If humans were counting today as God had orginally intended, evolution wouldn't make mathatical sense and ID would. I just don't understand how you evilutionist can't see that. 1,2,3,7,4,8,4,2,7.......

(P.S. My spelling is the correct. Evolution has pervert English and letters too.)

There's a comment I've trying to make here since yesterday, related to Russell and Whitehead and the idea of founding the ideas of counting, addition, multiplication, "successor to one" etc by defining them as operations on classes and sets, and how this paradigm relates to the question of "species" as an objective entity versus a subjective human classification.

(P.S. My spelling is the correct. Evolution has pervert English and letters too.)

However anyone can understand them, beats me.

There was an April Fool's joke about legislating the value of pi to 3 some years ago that far too many people actually believed.

Ahem. You mean to tell me that in a blog dominated by biologists, the first person to note that in fact women only have X chromosomes is a geologist?

well, we do count using the 10 base system which was probably derived from counting the fingers on our hands.

There's an April Fool's joke that O'Brien once got something right.

It seems that Wiker and Witt have confused Darwin with Peano. Of course, if this is pointed out to them, they would simply blame Peano on Darwin, without any evidence that he was influenced by him.

— Popper's Ghost

Is there no end to the inanity spewing from the Discovery Institute? How can
one possibly decide who is most inane, vacuous, and plumped up with self importance among
that group of intellectual cripples.

I'm trying to decide if the looniest is Casey Luskin or Anika Smith. Both exhibit
many of the symptoms of being in possession of pneumatic brains.

"You've forgotten the 2nd law of sarcodynamics: Responding to P with "Yeah, Q." where Q is implied by P but is obviously false is meant to point out the absurdity of P."

I'm a little slow, but OK, I get it ;-}

Peano arithmetic is a tautology!

I'm sitting here trying to count the fingers on my right hand, and I can't come up to a conclusive result. 5.26? 4.73?
Damn you, Charles Darwin, for burning away the original ties that bound the meaning of mathematics to the world!

I'm sitting here trying to count the fingers on my right hand, and I can't come up to a conclusive result. 5.26? 4.73?
Curse you, Charles Darwin, for burning away the original ties that bound the meaning of mathematics to the world!

Quote from a silly brain dead writer;
Darwin never understood how genetic traits are inherited. We still don't understand fully, but we do know that children receive genetic traits from both parents, refuting any sexual selection theory that assumes otherwise.
Firstly, of course Darwin never understood how genetic traits are inherited, it wasn't until Mendell that people began to simple conceive to the idea of the "units of inheritance" as real physical transmissible entities rather than some "ethereal" elixir. Please God stop me!!!!!!!!!
Second, of course there is no sexual selection theory involved since children receive traits from both parents.... WTF?????? What on the name of all that is good and gracious in this universe is that b---h talking about???????
Brain needs to reset........ low on neural capacity...... mental shot down in 3,2,1.....................

Lars Karlsson - you shouldn't have hit Post 3.52 times.

Aaagh! It's happening to me too...

*whimper*

Bob

It's pretty silly.

Reminds me when the children were very very small we'd tease them by counting their fingers; this hand 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 plus 5 on that hand = 11. Or tapping each finger lightly and counting slightly out of synch. 1, 2, 3 4! or 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6!

No no they'd scream that's wrong you are being SILLY

Anton Mates said: "However, she achieves world-champion silliness when she tries to refute Darwin's argument that male braininess is due to sexual selection. You'd think the easiest way to do this would be to point out that women aren't on average mentally inferior to men, so far as modern psychology can determine. But no, that would be far too easy. Instead, Smith chooses to deny the existence of sex-linked traits:" Well, this is picking nits a bit, but it merits pointing out that the vast majority of sex-linked traits appear in *both* genders, not exclusively in males. X-linked recessive traits appear much more frequently in males, but that's a statistical phenomenon, not a cased of gender exclusivity. Only the very, very few Y-linked traits are exclusive to males. However, of course, there *are* sex-limited traits, which express in only one gender, and sex-influenced traits which express differently in males than in females. Those she's clearly denying ;^) But most of these traits are, genetically speaking, autosomal, not sex linked.

— Lynn

Here, I'm going to just go ahead and grab the in-context quote from the Descent of Man:

These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,- that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection, that is, from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty,*(2) and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. Thus, man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise, it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.

— Coin

One can instantly see here, of course, 19th century thinking based on naught but prejudice. (One finds such thinking throughout The Descent of Man; I've not read most of the book, but I do note that Darwin's introduction explicitly states that he did very little or no original research in that book, but rather was trying to re-interpret existing human biology and anthropology within the framework of the theory of evolution. One should thus hardly expect the facts of human biology and anthropology in this book to be any more accurate than the state of the art for the time, which in the 19th century was not in a good shape).

@ Popper's ghost

I am really curious to know if you are related to ts and Morbius. Your wit and lightness of touch seem so similar.

Here's, I think, the silliest thing I've ever read. Get ready.

"There's a lot of questions right now that I can't answer. What holds the clouds up? If we throw a whole bucket of water in the air, the whole bucket is going to come right back down, but when it rains, all these little raindrops fall," Wilbanks said. "There are still many unanswered things out there. Cell differentiation in human reproduction is something we don't understand. Back when we are just a small cluster of cells, how do some of our cells know to become blood, brains, muscles, bones or something else. We don't have an answer for that."

Who's this Wilbanks? Oh, sorry. He's "Professor Billy Wilbanks, chair of the Science Department at Jacksonville College". That's a Baptist college. And of course, Pr. Wilbanks is anti-evolution and teaches the 6 days creation.

Apparently he's just as knowledgeable about meteorology as he is about biology.

In "The Jacksonville Progress":
http://www.jacksonvilleprogress.com/religion/local_story_258154638.html?keyword=topstory

"There's a lot of questions right now that I can't answer. What holds the clouds up? If we throw a whole bucket of water in the air, the whole bucket is going to come right back down, but when it rains, all these little raindrops fall," Wilbanks said.

— Christophe Thill

Who's this Wilbanks? Oh, sorry. He's "Professor Billy Wilbanks, chair of the Science Department at Jacksonville College". That's a Baptist college. And of course, Pr. Wilbanks is anti-evolution and teaches the 6 days creation.

Professor Billy Wilbanks, chair of the Science Department at Jacksonville College

Don't be too certain about Jax, FL. It's a very politically conservative city, and the major newspaper once ran a point-counterpoint on whether creationism should be taught in schools. I wrote a strongly worded rebuttal to the creationist viewpoint, which didn't run until I complained to the editor (after several pro-creationist but no pro-evolution letters appeared).

Having said that, it is pretty horrifying that a "college professor" would be that deluded, and also be willing to delude others with such childish arguments. Makes one wonder if the school is accredited (actually, I'm pretty sure of the answer).

By the way, to head off any complaints that political conservatism is not necessarily tied to creationism, I realize that, but also acknowledge that the two do often coexist in the same individual far more often than political liberalism and creationism.

Here's an interesting post from David Heddle:
http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/09/color-me-id-cynical.html

check out Salvador's comment. Priceless.

"... and instead leave it stranded on a solipsistic island of the human imagination."

Huh?

I recently came across a postmodernism generator on the internet. You strike a key and out comes reams and reams of postmodern twaddle.

An ID/creationism generator would be a great addition to this site. The only foreseeable problem is that much of the bumf might find its way into the publications of the ID/creationist brigade.

Re "The only foreseeable problem is that much of the bumf might find its way into the publications of the ID/creationist brigade."

Are you sure it hasn't already?

(Did I say that?)

Everyone should read David Heddle's post and the comments. Great link, Nick.

Everyone should read David Heddle's post