A Blood Libel on Our Civilization

The irony of this is mind-boggling.

Maybe this movie is actually an example of Voltaire's prayer?

I think this willful act of deception has corrupted creationism irredeemably.

I think this willful act of deception has corrupted creationism irredeemably.

Ok, there's a bug in this new commenting system. I posted a comment and saw it merged into the same box as Stanton's comment. When I left and came back, my comment was gone. I added it again, and then saw it merged again with Stanton's comment, along with my other one. When I left and came back, both my comments were gone, although the number of comments says "3".

Nevermind, they're all back again. (Sorry for the pollution.)

Derbyshire's piece is well-reasoned, clearly written, and it properly excoriates the frauds and poseurs who roam the halls of the Discovery Institute.

I just emailed the John Derbyshire the Youtube video "Why do People Hate Creationists p 24" the one where Stein says that "science leads to killing people".

Can't wait for more conservatives to rip Stein a new one. His career is over.

Someone should send all of Ben Stein's verbal diarrhea to every cable news outlet's economic and marketplace executive producers so they can see how absurd this man is. He'll never work again.

J

Derbyshire: "My own theory is that the creationists have been morally corrupted by the constant effort of pretending not to be what they are. What they are, as is amply documented, is a pressure group for religious teaching in public schools."

Heh. My own theory is that the creationists have been corrupted by "Darwinism." See how bad it is? Even they are not safe from its evil influence. Stop Teh Darwinism before we are all corrupted.

It's refreshing to see conservatives speak out against Intelligent Design. Derbyshire, Charles Krauthammer, Dinesh D'Souza, and of course John E. Jones III. Despite the influence of the Religious Right, conservatives should appreciate that watering down science threatens America's scientific standing.

http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626 [link goes to Blake Stacey's blog which has a must read essay with documentation of the cases below.] Posting the list of who is really being beaten up, threatened, fired, attempted to be fired, and killed. Not surprisingly, it is scientists and science supporters by Death Cultists. I've discovered that this list really bothers fundies. Truth to them is like a cross to a vampire. If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list. I thought I'd post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution. 2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton) 1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet) 1 persecuted unmercifully for 4 years Van Till (Calvin) 1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist) 1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian) 1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas) 1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas) 1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland) Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists. Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall protection for a while.

Derbyshire: "Our scientific theories are the crowning adornments of our civilization, towering monuments of intellectual effort, built from untold millions of hours of observation, measurement, classification, discussion, and deliberation. This is quite apart from their wonderful utility — from the light, heat, and mobility they give us, the drugs and the gadgets and the media. (A “thank you” wouldn’t go amiss.) Simply as intellectual constructs, our well-established scientific theories are awe-inspiring."

Inspiring words for our children to read and ignite their interests in science.

Thank you John Derbyshire, you rock, man!!!!

Greg Esres said: Ok, there's a bug in this new commenting system. I posted a comment and saw it merged into the same box as Stanton's comment. When I left and came back, my comment was gone. I added it again, and then saw it merged again with Stanton's comment, along with my other one. When I left and came back, both my comments were gone, although the number of comments says "3".

Lying for Jesus, in all that we do,
Ever deceptive, we set forth the true!
This twisty pathway entirely suits me,
Making a world that's completely truth-free!

Pasting URLs between parantheses is a seriously dim practice. That's " http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/l/i/livingfj.htm ".

Reading Derbyshire's review was a great way to end the day. Thanks!

Great analysis by a conservative science fiction writer:

Part one

Part two

While you are patting Mr. Derbyshire on the back, read "Prime Obsession". You'll become knowledgeable about a new subject in a hurry.

How does one become a conservative author while writing math books?

Stein adds himself to that small class of intellectuals (including Tom Bethell and William F. Buckley) who are clueless about the nature of science. Did they perhaps do badly in freshman chemistry?

Perhaps we can find someone clueless in both science and literature to deliver a timeless lecture on "Two Anti-cultures".

An excellent review by John Derbyshire; and done with the kind of bluntness needed.

It has seemed evident to me for a number of years now that the fundamentalist cults in the U.S. have become safe havens for some of the nastiest con men in existence. The nature of fundamentalism seems to attract people who are gullible and dependent on strong personalities, no matter how psychopathic these personalities are. So when charlatans like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and the pack of wolves at the Discovery Institute come along with a line of patter that makes bad religion look “respectable” and “upscale”, pliable rubes line up like sheep.

Perhaps G.W. Bush has at least done us a favor in demonstrating just what a mess this fundamentalist thinking can generate when it gets hold of political power and starts subverting truth to sectarian ideology. The number of blinkering psychotics who have been emboldened to come out of the woodwork during this administration is pretty alarming. And they want to take over society at every level.

Hopefully voters won’t be so complacent in upcoming elections. These fundamentalist IDiots gunning for power are seriously dangerous people. The trolls who show up here on Panda’s Thumb seem to be fairly representative of paranoid mental illness mixed with fundamentalism and pseudo-science, and they seem no longer to have any concept of decent ethical standards.

It’s time for a good house cleaning. These ID/Creationists are not nice people, and they need to be exposed as the sleaze balls they really are. No more courtesy for them; they only take advantage of courtesy to advance their agenda.

According to the novel, doublethink is: The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.[1]

Wonderful.

Creationists will of course dismiss this since Derbyshire admits he has not seen the movie.

Did Krauthammer comment on the movie? Anyone have a link?

ck1,

I don't think Krauthammer has commented on Expelled, but he has commented on ID.

Holy Shit!! Brav-fucking-O!

The "Christian Nation" fraud goes beyond science. They've tinkered with American history too. See the book Liars For Jesus by Chris Rodda.

Amazing... I am slack-jawed at the immensity of the smack-down laid out by Derbyshire.

So much for the critics of ID-creationism being part of a "liberal conspiracy". Give me more conservatives like Derbyshire and Judge Jones any day!

Thwack! Take THAT, Stein! Thwack! :)

And there is science, perhaps the greatest of all our achievements, because nowhere else on earth did it appear. China, India, the Muslim world, all had fine cities and systems of law, architecture and painting, poetry and prose, religion and philosophy. None of them ever accomplished what began in northwest Europe in the later 17th century, though: a scientific revolution

I've finally found some data on how EXPELLED did this last weekend. From the web site Box Office Mojo: Dropped to 13th from 10th the week before, dropped to $1,394,940 (down 53%), with a grand total of $5,297,860. Let's hope that the half-life of this thing turns out to be 1 week.

Nomad said: A decent article, except.. I just cannot excuse the way he tried to label science as a uniquely Western achievement. I beg your conservative pardon? We wouldn't have HAD the scientific revolution if the Muslims hadn't saved the knowledge that the Christian church tried to destroy. You can't even suggest that they just safeguarded it, they built upon it as well. What Europe got was more like "scientific revolution 2.0".

It is no doubt true that for careful, deliberate argument, logical analysis and the cool light of reason one should read good liberal commentators. Nevertheless, when it comes to thunderous, righteous, furious condemnation, root, branch and the horse you rode in on, nothing can match an outraged conservative. Bravo, Derbyshire.

I think this video goes to the essentials.

"When we use "Western Civilization", we mean reason."

Reason vs. Faith, Question 1 of 8 (2min 35sec from Ayn Rand Institute)

I would put it more strongly; religion is the cancer on Western Civilization. It has gained the upper hand before and is trying to do so again. This is why I consider the "Christian Nation" movement to be one of the most dangerous in Western history. It's anti-reason, anti-science, anti-Western Civilization, and un-American.

Reality check... since when is it ok to critique something you haven't even seen?

Willo said: Reality check... since when is it ok to critique something you haven't even seen?

It’s refreshing to see conservatives speak out against Intelligent Design. Derbyshire, Charles Krauthammer, Dinesh D’Souza, and of course John E. Jones III. Despite the influence of the Religious Right, conservatives should appreciate that watering down science threatens America’s scientific standing.

— James F

Willo said: Reality check... since when is it ok to critique something you haven't even seen?

Derbyshire is not writing as a film critic. His topic is the creationist movement, using the film and its well known, unrefuted misrepresentations as a topical case in point.

Always nice to see conservative pundits standing up for science. Or at least, against the exercise in systematic deception that creationism has become.

Incidentally, Derbyshire got into a little cat-fight with idiot savant IDer David Berlinski over at Pajamas Media.

Berlinski's antiscience diatribe

Derbyshire's more civilized response

Ask Mathis. Last thing I heard, he wasn't even aware of the evidence for speciation. That probably means that he is completely ignorant of all of evolutionary science and most of biology. Of course , that didn't stop him from making a full-length (well at least it used to be) "feature film" about it. That is a far cry from discussing a movie that many others have seen and commented on produced by people with an obvious history and agenda.

Anyway, who would want to give money to people who ripped off John Lennon?

I have been reading for many, many years. I must say that this Derbyshire commentary is one of the most powerful and beautiful commentaries that I have ever read. Magnificently done.

Nigel D said:

Willo said: Reality check... since when is it ok to critique something you haven't even seen?

I refer you to a comment I posted in a previous thread:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/look-ma-i-can-q.html#comment-151326 When you've read about 25 or 30 reviews of the movie, you can have a pretty clear idea of its content without needing actually to go and see it.

MattusMaximus said:

Nomad said: A decent article, except.. I just cannot excuse the way he tried to label science as a uniquely Western achievement. I beg your conservative pardon? We wouldn't have HAD the scientific revolution if the Muslims hadn't saved the knowledge that the Christian church tried to destroy. You can't even suggest that they just safeguarded it, they built upon it as well. What Europe got was more like "scientific revolution 2.0".

I would have to disagree with this point. While various civilizations (including the Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans, Arabic/Muslims, early Middle Ages Europe, etc) did make technological contributions of one form or another, including tweaking of various ideas and preservation of knowledge, I would argue that the mode of thought which led to what we call "science" had its roots with the ancient Greeks. The ancient Greek civilization gave rise to natural philosophy, which is as far as I know is something unique to the Greeks. Eventually, natural philosophical speculation led to modern science. If it were not for the lucky occurrence of certain cultural conditions, the enterprise of natural philosophy may have never arisen. There is a great book which goes into this in much more detail called "Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science" by Alan Cromer. From what I have read there in addition to my own extensive studies into the history of science, I would have to say that it all pretty much started with the ancient Greeks - specifically Thales of Miletus. Okay, back on topic now...

MattusMaximus said: Not to mention, just take a look at Expelled's own website and promotional materials and you can get the gist pretty fast. Most of us who have been dealing with creationists for many years have developed the ability to recognize their spin pretty quickly.

Hi all,

I may be among the few "conservatives" posting regularly here at Amazon.com, and certainly the only one I know of who recognizes that contemporary evolutionary theory is valid science while Intelligent Design - and all other flavors of creationism too - is mendacious intellectual pornography. Am absolutely delighted that fellow conservative John Derbyshire had the temerity to refer to "Expelled" as "creationist porn" and then describe just how odious it is as a blatant assault upon the core values of Western Civilization.

I know I have confused alot of Amazon.com IDiots who believe that I am an "atheistic liberal" but nothing can be further from the truth.

Regards,

John

wolfwalker said: Incidentally, Derbyshire got into a little cat-fight with idiot savant IDer David Berlinski over at Pajamas Media.

Hi all,

Just e-mailed this letter to fellow Brunonian David Klinghoffer, one of the Disco Tute's leading mendacious intellectual pornographers:

Dear David,

John Derbyshire, a fellow conservative writing at National Review Online, recognizes that Intelligent Design is "creationist porn". He also recognizes that it is a serious threat to Western Civilization's core values:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=&w=MA

When you wake up from your blissful state of intellectual ignorance and join fellow conservatives like jurist John Jones, biologist Paul Gross (co-author of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design"), and writers Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and now, John Derbyshire, who recognize that Intelligent Design is pathetic religious nonsense attempting to masquerade as valid science and that there is no credible scientific alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory?

You have no solid rational grounds for contending that "Darwinism" "spawned" Nazism. Moreover, Darwin himself would have repudiated such an incredulously inane assertion, especially when his own sentiments more closely resembled Lincoln's than either Hitler's, Lenin's or Stalin's. Nor do you have any rational grounds for supporting the crypto-Fascist agenda espoused by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. If your Brown University degree truly means anything, then I urge you to forsake such foolishness. I urge you to heed Derbyshire's warning that Intelligent Design is indeed a pernicious "blood libel" against Western Civilization.

Ever True,

John Kwok

The Anti-Defamation League has issued a statement about Expelled:

Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.

James F reminded me: the theory of common descent is actually something of a monkey wrench in the idea of the Ubermensch, in that, one of the underlying principles of evolution is that every living thing is ultimately related to every other living thing. Having said this, there is no way an Ubermensch can be an Ubermensch if he realizes that he has Untermensch as relatives, or even worse, is descended from Untermensch

The Anti-Defamation League has issued a statement about Expelled...

Hi all,

Here's another e-mail to my fellow college alumnus David Klinghoffer of the Disco Tute.

Regards,

John

Dear David,

The Anti-Defamation League issued a terse press release today condemning the equation of "Darwinism" with Nazism in "Expelled". How can you call yourself a religious Jew and still believe in such Fundamentalist Protestant Christian nonsense like Intelligent Design or belong to a Fundamentalist Protestant Christian organization like the Discovery Institute?

Here's the press release:

http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm

When will you wake up from your blissful state of intellectual ignorance and act like a fellow intelligent Brunonian?

Ever True,

John

The Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution is dedicated to publishing high quality original research and review papers that advance our knowledge and understanding of the function, diversity, abundance, distribution, and evolution of organisms at all levels of biological organization as they interact with their biotic and abiotic environments. (Click to read our mission statement.) Editors-in-Chief Blaustein, Leon University of Haifa, Israel Kotler, Burt P. Ben-Gurion University, Israel

PS: Ben Stein’s latest rant: Science is evil because it kills people.

— raven

EVERYONE BE SURE TO TUNE IN TO CFRA.COM RIGHT NOW! Mark Mathis is on the air, and the lines are open if you want to speak with him live over the radio. Call toll free: 1-800-580-CFRA (2372).

Raven wrote:

"Ben Stein’s latest rant: Science is evil because it kills people."

That doesn't even make any sense. How can a method kill anyone? A method is not a person. A method doesn't make any moral choices. A method can't even perform any actions. You might as well claim that statistics kill people, or that logic kills people. Yea that's it, let's do away with logic because it could kill someone! And water, yea, that could kill someone, let's get rid of water, great idea.

And no, guns don't kill people either. In general, it's bullets kill people. Forget gun control, bullet control would be much more effective.

Anyway, if killing people is the criteria, I guess the first thing we should do away with is religion. In fact, that would make much more sense than doing away with science. Sure you want to go there Ben? Science might make it possible to kill people more efficiently, but religion seems to make people want to kill other people. So I guess science isn't the real problem after all.

Raven wrote:

"Ben Stein’s latest rant: Science is evil because it kills people."

That doesn't even make any sense. How can a method kill anyone? A method is not a person. A method doesn't make any moral choices. A method can't even perform any actions. You might as well claim that statistics kill people, or that logic kills people. Yea that's it, let's do away with logic because it could kill someone! And water, yea, that could kill someone, let's get rid of water, great idea.

And no, guns don't kill people either. In general, it's bullets kill people. Forget gun control, bullet control would be much more effective.

Anyway, if killing people is the criteria, I guess the first thing we should do away with is religion. In fact, that would make much more sense than doing away with science. Sure you want to go there Ben? Science might make it possible to kill people more efficiently, but religion seems to make people want to kill other people. So I guess science isn't the real problem after all.

And no, guns don’t kill people either. In general, it’s bullets that kill people.

So its ok to critique something without seeing it based on other reviews. I disagree I want to know exactly why I hate something rather than just being told to hate it by somebody else!

Be interesting to know how many people here agree and have actually taken the time to see Stein's offering, for the purpose of recognising for themselves the movie's flaws so they can have an informed discussion on the problems with it. Anyone, anyone??

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/science_leads_to_killing_peopl.php#comments

Yes, Ben Stein really said in an interview that science is evil because it kills people.

He has definitely moved to the lunatic fringes now.

The link goes to PZ's blog (hopefully), which has a link to the Stein interview on...TBN, Trinity Broadcasting Network.

At least Stein got one thing right. Creationism is not compatible with evolutionary biology. It also is not compatible with geology, astronomy, paleontology, history, archaeology, or physics at the least. To be consistent, one has to throw all the other sciences and history under the bus as well.

Willo said: So its ok to critique something without seeing it based on other reviews. I disagree I want to know exactly why I hate something rather than just being told to hate it by somebody else! Be interesting to know how many people here agree and have actually taken the time to see Stein's offering, for the purpose of recognising for themselves the movie's flaws so they can have an informed discussion on the problems with it. Anyone, anyone??

raven said: To be consistent, one has to throw all the other sciences and history under the bus as well.

Blood libel From Wikipedia, Blood libels are sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim that the blood of victims is used in various rituals and/or acts of cannibalism. The alleged victims are often children. Some of the best documented cases of blood libel focus upon accusations against Jews, but many other groups have been accused throughout history, including Christians, Cathars, Carthaginians, Knights Templar, witches, Wiccans, Christian heretics, Roma, Druids, neopagans, Native Americans, atheists, communists, and satanists.

Frank J said:

PS: Ben Stein’s latest rant: Science is evil because it kills people.

— raven

There's no end to the irony at the depths of radical authoritarianism, where far left meets far right. One side would ban guns, and the other side would ban the science that gives us guns in the first place.

And no, guns don’t kill people either. In general, it’s bullets kill people. Forget gun control, bullet control would be much more effective.

— David Stanton

raven said: I had to look up blood libel to see what it was. Seems to have gone out of fashion as a rumor or claim these days, like accusing someone of witchcraft.

Willo said: So its ok to critique something without seeing it based on other reviews. I disagree I want to know exactly why I hate something rather than just being told to hate it by somebody else!

James F said: The Anti-Defamation League has issued a statement about Expelled

Besides, you tell me which cinemas are showing it in the UK...?

MelM said: Thinking "It's all about religion!" and "It's not about religion; it's science!"--and being committed to both. From Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four":

According to the novel, doublethink is: The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.[1]

"The “intelligent design” hoax is not merely non-science, nor even merely anti-science; it is anti-civilization."

Excellent!

""My own theory is that the creationists have been morally corrupted by the constant effort of pretending not to be what they are. What they are, as is amply documented, is a pressure group for religious teaching in public schools""

OK so you think 'creationsts' are evil, lying, coniving, etc.

But exactly who are these 'creationists' you speak of? A core of 10 people? 1000? 10,000??

Is everyone who believes the earth is 6000 years old a creationist? Is everyone who believes in God a 'creationist'? Can you define who you are talking about?

Bobby said: ""My own theory is that the creationists have been morally corrupted by the constant effort of pretending not to be what they are. What they are, as is amply documented, is a pressure group for religious teaching in public schools"" [...] Can you define who you are talking about?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Bobby said: ""My own theory is that the creationists have been morally corrupted by the constant effort of pretending not to be what they are. What they are, as is amply documented, is a pressure group for religious teaching in public schools"" [...] Can you define who you are talking about?

Can you define who you are talking to? You are quoting Derbyshire, who can't be counted on responding here. Derbyshire seems to be referring to the usual suspects, fundamentalist creationists outdefining themselves in diverse creationist cults. Those cults typically is organized around a core of propagandists, which doesn't need to be large. The followers can be a substantially larger group. In other contexts a creationist is anyone who believes in a creator for observed natural phenomena, be it species, life, Earth, the universe or natural laws.

And no, guns don’t kill people either. In general, it’s bullets that kill people.

No, bullets don’t kill people. Massive tissue damage and blood loss kill people.

Thanks to all who responded to my bullet comment.

Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to make. You cannot reasonably blame a method or a way of thinking or an instrument for a murder. The only one to blame is the person who makes the moral choice. That is after all who the legal system chooses to punish. Stein's argument is ridiculous. He doesn't even have basic logic on his side.

And even if "darwinism" could somehow develop limbs and shoot somebody, it could still only be tried for the crime. Even if guilty of murder, evolution would still be true and that is Stein's real problem, he just can't stand it that he is dead wrong and all of the evidence is against him.

Of course, anyone stupid enough to be taken in by a movie about scientific evidence being suppressed that has no scientific evidence in it, or anyone stupid enough to be taken in by the not being fired is persecution argument, or anyone stupid enough to be taken in by the Darwin caused Hitler argument, will probably also fall for this feeble attempt at reasoning as well.

Expelled: For Lying and Stealing (just as you should be)

Forgive me for not reading through and responding to the comments. I've been too busy having heart failure. I can't believe I just read such a beautiful expression of the value of science and such a scathing takedown of Expelled in the National Review. Amazing.

Expelled is a rancid, wretched bit of propaganda, but one thing that's good: it's starting some very amazing dialogues indeed.

Bobby, you might be interested in the Clergy Letter Project.
The dishonest doublethinkers are the creationists who keep trying to get creationism into school science by denying that it is really a religious program.

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. [PZ] Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed. Stein (speaking about the Holocaust): ...that was horrifying beyond words, and that's where science -- in my opinion, this is just an opinion -- that's where science leads you. Crouch: That's right. Stein: ... Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people. Crouch: Good word, good word.

bobby said: So if someone believes in God they are a liar ignorant and deceptive?

Dana Hunter said: Forgive me for not reading through and responding to the comments. I've been too busy having heart failure. I can't believe I just read such a beautiful expression of the value of science and such a scathing takedown of Expelled in the National Review. Amazing. Expelled is a rancid, wretched bit of propaganda, but one thing that's good: it's starting some very amazing dialogues indeed.

Stanton said:

bobby said: So if someone believes in God they are a liar ignorant and deceptive?

Absolutely not. If you were ever paying attention here, a person is an ignorant, deceptive liar if they use their faith in God to lie, deceive and spread ignorance.

Stein: … Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

So Mr. Stein, you used science to make your twisted little lie of a movie. That makes you a hypocrite and by your own logic a murderer. So now are you going to renounce all science and all technology or not? Are going to stroll around naked eating grubs and berries, or are you going to continue to rely on the same science that you attempt to vilify in order to feed you and keep you alive?

Our society has already decided that science worth the cost, if you disagree, you are free to remove yourself from society.

And by the way, if the last time you listened to a scientist was in the 1940's then how dare you presume to judge the state of modern science today. You are a very sad man with a very small God. Repent, and maybe God will forgive you. Others might not be so kind.

OK so you think ‘creationsts’ are evil, lying, coniving, etc. But exactly who are these ‘creationists’ you speak of? A core of 10 people? 1000? 10,000?? Is everyone who believes the earth is 6000 years old a creationist? Is everyone who believes in God a ‘creationist’? Can you define who you are talking about?

— Bobby

bobby is in a sense perfectly right to ask for a definition of what is meant by the term "creationist".

The answer is a little difficult, and I do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself. Perhaps some of my fellow commenters would care to discuss, expand and polish the definition I offer:

In the strict sense, a creationist would be any person who believes that God is the Creator of the Universe and all that is within it. It would follow that this would include people who hold that while God is present and active in all places and at all times, it is not incumbent upon Him to separately create anything in the Universe (including any living being, or class of beings), because He has designed and set in motion all that there is, including the physical laws that govern all things. This view of creation does not preclude - indeed it specifically includes - the evolution of living things, for it holds that God designed that process perfectly to fulfill His purposes.

But in most cases, those who call themselves "creationists" do not accept that view. They insist that God separately created living things, each according to its kind, specifically as described in the Book of Genesis. That is, they insist on separate creation of the species, and hold that no species can 'evolve' in the sense of any individual becoming another 'kind' (whatever they mean by that term), no matter how much time or how many generations may elapse. Further, many of them also insist that Genesis literally describes events that happened in the comparatively recent past - six to eight thousand years ago. These are "young Earth creationists." They are also "Biblical literalists", those who hold that the Scriptures are not only authoritative (which is the largest claim the Bible itself makes), but are the literal truth.

This view naturally precludes the theory of evolution. It is also palpably false to fact, and can only now be held by people guilty of invincible ignorance. To hold to this invincible ignorance, they reject the painfully acquired knowledge of science and insist that this is worthless, mistaken or fraudulent. That is, they refuse the gifts of reason and intellect, insisting that God must be reduced to their understanding and compass. This is, of course, nothing more than an attempt to limit the Almighty, and is therefore blasphemous and heretical.

David Stanton said: Stein: … Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people. So Mr. Stein, you used science to make your twisted little lie of a movie. That makes you a hypocrite and by your own logic a murderer. So now are you going to renounce all science and all technology or not? Are going to stroll around naked eating grubs and berries, or are you going to continue to rely on the same science that you attempt to vilify in order to feed you and keep you alive? Our society has already decided that science worth the cost, if you disagree, you are free to remove yourself from society. And by the way, if the last time you listened to a scientist was in the 1940's then how dare you presume to judge the state of modern science today. You are a very sad man with a very small God. Repent, and maybe God will forgive you. Others might not be so kind.

I missed this one. A reviewer for a mainstream Baptist organization pans Expelled:

http://www.baptists4ethics.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=10385

Creationism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution. Such beliefs include young Earth creationism, which takes Book of Genesis literally, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth. Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth.[2] Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgements.[3] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.[2] When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] or its methodology.[6] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[7] The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.[8][9][10][11]

Creationist are those who reject large portions of science for sectarian reasons. This is not to say they admit it. Hence Derbyshire's essay.

bobby said: So if someone believes in God they are a liar ignorant and deceptive?

bobby said: So if someone believes in God they are a liar ignorant and deceptive?

Frank J said: Continuing from my long-running complaint on another thread.. It's the anti-evolution activists who make biology a religion and concoct "Darwinism" strawmen to make up for the fact that they don't have a scientific theory of their own.

Someone ask if creationism is a political loser. I think so, if what happened after Kitsmiller is any indication. The former members of the school board were turned out en masse and an entire new board elected. I think something similar happened in Kansas also. So its not just liberal Democrats that are disgusted with the creationists, apparently a lot of Republican voters are also.

And it is creationists that makes basic biology a religion, both in the form of “creationism” and in the form of “Darwinism”, neither of which is sciences nor have anything to do with evolutionary biology as scientists knows it.

I noticed the other day that the yahoos at Uncommon Descent had a (predictable) reaction to Derbyshire's piece, which is very good.

They labeled it a 'movie review' and then took him to task for reviewing the movie without ever seeing the movie.

Jebus Josef and Mary!!!

There is just no better evidence than this reaction to prove that those people just don't get it.

They have an organic sensor defect....a missing part, an unworking mechanism..something in the specific design and creation of each one of those individuals is just not there.

They labeled it a ‘movie review’ and then took him to task for reviewing the movie without ever seeing the movie.

— Torbjörn Larsson, OM

A clarification: it wasn't me who wrote that, it was me.

me said: They have an organic sensor defect....a missing part, an unworking mechanism..something in the specific design and creation of each one of those individuals is just not there.

A clarification: it wasn’t me who wrote that, it was me.

— Torbjörn Larsson, OM

Nigel D said:

bobby said: So if someone believes in God they are a liar ignorant and deceptive?

Bobby, your reply to Torbjorn is disingenuous and misleading. You do not have to be a creationist to believe in God. In my understanding, a creationist is someone who insists on accepting only one interpretation of scripture, despite evidence that it is wrong. Examples of such evidence-supported issues include the age of the Earth (it is roughly 4.5 billion years old) and the individual creation of "kinds" of creatures (in fact, common descent has been proven beyond reasonable doubt).

I was not being ‘disingenuous’ Please stop the insults. OK now according to your definition a creationist must believe in a young earth. Then by your definition many if not most IDers are not creationist and ID is not Creattionism by YOUR definition

Flint said:

I was not being ‘disingenuous’ Please stop the insults. OK now according to your definition a creationist must believe in a young earth. Then by your definition many if not most IDers are not creationist and ID is not Creattionism by YOUR definition

Do you have any clue what disingenuous even means? You do it by sheer reflex! Young Earth Creationists (YECs) by definition believe in a young earth. This belief is what they are named after. Most IDers also believe in a young earth, a global flood, 6-day creation of "kinds", and the whole literal Genesis schtick, but the secret of ID is, they don't admit it. They only smile, wink, and imply that of course this is what they *really* believe, but they can't SAY that because the courts don't like it. And we observe, just in practice, that most IDers in fact DO believe this crap, because if they accepted reality and respected evidence, they would not NEED to hide behind the dishonest pretense that if they never say what ID actually IS, and keep claiming it's "scientific", they can preach creationism in public schools. There is no legal problem with teaching facts in schools, or accepting facts and believing whatever you wish. There's only a problem for those who find reality offensive and need to TRICK their doctrine into schools. ID, at heart, is nothing but a knowingly false representation designed to do dishonestly what isn't permitted to honest people. And, no surprise, this strategy was dreamed up by a lawyer, as a way to directly violate the intent of the law while following the letter of the law. If the law says murder is illegal, you can obey it and not kill anyone, or you can kill someone while renaming murder "citizen-enacted justice" and claiming you are being ethical and patriotic, and hope you get away with it. If that doesn't work ("creation science" didn't work), you can rename murder "dynamic population restructuring" and claim it's science!

bobby said:

Nigel D said:

bobby said: So if someone believes in God they are a liar ignorant and deceptive?

Bobby, your reply to Torbjorn is disingenuous and misleading. You do not have to be a creationist to believe in God. In my understanding, a creationist is someone who insists on accepting only one interpretation of scripture, despite evidence that it is wrong. Examples of such evidence-supported issues include the age of the Earth (it is roughly 4.5 billion years old) and the individual creation of "kinds" of creatures (in fact, common descent has been proven beyond reasonable doubt).

I was not being 'disingenuous' Please stop the insults. OK now according to your definition a creationist must believe in a young earth. Then by your definition many if not most IDers are not creationist and ID is not Creattionism by YOUR definition

bobby said:

Flint said:

I was not being ‘disingenuous’ Please stop the insults. OK now according to your definition a creationist must believe in a young earth. Then by your definition many if not most IDers are not creationist and ID is not Creattionism by YOUR definition

Do you have any clue what disingenuous even means? You do it by sheer reflex! Young Earth Creationists (YECs) by definition believe in a young earth. This belief is what they are named after. Most IDers also believe in a young earth, a global flood, 6-day creation of "kinds", and the whole literal Genesis schtick, but the secret of ID is, they don't admit it. They only smile, wink, and imply that of course this is what they *really* believe, but they can't SAY that because the courts don't like it. ..........

And you are being ignorant by sheer reflex. Berlinkski is an IDer and not a old-earther, and so is Behe, and many, many IDers. Your willful ignorance is showing. So to equate old earth to ID is either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid.

bobby said:

Nigel D said:

bobby said: So if someone believes in God they are a liar ignorant and deceptive?

Bobby, your reply to Torbjorn is disingenuous and misleading. You do not have to be a creationist to believe in God. In my understanding, a creationist is someone who insists on accepting only one interpretation of scripture, despite evidence that it is wrong. Examples of such evidence-supported issues include the age of the Earth (it is roughly 4.5 billion years old) and the individual creation of "kinds" of creatures (in fact, common descent has been proven beyond reasonable doubt).

I was not being 'disingenuous' Please stop the insults. OK now according to your definition a creationist must believe in a young earth. Then by your definition many if not most IDers are not creationist and ID is not Creattionism by YOUR definition

This was a great article. As a person who grew up brain washed by creationist propaganda, I know only too well how deceptive creationists are. They can be nice and decent people, but no group can lie and deceive as easily as committed creationists. I have bookmarked this article and am ready to send it to my creationist friends.

phantomreader42 said: Bobby, you've made it quite clear that you don't get it, and don't WANT to get it. You're just frantically moving the goalposts. You've been offered plenty of information, and you just distort it and willfully misunderstand. That is what creationists do. They don't know the first damn thing about science, and they go to great lengths to AVOID learning. They reject facts and evidence in favor of a pitiful "faith" that can't survive the slightest scrutiny. They just lie, constantly. That's all Expelled *jazz hands* is, a pack of vicious, anti-science, anti-semitic, anti-civilization LIES. Garnished with a little outright THEFT. Do you think that's a good thing? Do you believe it's okay to give your personal endorsement to a movement founded on fraud? Because that's what it looks like you're doing.

bobby said:

Nigel D said:

bobby said: So if someone believes in God they are a liar ignorant and deceptive?

Bobby, your reply to Torbjorn is disingenuous and misleading. You do not have to be a creationist to believe in God. In my understanding, a creationist is someone who insists on accepting only one interpretation of scripture, despite evidence that it is wrong. Examples of such evidence-supported issues include the age of the Earth (it is roughly 4.5 billion years old) and the individual creation of "kinds" of creatures (in fact, common descent has been proven beyond reasonable doubt).

I was not being 'disingenuous' Please stop the insults. OK now according to your definition a creationist must believe in a young earth. Then by your definition many if not most IDers are not creationist and ID is not Creattionism by YOUR definition

Kevin B said:

bobby said:

Flint said:

I was not being ‘disingenuous’ Please stop the insults. OK now according to your definition a creationist must believe in a young earth. Then by your definition many if not most IDers are not creationist and ID is not Creattionism by YOUR definition

Do you have any clue what disingenuous even means? You do it by sheer reflex! Young Earth Creationists (YECs) by definition believe in a young earth. This belief is what they are named after. Most IDers also believe in a young earth, a global flood, 6-day creation of "kinds", and the whole literal Genesis schtick, but the secret of ID is, they don't admit it. They only smile, wink, and imply that of course this is what they *really* believe, but they can't SAY that because the courts don't like it. ..........

And you are being ignorant by sheer reflex. Berlinkski is an IDer and not a old-earther, and so is Behe, and many, many IDers. Your willful ignorance is showing. So to equate old earth to ID is either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid.

I think you've got something the wrong way round there.... IIRC, things that Behe has said tend to suggest that he leans to an old-Earth interpretation, as opposed to the opinion being debated here that "creationists" tend to the young-Earth version. Behe's statements, like most of the ID fraternity's, are not particularly clear. This is only to be expected, because the well-known "Big Top" analogy of the creationist "camp" is founded on the observation that the various groups involved carefully avoid mentioning all the difficult issues (such as the young-Earth/old-Earth controversy) because the differences between the groups would rapidly reduce the attempt at an united front against evolution into a doctrinal firestorm as soon as the first awkward question comes to the surface.

bobby said:

phantomreader42 said: Bobby, you've made it quite clear that you don't get it, and don't WANT to get it. You're just frantically moving the goalposts. You've been offered plenty of information, and you just distort it and willfully misunderstand. That is what creationists do. They don't know the first damn thing about science, and they go to great lengths to AVOID learning. They reject facts and evidence in favor of a pitiful "faith" that can't survive the slightest scrutiny. They just lie, constantly. That's all Expelled *jazz hands* is, a pack of vicious, anti-science, anti-semitic, anti-civilization LIES. Garnished with a little outright THEFT. Do you think that's a good thing? Do you believe it's okay to give your personal endorsement to a movement founded on fraud? Because that's what it looks like you're doing.

bobby said:

Nigel D said:

bobby said: So if someone believes in God they are a liar ignorant and deceptive?

Bobby, your reply to Torbjorn is disingenuous and misleading. You do not have to be a creationist to believe in God. In my understanding, a creationist is someone who insists on accepting only one interpretation of scripture, despite evidence that it is wrong. Examples of such evidence-supported issues include the age of the Earth (it is roughly 4.5 billion years old) and the individual creation of "kinds" of creatures (in fact, common descent has been proven beyond reasonable doubt).

I was not being 'disingenuous' Please stop the insults. OK now according to your definition a creationist must believe in a young earth. Then by your definition many if not most IDers are not creationist and ID is not Creattionism by YOUR definition

And I think you 'don't get it'. You seem to be ignorant of science. Despite the evidence you stick to your faith and ignore the scientific method. And you have a difficult time reading. I never said I supported the DI. I never said I was an old-earther. Your ability to read into comment what you want is astounding. Please be scientific and not religious. Read what a person says and do not read in your dogma. Do this also with the evidence in the fossil record and molecular biology. Do not use unjustified extrapolation to justify your beliefs. Look at data objective without bias. Please use the scientific method.

And you are being ignorant by sheer reflex. Berlinkski is an IDer and not a old-earther, and so is Behe, and many, many IDers. Your willful ignorance is showing. So to equate old earth to ID is either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid.

me said: I noticed the other day that the yahoos at Uncommon Descent had a (predictable) reaction to Derbyshire's piece, which is very good. They labeled it a 'movie review' and then took him to task for reviewing the movie without ever seeing the movie. Jebus Josef and Mary!!! There is just no better evidence than this reaction to prove that those people just don't get it. They have an organic sensor defect....a missing part, an unworking mechanism..something in the specific design and creation of each one of those individuals is just not there.

So Bobby,

Do you agree with Behe? Do you accept common descent? Do you agree that the earth is billions of years old? Are you familiar with the evidence? Do you use the scientific method? Would you classify yourself as a creationist? What type of creationist would you classify yourself as? If you do not classify yourself as a creationist, what is your explanation for the diversity of life on earth? Do you agree with Gould that punctuated equilibrium is important as a mechanism of evolution?

No one really cares what your beliefs are, it is just that no one is really interested in arguing over the definition of creationism. If we can't even find something interesting to argue about, why bother?

Do you agree with Gould that punctuated equilibrium is important as a mechanism of evolution?

You can always tell when "jacob" gets a new IP address. The post count goes through the roof.

bobby said:

Nigel D said: Bobby, your reply to Torbjorn is disingenuous and misleading. You do not have to be a creationist to believe in God. In my understanding, a creationist is someone who insists on accepting only one interpretation of scripture, despite evidence that it is wrong. Examples of such evidence-supported issues include the age of the Earth (it is roughly 4.5 billion years old) and the individual creation of "kinds" of creatures (in fact, common descent has been proven beyond reasonable doubt).

I was not being 'disingenuous' Please stop the insults. OK now according to your definition a creationist must believe in a young earth. Then by your definition many if not most IDers are not creationist and ID is not Creattionism by YOUR definition

Examples of such evidence-supported issues include ...

And you [Flint] are being ignorant by sheer reflex. Berlinkski is an IDer and not a old-earther, and so is Behe, and many, many IDers. Your willful ignorance is showing. So to equate old earth to ID is either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid.

— Bobby

Your ignorance is showing: “As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg 5)

— Bobby

Daoud said: That was a foolish mistake by Derbyshire, as soon as I saw him write he hasn't actually seen the movie, he screwed himself. To the casual observer, who does not follow creationist/evolution dramas, he's lost his argument. And he left his flank open and completely unguarded against critics. Think of it in casual discussion: Thoughtful Religious Conservative1: "I heard the arch-conservative columnist John Derbyshire blasted Expelled and ID" Religious Conservative2: "Did you know he wrote he hadn't actually *seen* the film?" Thoughtful Religious Conservative1: "Wow." That's it, game over. I understand all his other points, we all do, and it is a devastating critique of Intelligent Design. BUT he sabotaged his own critique this way.

Excellent piece of writing, I would love to plagiarize this, but I'm not "creative" enough to do it.
- Bobby,
don't get flustered by the name-calling; these people see a lot of cretins who think they can squirrel around the most basic of scientific knowledge. It gets old for them - I still like watching people like you get handed their heads, so try to stay focused on stating your case, OK?

P.S. - the spellcheck is awsum!

Flint,

You are correct sir. I bow to the superiority of your wisdom.

What I should have asked was whether the pattern of punctuated equilibrium was important in the overall pattern of evolution - or something more eloquently phrased and less ambiguous.

In any event, it appears to be a moot point, since Bobby seems disinclined to inform us regarding his own beliefs. It seems however that he has no qualms about informing us about the beliefs of others.

Your ignorance is showing:

“As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg 5)

Yes typo: Behe and Berlinski are NOT YOUNG EARTHERS

Nigel D said:

And you [Flint] are being ignorant by sheer reflex. Berlinkski is an IDer and not a old-earther, and so is Behe, and many, many IDers. Your willful ignorance is showing. So to equate old earth to ID is either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid.

— Bobby

Bloody hell, Bobby, talk about being hoist by your own petard! Behe has gone on record accepting that life on Earth is about 3.8 billion years old. He is definitely an "old-earther" as you so quaintly put it. I consider him to be a creationist, however, because he insists that it is impossible for life to have developed to its present condition by natural processes alone.

Nigel D said:

Your ignorance is showing: “As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg 5)

— Bobby

Right, Bobby, and since we know that Behe is a creationist who is preetending not to be a creationist, this is convincing how, exactly?? You really are utterly clueless if you think your pathetic attempt at a rejoinder will convince anyone of anything except your own inability to construct an argument. BTW, Bobby, I'm still being factual here. Your own posts prove your ineptness and ignorance.

Creationism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution. Such beliefs include young Earth creationism, which takes Book of Genesis literally, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth. Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth.[2] Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgements.[3] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.[2] When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] or its methodology.[6] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[7] The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.[8][9][10][11]

Nigel D said:

Your ignorance is showing: “As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg 5)

— Bobby

Right, Bobby, and since we know that Behe is a creationist who is preetending not to be a creationist, this is convincing how, exactly?? You really are utterly clueless if you think your pathetic attempt at a rejoinder will convince anyone of anything except your own inability to construct an argument. BTW, Bobby, I'm still being factual here. Your own posts prove your ineptness and ignorance.

D P Robin said: Bobby, you seem so interested in bickering with others that you haven't addressed my post, so here it is again: For my part, I believe the following from Wikipedia answers pretty well:

Creationism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution. Such beliefs include young Earth creationism, which takes Book of Genesis literally, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth. Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth.[2] Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgements.[3] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.[2] When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] or its methodology.[6] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[7] The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.[8][9][10][11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism A more detailed discussion can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html And another good treatment of the subject: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/ I doubt that anyone here would dispute the definitions/descriptions above. Does the above seem acceptable to you? dpr

The complete lack of integrity and logic I see here is simply awesome.

bobby said: Why do you think I am 'bickering' I have treated with hostility here. These interchanges here show that to Darwinists anyone doubting in the least any part of the theory is met with hostility. Yet they muff terms and use expandable definitions. And as far as the wiki definition goes: do you see how the term 'creationist' is misused here. And Behe states he is an old earther and one poster said he really did not mean what he said. The complete lack of integrity and logic I see here is simply awesome.

Ernie said: Doubting Darwin's theory of evolution and presenting alternative theories are more than welcomed; but they have to be backed up by evidence, scientific evidence.

Ernie said:

bobby said: Why do you think I am 'bickering' I have treated with hostility here. These interchanges here show that to Darwinists anyone doubting in the least any part of the theory is met with hostility. Yet they muff terms and use expandable definitions. And as far as the wiki definition goes: do you see how the term 'creationist' is misused here. And Behe states he is an old earther and one poster said he really did not mean what he said. The complete lack of integrity and logic I see here is simply awesome.

Bobby Doubting Darwin's theory of evolution and presenting alternative theories are more than welcomed; but they have to be backed up by evidence, scientific evidence.

bobby said:

Ernie said: Bobby Doubting Darwin's theory of evolution and presenting alternative theories are more than welcomed; but they have to be backed up by evidence, scientific evidence.

OK thats fair. Tell me what you think is the strongest scientific evidence for Darwinism.

Stanton said:

bobby said:

Ernie said: Bobby Doubting Darwin's theory of evolution and presenting alternative theories are more than welcomed; but they have to be backed up by evidence, scientific evidence.

OK thats fair. Tell me what you think is the strongest scientific evidence for Darwinism.

If you actually had any sincere interest in learning, you would have learned that "Darwinism" is used only by scientific scholars who refer to the ideas on Biology held by Charles Darwin, himself, and his friends and followers, and by Creationists and other anti-evolutionists in order to suggest that those who accept the theory of evolution are cultists. Having said this, the evidence Charles Darwin used included both his notes about the Galapagos Finches, as well as the comparison of the finches' diversity with pigeon genealogies (if you ever bothered to read about Darwin, you would have known that he was an avid pigeon breeder). More evidence has accumulated since Darwin's day, and continues to accumulate as we speak, including fossil and genetic evidence that places the ancestry of whales somewhere within the even-toed ungulates, the discovery and examination of thousands of fossil taxa, including trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, mesonychids, brontotheres, and hominids, and the discovery and observations of speciation events, including the repopulation of Lake Tanganyika by cichlids, the speciation of the apple maggot fly amongst fruit orchards in Eastern North America, and the speciation event in nautiluses in the Indo-Pacific. All of this evidence is readily available in Google, and in libraries, and the fact that you demand that we provide evidence of Darwinism Evolution, rather than attempt to find it yourself suggests that you are probably just a troll trying to pick fights.

So let me put it this way: what is your strongest proof that humans came from fish without intelligent intervention.

You mean a person only has to "prove" three hundred million years of evolution in an internet post? Well at least you didn't ask for four billion. The evidence that life evolved is essentially everything we know about it, including genetics, anatomy, development and of course fossils. No doubt someone will offer some of the specifics, and no matter what it is, Bobby will say that it doesn't "prove" anything to him, so life must not have have evolved after all. Bobby, have you considered doing your own studying?

Bobby,

The nested hierarchy of similarities that we see among the vertebrates is strong evidence for common descent from a common ancestor. The evidence includes palentological, morphological, developmental and genetic data. All of these independent data provide the exact same nested hierarchy which confirms that vertebrates had a single common ancestor that gave rise to fish, amphibians and then reptiles. Certain reptile lineages than gave rise to birds and mammals. Certain mammalian lineages then gave rise to primates and finally to humans. For a brief summary of the last 150 years of research into vertebrate systematics just go to the Talk Origins Archive. It contains excellent articles, complete with scientific references and details about transitional forms between the major groups.

Some of the best evidence we have for the relationships within the bertebrates comes from genetic data, including hox genes sequences and SINE insertions. These data demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that humans are descended from vertebrate ancestors. If you are not familiar with this evidence then you don't really have the right to an opinion on the matter.

By the way, there is no evidence whatsoever of any "intelligent intervention" at any point in the process. If you disagree, what is your best evidence for "intelligent intervention"? Remember, the "I can't believe it could happen without intelligent intervention" argument is not going to work here. My response to that one is always the same. I can't believe that anyone could believe something like that, so they don't.

Bobby said: OK I will make a temp term to refer to the assertion that humans came from fish thru natural selection without and intelligent intervention. OK for our time here we can call it fish-human-ns theory or FHN for short.

Now tell me how if the FHN theory is true or not would have an effect on the development of anti-biotics. Anti-biotic adaptation fits well in kinds theory.

And also just because there are occasional very minimal speciation does not prove the FHN theory.

So let me put it this way: what is your strongest proof that humans came from fish without intelligent intervention.

"Some of the best evidence we have for the relationships within the vertebrates comes from genetic data, including hox genes sequences and SINE insertions. These data demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that humans are descended from vertebrate ancestors."

That backbone thing is kind of suggestive too.

Here's a question for you Bobby: Why is it that every single land animal over 2 pounds has at most four limbs, two eyes, 2 ears, one nose, one mouth, one anus, all positioned in relatively exactly the same places? Why don't we have 6 legged horses, or cats with wings, or a 10 nosed dog, or owls with 4 eyes? Why doesn't a single knee in the macro-animal kingdom bend the other way?

So let me put it this way: what is your strongest proof that humans came from fish without intelligent intervention.

bobby said: OK your definition of creationist is someone who believes it is impossible for life to have developed to its present condition by natural processes alone??

bobby said:

Nigel D said:

Your ignorance is showing: “As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg 5)

— Bobby

Right, Bobby, and since we know that Behe is a creationist who is preetending not to be a creationist, this is convincing how, exactly?? You really are utterly clueless if you think your pathetic attempt at a rejoinder will convince anyone of anything except your own inability to construct an argument. BTW, Bobby, I'm still being factual here. Your own posts prove your ineptness and ignorance.

Your stupidity and lack of reasoning is overwhelming.

bobby said:

Nigel D said:

Your ignorance is showing: “As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg 5)

— Bobby

Right, Bobby, and since we know that Behe is a creationist who is preetending not to be a creationist, this is convincing how, exactly?? You really are utterly clueless if you think your pathetic attempt at a rejoinder will convince anyone of anything except your own inability to construct an argument. BTW, Bobby, I'm still being factual here. Your own posts prove your ineptness and ignorance.

Actually YOUR post is complete hogwash.

Why do you think I am ‘bickering’ I have treated with hostility here.

— Bobby, master of projection

These interchanges here show that to Darwinists anyone doubting in the least any part of the theory is met with hostility.

Yet they muff terms and use expandable definitions.

And as far as the wiki definition goes: do you see how the term ‘creationist’ is misused here.

And Behe states he is an old earther and one poster said he really did not mean what he said.

The complete lack of integrity and logic I see here is simply awesome.

Well Dawkins said that he ‘discovered Darwinism’ as a child. And Gould talks about ‘Darwinism’

— Bobby the disingenuous

The problem is that the terms Darwinism, evolution, Neo-Darwinism, Modern Synthetic theory etc are not synomymous.

OK I will make a temp term to refer to the assertion that humans came from fish thru natural selection without and intelligent intervention. OK for our time here we can call it fish-human-ns theory or FHN for short.

Now tell me how if the FHN theory is true or not would have an effect on the development of anti-biotics. Anti-biotic adaptation fits well in kinds theory. A person could belive in young-earth and do effective research in anti-biotics.

And also just because there are occasional very minimal speciation does not prove the FHN theory.

Dear Nigel D.,

I suppose the ever mendacious Bobby still wonders why I think I know something about Gould, his research, and what he did - and did not - say. But it is all too clear that, inspite of his extensive "quote mining", he understands little of what Dawkins and Gould have written with regards to evolutionary processes. Maybe if he chose to spend some his excessive spare time towards earning a real education in evolutionary biology, instead of sounding too much like such "prominent" intellectually-challenged folks like Denyse O'Leary and Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, David Klinghoffer, Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells, then maybe, just maybe, he might finally learn something about what is - and what isn't - real science. Alas that seems like it is a hopeless wish of mine, so instead, I wish him well as he continues to enjoy his membership in the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective.

Best regards,

John

bobby said:

Ernie said:

bobby said: Why do you think I am 'bickering' I have treated with hostility here. These interchanges here show that to Darwinists anyone doubting in the least any part of the theory is met with hostility. Yet they muff terms and use expandable definitions. And as far as the wiki definition goes: do you see how the term 'creationist' is misused here. And Behe states he is an old earther and one poster said he really did not mean what he said. The complete lack of integrity and logic I see here is simply awesome.

Bobby Doubting Darwin's theory of evolution and presenting alternative theories are more than welcomed; but they have to be backed up by evidence, scientific evidence.

OK thats fair. Tell me what you think is the strongest scientific evidence for Darwinism.

For those who haven’t noticed (i.e. moderators?) ”bobby” is just ”jacob” with a new coat of paint. Same m.o., same choice of words, same objective. He has at least goaded me into doing some more work on my style analysis utility, so he is not an entirely worthless phenomenon.

Action, please.

In my important role of presenting truth and balance in opposition to the ignorant evolander screeds, illogical proposals, and unsubstantiated claims posted in behalf of their beloved theory I suggest a through reading of Berlinski's shredding of Dunkelturd's uninformed screed.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2M0M2ZiOWE4YzgwNDIyOTI5NWE4NGY1NTYxNmYxNzA=&w=MQ==#more

Every time one of these DI guys match up with an evolander I am quite entertained just watching the evolanders butt being chewed into small pieces and straining to hear their last wimperings.

Poe's Law strikes again. I'm reminded of the Bad Old Days that nearly killed the sport of boxing, when the referee would haul the unconscious hometown boy to his feet, raise his limp arm into the air, and declare him the winner by unanimous decision!

Flint said: Poe's Law strikes again.

SWT and Flint still hitting the weed pretty hard after all those years away from Berkley, I see.

SWT the thermo expert who claimed information theory and thermo were two disjoint sets of science. Did you ever read the directly opposing materials I referenced ilustrating your antiquated views on the two subjects? Let's try again with the much used text Thermnodynamics by Joachim Lay of UCLA. You might also check out the materials on ARN by the Prof and PhD from UT, lately of A&M, on Origins, Walter Bradley , I believe. A lot has happened in science since Carnot ..you ought to catch up sometime.

I knew SWT had lowered their standards and slipped to about number 58 in think tank and research facilities...now I see why.

People who even contenance some dried up old turd like Derbyshire and not embracing an elloquent intellect like Berlinski are candidating for the Hall of Illiterates.

I invite the public to compare their two CVs side by side.

keith said: Every time one of these DI guys match up with an evolander I am quite entertained just watching the evolanders butt being chewed into small pieces and straining to hear their last wimperings.

Shebardigan said: For those who haven’t noticed (i.e. moderators?) ”bobby” is just ”jacob” with a new coat of paint. Same m.o., same choice of words, same objective. He has at least goaded me into doing some more work on my style analysis utility, so he is not an entirely worthless phenomenon. Action, please.

Great post and great discussion:) Kind regards from Germany, I´ll follow your blog, it´s great.

thank you admin

thanks admin

good thank you admin