(Updated) Denyse O'Leary and the bottom of the barrel

"I knew the ID creationists were getting desperate for allies, but this is a new low."

You don't give them enough credit. Every time they "reach a new low," they find some way to go even lower. They're remarkably talented like that.

An awful lot of "more on that later" in that UD post (which I'm tempted to read as "moron that later"). Sort of sums up the entire ID project, doesn't it?

"Denyse O’Leary and is the bottom of the barrel."

There, fixed it for you. She's the absolute dregs of journalism and rational thought.

What is interesting is that it seems that Turkey is one of the few countries where the acceptance of the theory of evolution is less accepted that America. Also, Harun Yahya's hostility to the the evolution would make any creationist proud.

On _Atlas of Creation_: You have already mentioned the fishing lures (not just insects, by the way -- a number of arachnids also appear in fishing lure form).

But my personal favorite is the crinoids. The book has many, many pictures of fossil crinoids, along with pictures of living crinoids, and the usual statement of "See? They're exactly the same. There is no evolution." What's particularly amusing about this is that in every single case, the photo of a living crinoid isn't a crinoid at all, but an annelid featherduster worm. At least the fishing lures were copies of the right organism, but the crinoids aren't even the right phylum. You could hardly be more wrong, confusing a deuterostome with a protostome. OK, he could have shown an angiosperm. But still.

That Denyse O'Leary takes Yahya seriously just shows how silly she is.

What's also interesting is that there is no young earth tradition in Islam; Oktar and his cronies are all OECs. While the DI may look for a big tent, good luck getting hardcore American YECs to embrace the views of Muslim creationists.

James F said: What's also interesting is that there is no young earth tradition in Islam; Oktar and his cronies are all OECs. While the DI may look for a big tent, good luck getting hardcore American YECs to embrace the views of Muslim creationists.

John Kwok said: I have heard allegations that some American supporters of YECs, OECs, and, in particular, the DI have been funding Harun Yahya, and this, especially in light of his magnum opus that he sent to quite a few here in the USA:

James F said: What's also interesting is that there is no young earth tradition in Islam; Oktar and his cronies are all OECs. While the DI may look for a big tent, good luck getting hardcore American YECs to embrace the views of Muslim creationists.

I doubt the DI have paid one penny towards Harun Yahya. The money he needed for his "atlas of creation" and it's distribution is likely to be sourced to Saudi Arabia.

Well, when you reside at the bottom of the barrel, all you can scrape will have to be within reach.

Sorry to break the bad news. The bottom of the barrel is probably infinitely far away.

O'Leary clearly has come close to setting a new record for barrel diving though.

It is going to be close with JD Kennedy's From Darwin to Hitler and the remake, Expelled, starring Ben Stein.

The title of this makes as much sense to me as "Horses and the Class of Commonly-Ridden Equines That Start With an 'H'"

This is not a new development. I remember a few years ago there was a DI speaker (don't recall his name) at a creationist seminar put on by the city government of Istanbul. Creationism is so popular in Turkey that science teachers are afraid to teach evolution because there has been harassment and even violent assults on those who do.
Mr. Oktar has been charged with organizing some of this violence, as well as criminal organization, blackmail, cocaine distribution and rape of a minor. These charges haven't stuck, though, because of a loophole in Turkey's legal code that doesn't allow convicting the mentally ill (Mr. Oktar is a clinically diagnosed schizophrenic). His followers explain this away as a conspiracy by the Freemasons against him (seriously...the Freemasons).
Unfortunately, his popularity isn't just with village yokels. If you meet a Turkish post-grad student in the U.S. or Europe chances are good that they think he's the most brilliant man alive.
Everything his institute puts out is so inane it makes me want to vomit blood. It's mostly just re-hashes of the sort of stupid "no beneficial mutations" nonsense that only the most simple-minded Western creationists still cling to.
I read something he wrote about the "myth of stone age man". He proposed that humans never had stone age technology, and further that the stone age period is an evolutionist myth. The centerpiece of this work was the idea that randomly smashing pieces of flint togeather won't make useful tools, therefore earlier civilizations must have had METAL TOOLS with which they made their STONE TOOLS (seriously, this is too bizzare for me to have made up myself). For a whole week, whenever I would recall this theory I would smack myself in the head and wonder out loud, "If you already had the metal tools, what in the hell would you want with the stone ones?!?"

This stands as a stark contrast to some of those that I communicated with in the same capacity who hold the more mainstream view of evolution. They were openly hostile to not just the play but the very notion that these minority views should be given a voice at all. The interviews with the notable scientists these ideas are based on were attacked without being read. One individual even suggested that the interviews were probably just made up and not worth reading in the first place. While this hostility came from only a few, and only from the academics, it was enough to assure me that the basic thrust of the play was essentially correct. It is worth noting that many more people have helped tirelessly with this production who still disagree with the arguments presented by Henry Darden. I thank each and every one of them. www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-third-side-by-thomas-vaughan-may-14-30-in-houston/

Interesting coincidence. I've just heard of a book, "How to Win a Cosmic War" (http://rezaaslan.com/cosmicwar.html), that's mostly about Muslim jihadists, but makes the point that US religious extremists share the same uncompromising need to fight what they determine to be evil. The way to win? Don't fight the cosmic war. Don't march out to meet them on a battlefield that they've defined, which is what extreme atheists seem determined to do in the evolution/creationism conflict. There's a conceptual parallel between what Bush once called a crusade against terrorism in the middle east and how some are conducting opposition to the anti-evolution campaign. As the "war on terror" feeds into the jihadists reason for being, so the the linking of biology education to an anti-religion campaign feeds the attack on science education.

Science in most of the Moslem world is "Don't ask, don't tell." There is no law against doing it, but it isn't particularly respected. Creationism is prevalent and not just in Turkey. In some countries it can be as high as 85% of the population.

They pay a high price for this. Our civilization is a high tech one, built on science.

1. They will always be a step or two behind the west. We do the science, we do the development, they import the knowledge and/or the products.

2. It can be expensive as well. The oil Arabs are estimated to have spent 1/2 trillion dollars importing western R&D in the last few decades. Supposedly they are going to spend some money building up their own academic infrastructure. We shall see.

The difference between Xian fundie fanatics and Islamic fundie fanatics is nothing. Fanatics are all the same. We just don't let ours run around loose with armies and bombs anymore. I wouldn't expect too much of the marriage of convenience of fundies of the two religions. At the end of the day, there is only one god and it is either Yahweh or Allah. They will always hate each other.

While this hostility came from only a few, and only from the academics, it was enough to assure me that the basic thrust of the play was essentially correct.

Perceived hostile reaction to lies and deceit = correctness of lies and deceit.

such is the level of denial these people operate under.

I'm more and more convinced there is some underlying psycho-pathology to this kind of thinking.

If DO'L is scraping the bottom of the barrel, it can only be from the other side of same.

raven said: The difference between Xian fundie fanatics and Islamic fundie fanatics is nothing. Fanatics are all the same. We just don't let ours run around loose with armies and bombs anymore.

Just when you think Panda's Bum can't get any more hysterical, it does.

Btw, the Koran contains a lot of references to Adam & Eve. The only thing not copied from Genesis seems to be the spare rib.
(There used to be a feminist mag called Spare Rib in Limeyland, but it closed long ago. Survival of the fittest, I s'pose.)

What’s also interesting is that there is no young earth tradition in Islam; Oktar and his cronies are all OECs. While the DI may look for a big tent, good luck getting hardcore American YECs to embrace the views of Muslim creationists.

— James F

I have heard allegations that some American supporters of YECs, OECs, and, in particular, the DI have been funding Harun Yahya, and this, especially in light of his magnum opus that he sent to quite a few here in the USA:

— John Kwok

I've recently been attending a series of talks by John West of the Deception Institute presented, of course, at a church. He's very slick, very polished, martyr driven, and of course he's preaching to the choir. All throughout his talk he's effectively demonized Darwin and every scientist who supports evolution. Did you know Darwin was responsible for abortion, infanticide, and eugenics? Did you know that theistic evolution is unacceptable (insufficient fundamentalist grounded purity of thought)? Quote mining is at its best with John. We know ID proponents appeal to the ignorant, it reinforces their world view, they don't have to think, they readily accept the drivel they are spoon fed, and they don't question. Truly the bell curve for them is skewed to the low end. But that's the strength of the ID movement, strength in numbers, not brains. It's no different with Oktar, O'Leary, et al; they know how to preach to the choir and find a receptive audience. They know how to scapegoat Darwin and blame evolution for all the ills of the world and that the world was an idyllic place before Darwin came forth.

cryingoflot49 said: If DO'L is scraping the bottom of the barrel, it can only be from the other side of same.

There was a second example of a fishing fly used as an example of an insect. I have both examples illustrated in a post to Stones and Bones

Later today I'll check to see if the second example was also deleted from the electronic verision of "The Atlas."

What wankers.

Did you know Darwin was responsible for abortion, infanticide, and eugenics?

wikipedia: Manifesto of the Communist Party (German: Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei), often referred to as The Communist Manifesto, was first published on February 21, 1848, and is one of the world's most influential political manuscripts. Commissioned by the Communist League and written by communist theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,///

Gary Hurd said: There was a second example of a fishing fly used as an example of an insect. I have both examples illustrated in a post to Stones and Bones

Well, the second example, the Mayfly pg 282, has not been changed in the electronic version as of a few minutes ago.

John, really dozens? Wow.

But my personal favorite is the crinoids. The book has many, many pictures of fossil crinoids, along with pictures of living crinoids, and the usual statement of “See? They’re exactly the same. There is no evolution.” What’s particularly amusing about this is that in every single case, the photo of a living crinoid isn’t a crinoid at all, but an annelid featherduster worm.

I find the concept of intelligent design rather dishonest. One should openly stand up for the existence of Allah, should sincerely stand up for religion, for Islam. Or, if one is a Christian, one should honestly stand up for Christianity. This is a theory which claims that things have somehow been created, but it is unknown who created them. I find this rather dishonest, actually. The followers of intelligent design should openly and clearly declare the existence of Allah as the Creator.

I don't stay up on the dealings of the ID people, but it would surprise me to discover they are all chummy with Harun Yahya given that he claims intelligent design is a tool of Satan.

On the other hand I can see his influence in Turkey did apparently, at very least, alarm both Darwkins and Myers – both of whom got around to digging into at least one of his books and both of whom are featured on his wikipedia page.

If I was a Darwinist (which I am not) I would be alarmed at the work of Harun Yahya for very pointed reasons when it comes to the USA. First I would pull out my sociology books and study the current thinking on the nature of religions and get a grasp as to how that applies to the USA. On doing so I would of course expose myself to the works of Rodney Stark, above all his two set work “one true god” and “for the glory of god – how monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts, and the end of slavery”.

Armed with that I would realize that we really have not much worry that anyone like Yahya would take over here. Over all, Christianity generally demands scientific purification at the expense of theories which are impregnated with philosophical overtones. Christianity has also played a role in freedom of religion, which itself works against philosophies dressed up as though they are good science. Such things have certainly played a role in efforts to keep science somewhat purified in this nation. It is for these reasons (and others like them) that the fundamentalist literal translation of the Bible will not be decorating classroom biology text books any time soon, other than, at best, in short lived isolated spurts.

On the other hand, precisely because the USA has such a colour, as we distance ourselves further and further from the scientific materialism of the late 1800's, and the philosophical impregnation of Darwin's work comes into sharper view, his work becomes increasingly subject to being treated negatively. This is not good news for those who want to place all of biology under the guiding thumb of natural selection and random mutation, for they increasingly will be held up to the same pressures that the literal translation fundamentalist are held to when it comes to wording public text books, especially as the public becomes increasingly aware of just how impregnated Darwin's work is with philosophical overtones.

With those considerations I would be far more worried about the spread of knowledge with respect to Darwin's work being married to philosophical overtones, and the sociological connection between those overtones and how they where put to use to justify actions against human rights as though it was scientifically founded, than I would be with respect to little matters like photographs of fishing lures, which will influence almost no one in this nation.

When I take a look at the web sites of Harun Yahya the first thing that stands out, to me, is the number of them that point directly to the philosophical impregnation of Darwin's work and the sociological use of it, not photos of fishing lures. Take a look, for example, at this one:
http://us2.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/3422/TERRORISM,_DARWINISM___MATERIALISM

Given the sociological colour of the USA, that would worry me far more than anything else that Harun Yahya is doing. In fact I would probably act as to say one need not bother visiting his stuff and instead make some comments about fishing lures and then hope no one picks up on his finger pointing to Darwinism when it comes, not to biology, but to sociology.

Actually Oktar doesnt like ID too much. In the SPIEGEL he said last year:

[SNIP Oktar quotation]

I just went page by page through the print edition of "The Atlas of Creation" with a magnifying glass looking for any more clear examples of artificial "flys" used as proported examples of living organisms. I had done this before.

My criteria was a hook, eyelet or any other obvious indication that the photo was of an artificial lure. I looked at every insect, and spider photo as well as the crayfish which are another popular lure model.

I found no more than the two already mentioned. Was there more than one print edition?

Frank J said:

What’s also interesting is that there is no young earth tradition in Islam; Oktar and his cronies are all OECs. While the DI may look for a big tent, good luck getting hardcore American YECs to embrace the views of Muslim creationists.

— James F

I have heard allegations that some American supporters of YECs, OECs, and, in particular, the DI have been funding Harun Yahya, and this, especially in light of his magnum opus that he sent to quite a few here in the USA:

— John Kwok

Thanks James and John! Usually it's me who has to remind everyone of the irreconcilable differences in the big tent, and how we inadvertently help the DI cover them up with the "us vs. the creationists" oversimplification. On the one hand I enjoy having something to add to the "debate," but I like it even better when someone beats me to it. Thanks to Richard too for showing how low the DI will go. As if their "Darwinism"-leads-to-Nazism wasn't bad enough. I guess we could counter with "creationism leads to 9/11," but we won't, because we have to answer to a higher authority, be it God or just common decency.

Aah, you're not meant to be skeptical. Naughty boy!

Sorry, the above was intended to Mr Hurd. I didn't realize that the ever credulous Kwok Sin Sang was posting at the same time!

novparl said: Sorry, the above was intended to Mr Hurd. I didn't realize that the ever credulous Kwok Sin Sang was posting at the same time!

Gary Hurd said:

novparl said: Sorry, the above was intended to Mr Hurd. I didn't realize that the ever credulous Kwok Sin Sang was posting at the same time!

There is plenty of grossly wrong material in "The Atlas of Creation," to fill several books. I just happen to be a fisherman.

novparl said: Sorry, the above was intended to Mr Hurd. I didn't realize that the ever credulous Kwok Sin Sang was posting at the same time!

John Kwok said: I presume that you were among the "lucky" few (I know of at least five people) who received copies of Harun Yahya's magnum opus.

John Kwok said: I presume that you were among the "lucky" few (I know of at least five people) who received copies of Harun Yahya's magnum opus. Am I right? Because he spent so much in producing it, and especially since his views almost mirror completely those of American creationists, then it is quite reasonable to assume that he received external funding from them to publish this book:

novparl said: Btw, the Koran contains a lot of references to Adam & Eve. The only thing not copied from Genesis seems to be the spare rib.

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: I presume that you were among the "lucky" few (I know of at least five people) who received copies of Harun Yahya's magnum opus. Am I right? Because he spent so much in producing it, and especially since his views almost mirror completely those of American creationists, then it is quite reasonable to assume that he received external funding from them to publish this book:

Or, Harun Yahya could have simply plagiarized the aforementioned American Creationists, given as how many of the illustrations he used in his Atlas and on his websites were taken from other sites, such as Fossil Mall, without permission.

Troy, could you tell us what you are smoking? You managed to write eight paragraphs of pure drivel while smoking it . . . . . .

Cengiz said: Mr. Oktar has been charged with organizing some of this violence, as well as criminal organization, blackmail, cocaine distribution and rape of a minor. These charges haven't stuck, though, because of a loophole in Turkey's legal code that doesn't allow convicting the mentally ill (Mr. Oktar is a clinically diagnosed schizophrenic).

Troy said: On the other hand I can see his influence in Turkey did apparently, at very least, alarm both Darwkins and Myers – both of whom got around to digging into at least one of his books and both of whom are featured on his wikipedia page.

This is hilarious. That wacky Islamic creationist, Harun Yahya, sent all those copies of his great big expensive book, Atlas of Creation, to biologists all around the country, and darned few of us have actually bothered to look at it in any detail. The general pattern of the book is repetitious and predictable: the book shows a picture of a fossil and a photo of a living animal, and declares that they haven't changed a bit, therefore evolution is false. Over and over. It gets old fast, and it's usually wrong (they have changed!) and the photography, while lovely, is entirely stolen. Here's the latest funny part: someone did scrutinize the photos a little more carefully, and discovered a few of the photos are actually of fishing lures, hook and all. That's the level of competence we're talking about in this book.

Troy said: If I was a Darwinist (which I am not)

Actually Oktar doesnt like ID too much.

— sparc

That’s the same line that AIG takes.

— RBH

I've been saying for some time that the "Christian" right have more in common with the radical Islamists who gave us 9/11 than they do with mainstream America. And O'Leary sucking up to an Islamist fanatic like Yahya, and his well-known habit of inciting violence against anyone trying to teach evolution, pretty much confirms my longstanding suspicions.

Creationists give pond-scum a bad name.

We should not be surprised at the tactics of creationists and religious zealots at this point. They will stop at nothing to convert people to their beliefs, it has been this way for centuries. It won't be this way forever, but fundamentalists certainly have the power for now.

Mike said: Don't march out to meet them on a battlefield that they've defined, which is what extreme atheists seem determined to do in the evolution/creationism conflict. [...] As the “war on terror” feeds into the jihadists reason for being, so the the linking of biology education to an anti-religion campaign feeds the attack on science education.

Frank J said: Usually it's me who has to remind everyone of the irreconcilable differences in the big tent, and how we inadvertently help the DI cover them up with the "us vs. the creationists" oversimplification. On the one hand I enjoy having something to add to the "debate," but I like it even better when someone beats me to it.

It won’t be this way forever, but fundamentalists certainly have the power for now.

The Voters are also blaming the Death Cult fundies for destroying the USA and its economy. 50% - More Conservatives Now Say Churches Should Stay Out of Politics Wed Sep 24, 12:00 AM ET Half of self-described conservatives now express the view that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics; four years ago, only 30% of conservatives expressed this view. Overall, a new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds a narrow majority of the public (52%) now says that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters. For a decade, majorities of Americans had voiced support for religious institutions speaking out on such issues. The survey also finds that most of the reconsideration of the desirability of religious involvement in politics has occurred among conservatives. As a result, conservatives' views on this issue are much more in line with the views of moderates and liberals than was previously the case. Similarly, the sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats that previously existed on this issue have disappeared. There are other signs in the new poll about a potential change in the climate of opinion about mixing religion and politics. First, the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are -- from 40% to 46%. Again, the increase in negative sentiment about religion and politics is much more apparent among Republicans than among Democrats.

Frank J said:

Of course. Peddlers of classic creationism (YEC and OEC) generally dislike the "don't ask, don't tell" approach of ID. Much of it has to do with ID's refusal to identify the Creator/designer. But it's also because ID (with increasingly rare exceptions of individual IDers' personal opinions) avoids any testable positive claims of what that designer did when. IDers know that, as a minimum, YEC and OEC (which themselves come in several mutually-contradictory versions) simply can't both be true.

— sparc

Troy -

So, pretend that the theory of evolution doesn't exist.

What is your explanation for the diversity of life on earth and the greater similarities between some species than between others?

I'd like to know.

I follow Uncommon Descent fairly closely (I know, it's a maschostic streak) and am familiar with the "journalism" of Denyse O'Leary. It's a fascinating look into the life of somebody who obviously thinks for themselves as an intellectual powerhouse, but to an outsider has yet to even grasp fundamental concepts of critical thinking.

Firstly, she has the tendency to pick some hyperbolic title for her pieces (e.g., "The last nail in the coffin for Darwinism" or something like that. Secondly, most of her articles are pure non-sequiturs - they ramble on all of the place and usually make no point (considering she likes to call herself a "journalist" it's astonishing how poorly she writes). Thirdly, as is the case here, she is completely undiscriminating about her sources - all that is required is that the writer hates Darwin with as much passion as she does. She takes "the enemey of my enemy is my friend" to whole new levels. Fourthly, she is frequently just plain wrong about the topics she writes about (see: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/6382/) - but lacks the decency to admit when she is wrong (I hope I'm wrong but the word "haughty" comes to mind if I had to describe her demeanor, but who knows maybe that is just her writing "style").

But on the other hand she is the perfect spokesperson for ID! I'd say it's a great match in fact!

RBH -

Thanks for the update. I suppose in Denyse O'Leary's intellectually-challenged world, all is well as long as you're someone who is a "Darwin Doubter". But, with a "friend" like Harun Yahya, then who needs enemies? Has O'Leary lost her mind, not realizing that this pathetic Turkish creationist isn't fond of either the Dishonesty Institute or her friends, like Dembski, who are part of it?

Anyway I'm glad Raging Bee has voiced his opinion that there's much in common philosophically between American Xian Fascists like Dembski and the Islamofascists we've been fighting, even long before the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. This is a view I arrived at independently several years ago, and have been sticking with ever since.

Appreciatively yours,

John

"Soon I expect to see Denyse wearing a burqa."

That's actually a great idea.

KL said: "Soon I expect to see Denyse wearing a burqa." That's actually a great idea.

Stanton said:

KL said: "Soon I expect to see Denyse wearing a burqa." That's actually a great idea.

A big dunce's cap would be far more appropriate.

Reminds me of the time I watched two Plains Garter Snakes working their way towards each other - one from the front end of a vole and the other from the rear end - you knew one would end up devouring the other....

Gary Hurd said: I just went page by page through the print edition of "The Atlas of Creation" with a magnifying glass looking for any more clear examples of artificial "flys" used as proported examples of living organisms. I had done this before. My criteria was a hook, eyelet or any other obvious indication that the photo was of an artificial lure. I looked at every insect, and spider photo as well as the crayfish which are another popular lure model. I found no more than the two already mentioned. Was there more than one print edition?

I am slightly dubious about the pg 241 spider being a lure. The "crab spider" on pg 422 is a real laugh- I would not even recognize the fossil as a "crab spider," let alone the spider crab.

While I was paging through this piece of shit today, the binding fell apart. Purely a metaphor, I am sure.

harold said: Troy - So, pretend that the theory of evolution doesn't exist. What is your explanation for the diversity of life on earth and the greater similarities between some species than between others? I'd like to know.

I think that we should applaud the DI outreach program for employing these people. How else could a Journalist who can't write; a Mathematician who can do maths;or a research biochemist who can do research find work.

“Likewise, IIRC you have been asked for statistical evidence that atheists speaking up for atheism in any way is factually promoting creationism. If anything, I bet the statistics, if they ever surface, will go in the other direction, seeing that most scientists are attracted to atheism and so the demographic flow naturally goes in the other direction.”

Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, did a study with respect to religion and science. In one question he asked “Has the religion taught in your youth had any deterrent effect on the freedom of your researches?” Darwin, answered “No”, as did 90 out of 100 who took the survey (I like to celebrate it as one of the most biased surveys ever conducted).
In 1914 James leuba sent out a survey to a random sample of people from 'American Men of Science”. He asked, with respect to belief in God,

1)I believe in a God to whom one may pray in the expectation of recieving an answer. By “answer,” I mean more than the subjective, psychological effect of prayer.
2)I do not believe in God as defined above
3)I have no definite belief regarding this question.

The definition of the first question is so strong that a sizable portion of mainline clergy would not choose it, all the same, 41.8 percent of prominent scientist choose answer 1. The study was redone in 1996 with unchanged results (Larson and Witham).
In 1969 the Carnegie Survey of 60,028 American Academics found results very illuminating with respect to scientist and religion – results can be viewed here: http://books.google.com/books?id=ajWPaIOZBfgC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=Carnegie+Survey+of+60,028+American+Academics&source=bl&ots=-8icWx6V7E&sig=4CHQRV-tQu4QNUM6CghD4vosgkQ&hl=en&ei=lrMMSp7EH6S6tAO5rbiMAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA53,M1

Turned out that a substantial majority in most fields think of themselves as deeply or modernity religious ( I think you can see, its not a study funded by the ID folks or the radical Darwinist). What's more, the hard sciences had a higher percent of believers than the soft sciences. Furthermore, longitudinal studies show that that students and professors do not become less religious as they go through scientific training, but instead show they are less religious “before” they enter collage. For these reasons, I for one very seriously question your claim “that most scientists are attracted to atheism”.

With respect to atheist sort of creating creationist – that is a bit much and I agree with you. However, with some refinement of definition so that we focus upon a particular orientation, as opposed to something so general as “atheist”, the claim is not so far away from having some truth to it as one may think.

“Troy -
So, pretend that the theory of evolution doesn’t exist.
What is your explanation for the diversity of life on earth and the greater similarities between some species than between others?
I’d like to know.”

I will address this backwards taking the question before the pretend part. I very strongly suspect that mechanical process work in the diversity of life forms on earth, some of which we already know (taking them out of the “suspect” category) and many of which we probably will come to light as time goes on. I have not the least problem with mechanical descriptions illuminating these changes in any way whatsoever.
With respect to “ pretend that the theory of evolution doesn’t exist”, I don't feel the need to “pretend” about it – I just plain and simple do not see some vast general theory which is anything close to the way general theories in other fields are. Sure, there is a growing assortment of facts and a collection of understanding as to how many mechanical situations take place and operate – but that's different than an encompassing general theory which is not in opposition to the empirical data.
I am well aware that neo-Darwinsm is elevated as having such power, but everywhere we find it elevated, we also find all the elements of a crusade going on. Given its historical roots and its deeply inseparable ties with philosophical materialism (which, btw, makes it less than able to stand up to modern science), I become even more suspect. When they claim that natural selection and random mutation are the major factors driving lifes diversity and I ask for one clear example and am met with “creationist”, “your delusional”, and the likes of that, but no actual study – not one in years of asking – I start thinking, “yeah, that's a crusade, not a general scientific theory of worth”.

On the other hand, when I look over the data and things which have been uncovered – wow – what a beautiful collection of things – and I hope that someday maybe a general theory will form it into an understandable frame as opposed to collecting it, all hodge podge, like now, and referring to it, rather incorrectly, as a “general theory”.

I hope that helps you understand how I view it.

On the other hand, when I look over the data and things which have been uncovered – wow – what a beautiful collection of things – and I hope that someday maybe a general theory will form it into an understandable frame as opposed to collecting it, all hodge podge, like now, and referring to it, rather incorrectly, as a “general theory”. I hope that helps you understand how I view it.

— Troy

Troy said: “Troy - So, pretend that the theory of evolution doesn’t exist. What is your explanation for the diversity of life on earth and the greater similarities between some species than between others? I’d like to know.” On the other hand, when I look over the data and things which have been uncovered – wow – what a beautiful collection of things – and I hope that someday maybe a general theory will form it into an understandable frame as opposed to collecting it, all hodge podge, like now, and referring to it, rather incorrectly, as a “general theory”. I hope that helps you understand how I view it.

Troy said: ...understanding as to how many mechanical situations take place and operate – but that's different than an encompassing general theory which is not in opposition to the empirical data.... On the other hand, when I look over the data and things which have been uncovered – wow – what a beautiful collection of things – and I hope that someday maybe a general theory will form it into an understandable frame as opposed to collecting it, all hodge podge, like now, and referring to it, rather incorrectly, as a “general theory”.

Troy said: On the other hand, when I look over the data and things which have been uncovered – wow – what a beautiful collection of things – and I hope that someday maybe a general theory will form it into an understandable frame as opposed to collecting it, all hodge podge, like now, and referring to it, rather incorrectly, as a “general theory”. I hope that helps you understand how I view it.

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

Without evolution, biology would simply be little more than a kind of 'natural history stamp collecting' in which individual species are discarded, examined and identified as individual entities with no apparent link between them and anything else in the living world

A common critique of biology that I'd hear when I told people I planned to major in biology is "I always liked it, but there was too much memorization." What evolution teaches us is that it's only about memorization if you're doing it wrong.
...
Before Darwin and Mendel and their synthesis in the 20th century, biology was largely about collecting disparate facts. Without some unifying theory, it was impossible to synthesize facts, so all one could do is memorize.

Er, whoa. I meant to type "graduate student."
No offense, Josh!

Troy wrote:

"...that’s different than an encompassing general theory which is not in opposition to the empirical data."

Would that theory be the theory of descent with modification? Exactly what evidence is in opposition to that? You haven't presented any. Would that be the idea of random mutation and natural selection? You have not provided any evidence that those processes do not occur. All you have done is demanded that they be the ONLY processes that occur and no one has ever claimed that, except you.

"When they claim that natural selection and random mutation are the major factors driving lifes diversity and I ask for one clear example..."

You have been given many clear examples. You have not read a single paper. You have not even demonstrated that you even know how to look up a scientific reference. Why in the world should anyone take anything you say seriously if you are ignorant of even the most basic concepts that you ridicule?

waynef said:

Troy said: You know, these aren't psychologists, sociologists, and liberal arts majors hanging out on this site. We are scientists and engineers ...

Careful, or you might find yourself telling the world that scientists and engineers are the only people on the planet capable of rigorous thought. Here's a liberal arts major - history is my game - who says it ain't so.

Troy said: On the other hand, when I look over the data and things which have been uncovered – wow – what a beautiful collection of things – and I hope that someday maybe a general theory will form it into an understandable frame as opposed to collecting it, all hodge podge, like now, and referring to it, rather incorrectly, as a “general theory”. I hope that helps you understand how I view it.

As a reader (lurker) on this blog, I must ask you do not drive us less than scientists away. We may lack your degrees but not your passion for science and an enlightened public. Some of what drives people to anti scientific movements such as ID or antivax is the aloofness they see within the scientific community. There needs to be an outreach to us outside the scientific community to bring back the wonder every child feels at their local science and industry museum.

Not to say you need to dumb down the material! Just make it and your brilliant minds accessible to us working Joe Schmoes. Not to rant, thank you.

Troy said: ...( I think you can see, its not a study funded by the ID folks or the radical Darwinist). ...

So far the take-the-theory-of-evolution-off-the-table approach has a 100% track record. Nothing is more effective at stripping the YEC/OEC/ID’er/miscellaneous anti-evolutionist of ammunition than forcing them to use biblical literalism/ID to deal with the real data. Just once, I’d like to see Dembski, for example, put down the fuzzy math (see discussion thread below) and explain hominid fossils, for example. I wonder if he’ll have more luck than Wells in Icons of Evolution…

— KP

As a reader (lurker) on this blog, I must ask you do not drive us less than scientists away. We may lack your degrees but not your passion for science and an enlightened public.

— Mendelein

What’s the name of this person, “the radical Darwinist”, who you mention? And why are you so afraid of this single person?

— Dan

Mendelein said: As a reader (lurker) on this blog, I must ask you do not drive us less than scientists away. We may lack your degrees but not your passion for science and an enlightened public. Some of what drives people to anti scientific movements such as ID or antivax is the aloofness they see within the scientific community. There needs to be an outreach to us outside the scientific community to bring back the wonder every child feels at their local science and industry museum. Not to say you need to dumb down the material! Just make it and your brilliant minds accessible to us working Joe Schmoes. Not to rant, thank you.

Troy said:

Harold said: “Troy - So, pretend that the theory of evolution doesn’t exist. What is your explanation for the diversity of life on earth and the greater similarities between some species than between others? I’d like to know.”

Troy babbled on for five paragraphs without even coming close to answering this question.

I'm married to a chemist and have a great love for the science of evolution. I take every effort to read reputable texts on the subject.
I agree wholeheartedly with you , KL, on the idea of this being a partial fault of education. Primarily, somewhere along the line we stopped teaching people to critically examine the world around them and take it apart. You would not believe how many issues people encounter in their everyday that would not be there if they stopped and really thought about something for more than a minute.
(Nigerian Scammer, Auto Warranty Scammers, Buying more Home than they can Afford)
The reason the public turns to preachers and charlatans is because they don't have to think or critically examine what they are being spoon fed. No work required, they sleep easy at night in a kind of Brave New World Fugue.
"I'm so glad I'm not an Alpha, they work ever so hard."

My real issue is that as a parent, I tremendously need the public to understand evolution, at least in Texas. I feel the scientific community is doing an incredible job on the legislature down there ensuring our textbooks are not filled with rubbish for the next 5-10. However, they are not reaching the people. As long as you are not reaching the people the faux discovery institute will be reaching them.

On the flip side, Miss Scraping the Bottom of a Few Barrels is luckily not reaching the majority either. Her crackpot theories are left to the fringe elements. We don't need to fear her as much as her watered down breathren who want to "teach the controversy".

On a brief side note, I love the debate here.

You have no general theory in this subject and it would be taught that way except for the impregnation of the field with the philosophical doctrines attached to Darwinism. To say otherwise is going up against good science as well as history. Sure, we all get how you can point to guys who photograph fishing lures, and we all get how you can cut people down who dare to question your empty claims – but make no mistake, other scientist are not of your limited narrow mind. There are others scientist who recognize that materialism in science is only about 100 years outdated and could care less if a handful still yammer on about how everyone not with them is a worthless idiot, for they understand perfectly well, the acts are NOT on your side. Again, here are the findings of an highly respected sociologist – go read it: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html

Long before Darwin people interested in fossils and the history of life understood perfectly well that in the older strata we find simple life forms, and in the younger strata we find life had very much diversified. They could have labeled that observation “evolution” and claimed it was a fact of nature and pretended like it was the best theory/fact in all of science – but quite frankly, they where not that stupid and they lacked a crusade movement wherein a thousand yammering jerks would descend upon you if you went against such non-sense.

Then came along Darwin and after lots of hard work (and in my opinion he was a far better scientist than most of his following) he fell back on natural selection coupled with gradualism because he just could not find any other way to explain the diversity. The problem is, gradualism with natural selection is out of sorts with the fossil record. Stasis is the nature of the fossil record, not gradual transition with boatloads of intermediate forms, and that is completely opposite of what the slow process of natural selection claims – in short, nice try but it does not hold up to scientific findings.

As time passed the habit was to take any new finding and place it under the wing of Darwin's theory. Genetics comes along and random mutation is used to place genetics under the Darwinian wing like this – a gradual accumulation of random mutations lead the the diversification of species – of course the problem is, it is still out of line with the empirical evidence of stasis.

Later Gould and company come along and thus we have a Harvard professor claiming that its not matching up to the empirical evidence. He gave us a theory, couched in all his lofty word use, that amounts to this – selection drove the matter but it happened in fast burst and then turned off only to turn on again later. Well that's nice, but really it is no more of a theory than saying “whatever the mechanical action is, it leads to stasis in species, and presently, we don't actually know how it is that happens.” We do know that the sudden appearance of completely formed life forms does not take place via random mutation, mathematics alone teaches us that. Furthermore, we also know that not one of the lofty ego's on this web site can point us to a general theory which scientifically accounts for Stasis in the fossil record – but they will be quick to say “your delusional” or the likes thereby reflecting the real status of their so-called “general evolution theory” – its a crusade, not reputable science.

Harun Yahya, it sounds like, has a book that reflects the property of Stasis regardless of its other shortcomings (I have not read the book). Perhaps with your help he can make a second edition wherein he cleans up the photos, points out the empirical property of Stasis, and how that little factor is out of line, not with that word of so many meanings as to render it scientifically highly problematic “evolution”, but instead not in line with Darwin's work, or the Richard Dawkins type neo-Darwinist.

Troy said: You have no general theory in this subject and it would be taught that way except for the impregnation of the field with the philosophical doctrines attached to Darwinism. To say otherwise is going up against good science as well as history.

Harold said: “Troy - So, pretend that the theory of evolution doesn’t exist. What is your explanation for the diversity of life on earth and the greater similarities between some species than between others? I’d like to know.”

“Troy babbled on for five paragraphs without even coming close to answering this question.”

That is exactly right. The difference between myself and so many on this web site is that I am not scarred to admit “there is no general theory”, or to put it another way, there is no theoretical explanation for it today which holds up to the empirical evidence. It is called intellectual honesty.

“On the other hand, when I look over the data and things which have been uncovered – wow – what a beautiful collection of things – and I hope that someday maybe a general theory will form it into an understandable frame as opposed to collecting it, all hodge podge, like now, and referring to it, rather incorrectly, as a “general theory”. I hope that helps you understand how I view it.

In conclusion: you don’t have a theory. I’m shocked.”

You shouldn't be shocked, after all, either does anyone else for the simple reason there is no such actual general theory in science. For example – there are all sorts here quick to claim anyone going against such a notion is a moron piece of sh*t creationist (crusade tactics), but a complete lack of any of them pointing to a theory in science which actually explains the property of Stasis. We are told that a primary factor is natural selection and random mutation, yet where is the study that isolates those and demonstrates that they alone lead to clear speciation jump like what we see in the fossil record? This would be a cake walk if we had a general theory, but instead we are left with their elevation of an anti- creationist crusade, name calling, and the Dawkins ethic of no one is qualified to talk about it except a Darwinst in the field. To bad guys – other scientist are dealing with it and they don't give a damn about the outdated intellectual coffin you live in – they are making sociological studies of your type and resting it on a far firmer scientific footing than anything you have going with your illusion of a general theory.

Troy said (in describing his problem w/ evolution):

"Given its historical roots and its deeply inseparable ties with philosophical materialism (which, btw, makes it less than able to stand up to modern science)"

Troy - I'm pretty sure that 'philosophical materialism' doesn't mean what you think it means (It appears to me that you are conflating philosophical materialism/ methodological materialism and atheism)

philosophical materialism = a belief that the material/ physical universe is all that exists

science DOES employ a method that could be described as 'materialist' = science can only study that which is material/physically exists, can be measured etc.

I do not see how on the same thread you can go out of your way to post the link to the Carnegie Survey (did you actually READ it?) where it shows :
"scientists attended church at the same regularity as the general population --47%" and there was NOT a significant difference between those in the life sciences and those in the physical sciences.

are you clueless or a liar?

you've also complained when people labeled you as a creationist - yet your criticisms (and methods of criticising) evolution are the same as creationists - if it looks like a duck and quacks - I'll call it a duck until I see some evidence that it's not a duck.

so far everything I've seen you EVER post can be boiled down to:
"quack QUACK quack quack..."

Troy said: quack quack quack.

Troy said: You have no general theory in this subject and it would be taught that way except for the impregnation of the field with the philosophical doctrines attached to Darwinism. To say otherwise is going up against good science as well as history. Sure, we all get how you can point to guys who photograph fishing lures, and we all get how you can cut people down who dare to question your empty claims – but make no mistake, other scientist are not of your limited narrow mind. There are others scientist who recognize that materialism in science is only about 100 years outdated and could care less if a handful still yammer on about how everyone not with them is a worthless idiot, for they understand perfectly well, the acts are NOT on your side. Again, here are the findings of an highly respected sociologist – go read it: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html Long before Darwin people interested in fossils and the history of life understood perfectly well that in the older strata we find simple life forms, and in the younger strata we find life had very much diversified. They could have labeled that observation “evolution” and claimed it was a fact of nature and pretended like it was the best theory/fact in all of science – but quite frankly, they where not that stupid and they lacked a crusade movement wherein a thousand yammering jerks would descend upon you if you went against such non-sense. Then came along Darwin and after lots of hard work (and in my opinion he was a far better scientist than most of his following) he fell back on natural selection coupled with gradualism because he just could not find any other way to explain the diversity. The problem is, gradualism with natural selection is out of sorts with the fossil record. Stasis is the nature of the fossil record, not gradual transition with boatloads of intermediate forms, and that is completely opposite of what the slow process of natural selection claims – in short, nice try but it does not hold up to scientific findings. As time passed the habit was to take any new finding and place it under the wing of Darwin's theory. Genetics comes along and random mutation is used to place genetics under the Darwinian wing like this – a gradual accumulation of random mutations lead the the diversification of species – of course the problem is, it is still out of line with the empirical evidence of stasis. Later Gould and company come along and thus we have a Harvard professor claiming that its not matching up to the empirical evidence. He gave us a theory, couched in all his lofty word use, that amounts to this – selection drove the matter but it happened in fast burst and then turned off only to turn on again later. Well that's nice, but really it is no more of a theory than saying “whatever the mechanical action is, it leads to stasis in species, and presently, we don't actually know how it is that happens.” We do know that the sudden appearance of completely formed life forms does not take place via random mutation, mathematics alone teaches us that. Furthermore, we also know that not one of the lofty ego's on this web site can point us to a general theory which scientifically accounts for Stasis in the fossil record – but they will be quick to say “your delusional” or the likes thereby reflecting the real status of their so-called “general evolution theory” – its a crusade, not reputable science. Harun Yahya, it sounds like, has a book that reflects the property of Stasis regardless of its other shortcomings (I have not read the book). Perhaps with your help he can make a second edition wherein he cleans up the photos, points out the empirical property of Stasis, and how that little factor is out of line, not with that word of so many meanings as to render it scientifically highly problematic “evolution”, but instead not in line with Darwin's work, or the Richard Dawkins type neo-Darwinist.

“Then in conclusion you admit that you’re completely clueless and have no alternative explanation. All I can do is shake my head…”

That is right – I have no theoretical frame for explaining why, for example, the fossil is a record of Stasis – which any real general theory in this field would do. Science does not work like this : the sun goes around the earth and that is a fact, unless you have some other explanation. Such a stance is every bit as stupid as saying “Darwin's theory is correct unless you have another explanation”.

The correctness of any theory never rest upon the presents of lack of some other explanation ...... never has, never will – not in science anyway (and if your a scientist who is worth a sh*t, you know that). Science takes a theory and elevates it because it is in line with the empirical evidence, and tosses it out when it clearly is not in line with the empirical evidence. Furthermore, if you don't have a theory which explains the empirical evidence you say “we don't have a theory which explains the empirical evidence”. That's how real works as opposed to the crusade slanted stuff – if that forces you into nothing but head shaking, so what.

Troy said: The difference between myself and so many on this web site is that I am not scarred to admit “there is no general theory”, or to put it another way, there is no theoretical explanation for it today which holds up to the empirical evidence. It is called intellectual honesty.

Troy - the way the scientific method works - a theory is discarded when a new theory better explains the evidence - it appears that you just don't "like" evolution or it's "materialist" implications (which I don't see BTW) that's not a reason to doubt that today the MET is the best explanation for biological diversity through time

- Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis is consistent with mutation and natural selection driving evolution not evidence that the MET is wrong.

Troy said: “Then in conclusion you admit that you’re completely clueless and have no alternative explanation. All I can do is shake my head…” That is right – I have no theoretical frame for explaining why, for example, the fossil is a record of Stasis – which any real general theory in this field would do. Science does not work like this : the sun goes around the earth and that is a fact, unless you have some other explanation. Such a stance is every bit as stupid as saying “Darwin's theory is correct unless you have another explanation”. The correctness of any theory never rest upon the presents of lack of some other explanation ...... never has, never will – not in science anyway (and if your a scientist who is worth a sh*t, you know that). Science takes a theory and elevates it because it is in line with the empirical evidence, and tosses it out when it clearly is not in line with the empirical evidence. Furthermore, if you don't have a theory which explains the empirical evidence you say “we don't have a theory which explains the empirical evidence”. That's how real works as opposed to the crusade slanted stuff – if that forces you into nothing but head shaking, so what.

jasonmitchell said: Troy - the way the scientific method works - a theory is discarded when a new theory better explains the evidence - it appears that you just don't "like" evolution or it's "materialist" implications (which I don't see BTW) that's not a reason to doubt that today the MET is the best explanation for biological diversity through time - Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis is consistent with mutation and natural selection driving evolution not evidence that the MET is wrong.

John Kwok:

Please learn to edit.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: The last, by atheists, is promoting an understanding of atheism ("an anti-religion campaign", in your parlance). ... Btw, what is an "extreme atheist"?

seeing that most scientists are attracted to atheism and so the demographic flow naturally goes in the other direction.

Bill Gascoyne said: John Kwok: Please learn to edit.

Mike said: Previously on Panda's Thumb: There is, unfortunately, a growing movement that lumps in opposition to the gutting of biology education by religious extremists with a greater campaign to proselytize atheism in a militant and insulting manner that's guaranteed to provoke political backlash. Here I'm referring to activities of Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, and others. Their concerns aren't as much defending science education as they are promoting an understanding of biology education as a way of undermining religion. Ironically, this goal is shared by anti-science religious fundamentalists, who use similar tactics of propaganda.

“Harun Yahoo has no valid conception of evolutionary stasis, period. Just for the record, my dear delusional twit ..........”

More crusade habits – you just love to pile them deeper and deeper. You are aware I count on that being a very common and predictable phenomena right?

Of course i never said that Harun did have a valid conception of Stasis – that's just another example of you doing what you claim creationist do. What I did elevate is that if his book is like what is being claimed, then the photos reflect the property of Stasis.

“........ it was American Museum of Natural History invertebrate paleontologist Niles Eldredge who first recognized that “stasis is data” ..........”

You mean to say it became politically OK (almost) to actually publicly say so. We know that the sudden emergence of species in the recorded was viewed as data by people like Darwin and Huxley as well as people before and after them. Huxley, in privet, looked to find a theory which would account for such data (in public he spewed insult on people against the Darwinian line of thought – seeing how he did that such would serve a greater purpose, even though in privet he knew it did not stand up to the data). All the paleontologist knew perfectly well that species show up fully formed and stay that way, more or less, regardless of how long they are in the record – that's the “trade secret”, as Gould called it. That it suddenly dawned on Eldridge to call it data and name it Stasis – well, good for him.

Mike,

I especially appreciate this observation of yours:

"Their concerns aren’t as much defending science education as they are promoting an understanding of biology education as a way of undermining religion. Ironically, this goal is shared by anti-science religious fundamentalists, who use similar tactics of propaganda."

Regrettably, months ago, especially in light of his activities last summer, I concluded that PZ Myers is the atheist version of William A. Dembski for the very reason you state.

Troy, I said I expected a direct answer.

Do you think you understand the utility of the Theory of Evolution better than the hundreds of thousands of scientists who use it every day?

I've spent the majority of the last decade living in various countries in the Middle East, and the level of ignorance regarding science in general, and biology in particular, is incredibly frightening.

Shame on UD and Denyse for pandering to this man.

Troy said: “........ it was American Museum of Natural History invertebrate paleontologist Niles Eldredge who first recognized that “stasis is data” ..........” You mean to say it became politically OK (almost) to actually publicly say so. We know that the sudden emergence of species in the recorded was viewed as data by people like Darwin and Huxley as well as people before and after them. Huxley, in privet, looked to find a theory which would account for such data (in public he spewed insult on people against the Darwinian line of thought – seeing how he did that such would serve a greater purpose, even though in privet he knew it did not stand up to the data). All the paleontologist knew perfectly well that species show up fully formed and stay that way, more or less, regardless of how long they are in the record – that's the “trade secret”, as Gould called it. That it suddenly dawned on Eldridge to call it data and name it Stasis – well, good for him.

John Kwok said: I especially appreciate this observation of yours:

Mike said:

John Kwok said: I especially appreciate this observation of yours:

Hm, not a Lost fan. My hope is that as Myers mellows with age, or as the science education situation becomes much worse (as appears likely), he will find a way to defend science education, and defend atheist's civil rights, in a way that promotes tolerance and doesn't sacrifice one for the other. The good folks at the NCSE seem to be able to do just that. I'm often disappointed.

@ Kwokkie - what is delusional about calling you credulous?
- Be careful what you say about PZ.

@ Troy - isn't it tedious how atheists knee-jerk complain about how there's nothing in criticisms of evolution, presumably so they don't have to face the fact that life on earth is complex (DNA, the brain, blood circ, eye-brain connections and data analysis etc. - all miraculously expanding in the right direction!) Evolution - it's a miracle!

“Troy- the way the scientific method works - a theory is discarded when a new theory better explains the evidence ..........”
I am perfectly well aware that there are those who make and elevate such a claim.
The worthiness and strength of any scientific theory does not rest upon the presents of lack of presents of other theories. Its worth rest upon how well it fits with the empirical data which it seeks to explain. Darwin's theory is not in line with the empirical data, the nature of the fossil record being a rather glaring example of this, as Darwin himself understood and is still understood (but it was pretty much taboo to mention the fact for about 100 years – why????? hint: crusade). In the face of such facts (and that is only one of the problems) science does not say “oh, well that theory is fact until you find something to replace it with”. Regardless of how sound such thinking is, it does not prevent us from running over to talkorigins, or here, and finding that such silly demands are being elevated as though they are of any real worth to science. It serves the purpose of a crusade, not of science.

Troy wrote:

"Darwin’s theory is not in line with the empirical data, the nature of the fossil record being a rather glaring example of this, as Darwin himself understood and is still understood (but it was pretty much taboo to mention the fact for about 100 years – why????? hint: crusade)."

Unfortunately for you, modern evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with the fossil record, as well as all of the genetic, developmental and molecular data. If you are not aware of all the data, how can you claim that it is is inconsistent with the theory? In fact, the modern theory of evolution is currently being used to predict where to look for new transitional forms, such at Tiktalik. Now there's predictive power for you Troy.

The imaginary crusade that you are so paranoid about is a fiction that you have contrived in order to deny the reality of evolution. You should really familiiarize yourself with the clergy project Troy. It alone dispells all of you misconceptions and hate mongering.

"Intelligent Design" Is Another of Satan's Distractions In rejecting one false claim such as evolution, one must be very careful not to fall prey to another of Satan's snares. One of Satan's main objectives is to prevent the recognition of Allah by any means possible, and to cause people to ignore His remembrance. There are those whom Satan has not been able to deceive with the concept of evolution. But if he can divert them in another direction, such as that of "intelligent design" he will again have achieved his end, in turning people away from remembering Allah. How Satan manages to appear in the name of truth and causes people to deviate by obstructing truth is revealed in the Qur'an: He [Satan] said: "By Your misguidance of me, I will lie in ambush for them on your straight path. Then I will come at them, from in front of them and behind them, from their right and from their left. You will not find most of them thankful." (Qur'an, 7:16-17) It should be known that overturning the theory of evolution and revealing the "chance" mindset as invalid both demonstrate the existence of Allah, by Whom everything was created, and not of "intelligent design." To say, "If there is no evolution, then there is intelligent design" is nothing less than adopting yet another false idol to replace the one of evolution.

novparl said: @ Kwokkie - what is delusional about calling you credulous? - Be careful what you say about PZ.

Troy said: “Troy- the way the scientific method works - a theory is discarded when a new theory better explains the evidence ..........” I am perfectly well aware that there are those who make and elevate such a claim. The worthiness and strength of any scientific theory does not rest upon the presents of lack of presents of other theories. Its worth rest upon how well it fits with the empirical data which it seeks to explain. Darwin's theory is not in line with the empirical data, the nature of the fossil record being a rather glaring example of this, as Darwin himself understood and is still understood (but it was pretty much taboo to mention the fact for about 100 years – why????? hint: crusade).

Wheels said: Troy, I said I expected a direct answer. Do you think you understand the utility of the Theory of Evolution better than the hundreds of thousands of scientists who use it every day?

As a small side note, please do not lump all evolutionists into the atheistic camp. Roman Catholics happily teach evolution in their schools in an indiluted form with little to no controversy.

{@ Troy - isn’t it tedious how atheists knee-jerk complain about how there’s nothing in criticisms of evolution, presumably so they don’t have to face the fact that life on earth is complex (DNA, the brain, blood circ, eye-brain connections and data analysis etc. - all miraculously expanding in the right direction!) Evolution - it’s a miracle! }

Funny, I'm religious and see no issue with complex systems having an underlying scientific cause that was not poofed into place by God. Actually, I see the poofing theory as running counter to scholastic growth, a big deal to us Catholics. But who wants to do all that hard critical thinking, right?

“Troy - isn’t it tedious how atheists knee-jerk complain about how there’s nothing in criticisms of evolution, presumably so they don’t have to face the fact that life on earth is complex (DNA, the brain, blood circ, eye-brain connections and data analysis etc. - all miraculously expanding in the right direction!) Evolution - it’s a miracle!”

I prefer the term “Darwinist” in part because there are atheist who happen not to take such a stance. Furthermore I don't really think it is so they don't have to face complexity.

Darwin's work is married to a type of naturalism of philosophical materialism. If we take a group of people who have the belief “I believe there is no God” and combine who further take this belief about the nature of supernatural entities and make statements about the nature of the universe and first causation based on such a belief (which not all atheist do), then, to that group, Darwin's work is very attractive. Its attraction rest in the nature of the theory wherein it looks like science has supported the correctness of the religious belief – it can give the illusion of intellectual satisfaction so long as we ignore that it is not really a theory of worth. We such things are believed to be “true”, and it is held to be true by a large number of people, it alters the society one lives in. The field of sociology studies such things and it has not ignored exactly that movement.

There are also political reasons for elevating the work as though it is “fact”. In that realm one does not even need to be an atheist and still you can find reason to promote it even if you know perfectly well it is a bunch of crap, under the idea that the ends justify the means. If your one who goes for the idea that half of mankind has an IQ below 100 so f*ck them – its a theory for you. There are no shortage of such applications of this theory in efforts to justify all sorts of human suffering.

Last, because it is taught as though it has worth, combined with the crusade cries that only an idiot creationist would think otherwise, there are those who are neither religious atheist or of the political orientation, who still elevate it because its what they have learned.

Whatever the case, they are coming under the microscope of sociologist and historians – and they are not painting a picture that looks like what the Darwinist wish.

Wheels said:

Wheels said: Troy, I said I expected a direct answer. Do you think you understand the utility of the Theory of Evolution better than the hundreds of thousands of scientists who use it every day?

This shouldn't be put off, it takes even less effort than the paragraphs you're writing to tell us how unscientific "Darwinism" is. You can answer this as a yes or no question, even. I just want an answer and not obfuscation, or to be ignored.

All science operates under some kind of "methodological naturalism" that is known as the "scientific method". Do you propose replacing that for physics, chemistry and geology as well as for biology?

Nor is it correct to refer to "Darwinist" and "Darwinism" as you insist in your increasingly incoherent and inane remarks here at PT.

I knew the ID creationists were getting desperate for allies, but this is a new low.

Perhaps the problem with education in evolution is too many trees and not enough forest. Consider: Darwin was working with the simplest of data. All he really knew was that descent occurs with modification, that absent other factors (like human technology) populations of living organisms strongly tend, over time, to come to balance with their environment, but that all populations of living organisms produce more offspring than are needed to maintain population, if all were to survive. These facts alone are enough to derive most of the theory. To that, Darwin could add the insights of comparative anatomy and morphology, but that was about all.

Then genetics defined the structure of inheritance and biochemistry filled in the mechanics. Geology confirmed the relative sequence. Paleontology revealed the history in ever-greater detail. Physics provided the time scale. Every new discovery supported the original theory, amplified and corroborated it. Now and then, variations were found and incorporated - the extinctions, "punctuated equilibrium", genetic drift. All the time, the theory was being strengthened, but the details are myriad, and they have become more and more technical.

Perhaps we should simplify. I know, I know, science is far beyond the basic insights of Darwin's day, but to me his original facts and reasoning remain as powerful as ever. Perhaps that would be so for other non-technical minds.

John Kwok said: I strongly second your request to Troy, who seems incapable of offering a cogent explanation as to why we should replace the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution with a "better" scientific alternative:

Wheels said:

Wheels said: Troy, I said I expected a direct answer. Do you think you understand the utility of the Theory of Evolution better than the hundreds of thousands of scientists who use it every day?

This shouldn't be put off, it takes even less effort than the paragraphs you're writing to tell us how unscientific "Darwinism" is. You can answer this as a yes or no question, even. I just want an answer and not obfuscation, or to be ignored.

Tangentially: am I the only person who mentally hears a slightly modified version of a George Harrison lyric when encountering the (pseudo)name of Yahya? ♪♩I don’t need no Yahya… ♫♪

— Pierce R. Butler

“Wheels said:
Troy, I said I expected a direct answer.
Do you think you understand the utility of the Theory of Evolution better than the hundreds of thousands of scientists who use it every day?”

LOL – my aren't you a demanding little unit! LMAO – just to toy with you, you will have to live with this ........

Here is what a scientist claims of the so-called theory of evolution: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html

I agree with him.

P.S. there are a lot of people with a lot of post on here directed at me - I don't come close to answering all of them, not because they are of no worth, but because the number of them combined with time constraints.

chupa said: I've spent the majority of the last decade living in various countries in the Middle East, and the level of ignorance regarding science in general, and biology in particular, is incredibly frightening.

Dave Luckett said: Perhaps the problem with education in evolution is too many trees and not enough forest. ... Perhaps we should simplify. I know, I know, science is far beyond the basic insights of Darwin's day, but to me his original facts and reasoning remain as powerful as ever. Perhaps that would be so for other non-technical minds.

Troy said: LOL – my aren't you a demanding little unit! LMAO – just to toy with you, you will have to live with this ........

Wheels said: Troy, I said I expected a direct answer. Do you think you understand the utility of the Theory of Evolution better than the hundreds of thousands of scientists who use it every day?

DS said: Troy wrote: "Darwin’s theory is not in line with the empirical data, the nature of the fossil record being a rather glaring example of this, as Darwin himself understood and is still understood (but it was pretty much taboo to mention the fact for about 100 years – why????? hint: crusade)." (quack, quack) Unfortunately for you, modern evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with the fossil record, as well as all of the genetic, developmental and molecular data. If you are not aware of all the data, how can you claim that it is is inconsistent with the theory? In fact, the modern theory of evolution is currently being used to predict where to look for new transitional forms, such at Tiktalik. Now there's predictive power for you Troy. The imaginary crusade that you are so paranoid about is a fiction that you have contrived in order to deny the reality of evolution. You should really familiiarize yourself with the clergy project Troy. It alone dispells all of you misconceptions and hate mongering.

Troy,

Sorry about your time constraints. Is that why you don't have time to put an "s" on the end of words that are supposed to be plural?

I'll make this real simple for you. Just answer yes or no:

Is punctuated equilibrum a pattern that is recoginzed by mainstream modern evolutionary theory?

I hope that your time constraints permit you to answer.

Having stayed out of it for a couple of days, it seems to me now that Troll really has no clue what modern evolutionary theory actually is, and seems to think that the Atheist Cabal is somehow worshipping Darwin and the Scripture of RM+NS Only, and that if the entire depth and breadth of biological understanding can't be condensed into an all-encompassing sentence or two, then we don't have a Real Theory.

He's wrong, of course. What a surprise.

Troy, you are truly clueless. Your ideas about "Darwinism" are 50 years or more out of date. Go read a book.

Troy said: “Wheels said: Troy, I said I expected a direct answer. Do you think you understand the utility of the Theory of Evolution better than the hundreds of thousands of scientists who use it every day?” LOL – my aren't you a demanding little unit! LMAO – just to toy with you, you will have to live with this ........ Here is what a scientist claims of the so-called theory of evolution: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html I agree with him.

A further illustration for those who've come in late. Myers has posted the commencement speech he was invited to give at a medical school (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/keck_school_of_medicine_commen.php#more)
There's nothing in there about defending science education, promoting the inclusion of evolution into medical education, and precious little about science. What's there is an honest glee at being a contrarian, and saying that "all religion is foolish tosh". Those are his concerns, and I think a great many of the group that have taken to calling themselves "the new atheists" share them. Its their "Cosmic War", and they're certainly free to wage it. What I object to is their claiming to be representative of the scientific and education communities. They aren't.

Yes, jasonmitchell, this sums up delusional twit LSS Troy quite nicely:

"Darwinism denies God, the scientific community is unwilling to accept challenges to evolutionary theory that are religiously motivated and lack empirical evidence, therefore scientists are involved in a crusade to repress religion"

He thinks he's an "anointed one of GOD", so it's impossible for him to answer us in a cogent, quite rational, fashion.

Troy said: Here is what a scientist claims of the so-called theory of evolution: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html I agree with him.

Mike said: A further illustration for those who've come in late. Myers has posted the commencement speech he was invited to give at a medical school (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/keck_school_of_medicine_commen.php#more) There's nothing in there about defending science education, promoting the inclusion of evolution into medical education, and precious little about science. What's there is an honest glee at being a contrarian, and saying that "all religion is foolish tosh". Those are his concerns, and I think a great many of the group that have taken to calling themselves "the new atheists" share them. Its their "Cosmic War", and they're certainly free to wage it. What I object to is their claiming to be representative of the scientific and education communities. They aren't.

Troy said: LOL – my aren't you a demanding little unit! LMAO – just to toy with you, you will have to live with this ........ Here is what a scientist claims of the so-called theory of evolution: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html I agree with him. P.S. there are a lot of people with a lot of post on here directed at me - I don't come close to answering all of them, not because they are of no worth, but because the number of them combined with time constraints.

fnxtr said: Having stayed out of it for a couple of days, it seems to me now that Troll really has no clue what modern evolutionary theory actually is...

Go read a book.

Dave Lovell said:

Troy said: Here is what a scientist claims of the so-called theory of evolution: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html I agree with him.

Written by Rodney Stark, Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences Baylor University http://www.rodneystark.com/ I doubt many here would stretch the term "Scientist" this far.

Is there really any more point in arguing with Troy? It's perfectly obvious he has no idea what he's talking about, he's dodging questions as fast as Bush Jr. dodged the draft, and his paragraphs are the sort of word-salad one finds coming from delusional cranks of the "Timecube" variety. In short, he's so far out of touch with reality that a) he doesn't know how to communicate with real people; and b) he doesn't know how to think rationally, or process a rational argument.

Like I said before, arguing with Troy is like peer-reviewing a "God-soap" label.

John Kwok said: Yes, jasonmitchell, this sums up delusional twit LSS Troy quite nicely: "Darwinism denies God, the scientific community is unwilling to accept challenges to evolutionary theory that are religiously motivated and lack empirical evidence, therefore scientists are involved in a crusade to repress religion" He thinks he's an "anointed one of GOD", so it's impossible for him to answer us in a cogent, quite rational, fashion.

jasonmitchell sums up Troy thusly.... "Darwinism denies God, the scientific community is unwilling to accept challenges to evolutionary theory ..."

I guess Troy could not find the time to type two or three letters in response, I wonder why?

Oh well, at least he is finally on topic. He has shown that Denyse isn't quite at the very bottom of the barrel.

“There is no doubt in my mind that PEOPLE or LEADERS that embraced ruthlessness, racism, bigotry etc. and justified their actions on warped concepts are evil and performed evil acts - but this leads to a interesting situation: Is the applied physics of ballistics or rocketry UNTRUE or EVIL because evil people used these sciences to aim weapons and kill innocent people? Is chemistry UNTRUE or EVIL because evil people use gunpowder or poison gas to kill innocents?”

There is a very real difference between applied physics and Darwinism in the way your pointing. People do not and did not say “Jews are less fit and it is completely understandable and justifiable, by the laws of applied physics, that they should be done away with before they infect the more fit samples among human society”. Nor did people say “we are scientifically justified in our efforts to suppress human beings because of the laws of chemistry”. On the other hand, people most certainly did do so with Darwin's theory. As Gould clearly pointed out, the number of people “scientifically” justifying their hate exploded after the publication of Darwin's work, and they did not do it with Chemistry or Quantum Physics, but time and time again with the Darwin theory. In fact it would seem that Darwin himself understood his theory contained such things as he is the one who wrote, while pontificating on the greater ramifications of his work, this:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Descent of Man (his book on how man fits in with his theory), chapter 10).

Do you think Darwin was a PERSON who embraced ruthlessness, racism, bigotry etc. and justified it based upon on warped concepts – or is it that he was a good guy and using his theory is not the sort of warped concept you had in mind? One thing for sure, regardless of how Darwin as an individual may have been, lots of people justified their actions of intolerance, including “extermination”, based on exactly what Darwin based his “extermination” on – DARWIN'S THEORY (not Chemistry of Physics)

Of course here on Pandas thumb your labelled god damn delusional creationist if you happen to notice that GLARRING little problem! Such actions reflect the modern day fruit of exactly the same problem related to exactly the same theory.

John Kwok said:
Yes, jasonmitchell, this sums up delusional twit LSS Troy quite nicely:
“Darwinism denies God, the scientific community is unwilling to accept challenges to evolutionary theory that are religiously motivated and lack empirical evidence, therefore scientists are involved in a crusade to repress religion”

"He thinks he’s an “anointed one of GOD”, so it’s impossible for him to answer us in a cogent, quite rational, fashion."

LOL – when I read how you completely and utterly distort anything and everything you can to pretend you have said something worth while to say, I come to understand why you get so offended when people call you things (What can I say, I read the collected works of Jung – it effected me)

What I say is this, “There is no plausible scientific theory of the origin of species at this time”.

I also say this, “Darwin's theory has a very dark side which is a blood sucking leach on the side of biology even today – the time to place salt on it is NOW”.

If that leaves you foaming - oh well

Actually Troy, a person using evolution to justify racism is actually using eugenics, a pseudoscience. It was commonly adopted by the Nazi party which used various psuedoscientific means to justify their hatred of non Anglo Saxons.
Believers in eugenics have no real use for science save when it justifies, no matter how flimsy the justifications, their narrow minded views. They are not doing active peer reviewed research to augment their knowledge and are no more taken seriously than another pseudoscience I can think of. Yes, I'm looking at you, ID.

Troy,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my simple question. Now everyone can see that you cannot answer it.

As for anyone using Darwin to justify hatred, racism or bigotry, that is simply impossible. There is absoutely nothing in Darwin's theory, or any other scientific theory, that justifies any moral behavior or lack thereof. And quite frankly, even if there were, it would have not impact whatsoever on the validy of the theory. Deal with it.

No one cares whether you believe that there is any plausible theory of the origin of species at this time or not. You have shown that you are so completely ignorant of all of modern science that your opinion can be safely ignored.

Troy said: [blah, blah...] Harun Yahya, it sounds like, has a book that reflects the property of Stasis regardless of its other shortcomings (I have not read the book).

Troy yammers.... There is a very real difference between applied physics and Darwinism in the way your pointing. People do not and did not say “Jews are less fit and it is completely understandable and justifiable, by the laws of applied physics, that they should be done away with before they infect the more fit samples among human society”.

Troy said: In fact it would seem that Darwin himself understood his theory contained such things as he is the one who wrote, while pontificating on the greater ramifications of his work, this: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Descent of Man (his book on how man fits in with his theory), chapter 10).

Troy said: John Kwok said: Yes, jasonmitchell, this sums up delusional twit LSS Troy quite nicely: “Darwinism denies God, the scientific community is unwilling to accept challenges to evolutionary theory that are religiously motivated and lack empirical evidence, therefore scientists are involved in a crusade to repress religion” "He thinks he’s an “anointed one of GOD”, so it’s impossible for him to answer us in a cogent, quite rational, fashion." LOL – when I read how you completely and utterly distort anything and everything you can to pretend you have said something worth while to say, I come to understand why you get so offended when people call you things (What can I say, I read the collected works of Jung – it effected me) What I say is this, “There is no plausible scientific theory of the origin of species at this time”. I also say this, “Darwin's theory has a very dark side which is a blood sucking leach on the side of biology even today – the time to place salt on it is NOW”. If that leaves you foaming - oh well

stevaroni said:

Troy yammers.... There is a very real difference between applied physics and Darwinism in the way your pointing. People do not and did not say “Jews are less fit and it is completely understandable and justifiable, by the laws of applied physics, that they should be done away with before they infect the more fit samples among human society”.

Leaving aside the sophistry for a moment, this has exactly what to do with the accuracy of evolution? Lots of pieces of knowledge get misapplied. Organic chemistry got subverted to make nerve gas, does that mean that the formulas governing organic chemistry are wrong? Physics got subverted to build gigantic bombs. Does that mean E doesn't equal MC squared. Even if you were right, in that knowledge of evolution was misapplied to do harm, that still doesn't mean evolution is incorrect. Whatever nonsense you're arguing, you're not arguing that evolution isn't dead solid established FACT. Briefly, succinctly, what the hell is your point?

Troy said: Do you think Darwin was a PERSON who embraced ruthlessness, racism, bigotry etc. and justified it based upon on warped concepts – or is it that he was a good guy and using his theory is not the sort of warped concept you had in mind? One thing for sure, regardless of how Darwin as an individual may have been, lots of people justified their actions of intolerance, including “extermination”, based on exactly what Darwin based his “extermination” on – DARWIN'S THEORY (not Chemistry of Physics)

What I say is this, “There is no plausible scientific theory of the origin of species at this time”. I also say this, “Darwin's theory has a very dark side which is a blood sucking leach on the side of biology even today – the time to place salt on it is NOW”. If that leaves you foaming - oh well

We have been treated to ample rhetorical stonewalling from deusional twit LSS Troy for several hours now. Not once has he even attempted to answer DS's question, "Is punctuated equilibrium a pattern that is recognized by mainstream modern evolutionary theory?”

As a former evolutionary biologist, I eagerly await his answer to DS's question and a cogent reply to my previous comment:

"Troy should ask himself why the great Dobzhansky and countless other biologists both before and after his time recognize that modern evolutionary theory is the only valid scientific theory that explains most, if not all, the data that supports the reality of evolution from each of the biological sciences."

John Kwok said: We have been treated to ample rhetorical stonewalling from deusional twit LSS Troy for several hours now. Not once has he even attempted to answer DS's question, "Is punctuated equilibrium a pattern that is recognized by mainstream modern evolutionary theory?” As a former evolutionary biologist, I eagerly await his answer to DS's question and a cogent reply to my previous comment: "Troy should ask himself why the great Dobzhansky and countless other biologists both before and after his time recognize that modern evolutionary theory is the only valid scientific theory that explains most, if not all, the data that supports the reality of evolution from each of the biological sciences."

I looked for some English articles to refer you to, but didn't find any yet. I know that Mr. Oktar was diagnosed when he went for military service (there is compulsory military service for all young men in Turkey). He was exempted from his service after he was diagnosed as schizophrenic. I know for sure that is why he was not convicted after some arrests in the 80's for which he spend time in Bakirkoy Mental Hospital rather than jail.

However, it appears that he has since been found sane enough for conviction as he and 17 of his followers are now appealing three years prison terms. They were found guilty of forcing women members of their group to prostitute themselves and blackmailing them (the women) with videos they secretly made of their sexual encounters (which Mr. Okatar had been keeping in his personal posession).

Also, I forgot to mention (which you can find in the Wikipedia article on him), that Mr. Oktar is very busy and successful at having websites blocked for Turkish users. Some of the sites are Turkish sites with articles critical of him (including the Union of Education and Scientific Workers and the popular newspaper Vatan), some of them are more general sites that critical articles about him, Islam, or creationism may have appeared on at one time or another(WordPress, Google Groups, and Richard Dawkins site). I imagine that Panda's Thumb is going to be the next target if you guys don't try to hurry and say how smart and wonderful he is:D

Aside from the comments made by Troy, or the link to Rodney Stark, I have a degree in a Social Science. Richard, the author and host of this thread, has a degree in a Social Science.

RBH said:

Aside from the comments made by Troy, or the link to Rodney Stark, I have a degree in a Social Science. Richard, the author and host of this thread, has a degree in a Social Science.

Well, where I've taught I've always been in the natural sciences division, and this year am a visiting professor of biology, so I'm a hybrid. For the last 18 years I've done evolutionary modeling professionally, which is what I teach. The problem Stark has is not what his degree is in, it's how badly he misrepresents people like Gould and Dawkins and the like. He quite plainly has never read either and is depending on secondary sources and quote mines for his material. It's a pretty sad essay, actually, steeped in plain ignorance.

I'm not arguing, Gary, but rather clarifying. Shoot, I've even got an undergraduate anthropology degree back there somewhere. :)

Mike said: What I object to is their claiming to be representative of the scientific and education communities.

Gary Hurd said:

Dave Lovell said:

Troy said: Here is what a scientist claims of the so-called theory of evolution: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html I agree with him.

Written by Rodney Stark, Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences Baylor University http://www.rodneystark.com/ I doubt many here would stretch the term "Scientist" this far.

Aside from the comments made by Troy, or the link to Rodney Stark, I have a degree in a Social Science. Richard, the author and host of this thread, has a degree in a Social Science.

tomh said:

Mike said: What I object to is their claiming to be representative of the scientific and education communities.

Do you have a reference where Myers, or any of the others you object to, claim to be "representative of the scientific and education communities"? I haven't seen that and I'd be interested to see that claim. Thanks.

Nope, the problem with public school biology education is the opposite. Evolution, genetics, and population genetics are usually presented in their own little walled off chapters with little to no connection being made between them. That’s why its so easy for many schools to make the decision to simply not teach evolution at all, and thus save themselves alot of trouble. That’s why we have a majority population that doesn’t understand biology, or how science is conducted.

— Mike

Sorry about your time constraints. Is that why you don’t have time to put an “s” on the end of words that are supposed to be plural?

— DS

Unfortunately for you, modern evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with the fossil record, as well as all of the genetic, developmental and molecular data. If you are not aware of all the data, how can you claim that it is is inconsistent with the theory?

— DS

“Hey, Troy, got a challenge for you. You’re a demonstrated Liar For Jesus™, so how about you try explaining what the fuck you’re talking about WITHOUT LYING?”

Your intolerance is sicking. People, please note - the above is NOT how science is run, it is how a crusade is run.

Which of the following is a promotion of intolerance as though it is scientifically justified?

1) H2O
2) E = MC^2
3) Christian fish symbols with legs added to it. (the Darwin fish)

Science is not a place for the promotion of intolerance. Crusaders elevate it, not science.

Frank,

I can't speak for troll, er I mean Troy, but as far as I can tell the following apply:

1) He hates Darwin and apparently blames Darwin for all of the evils of society, including racism. He continuously spouts the Darwin = atheism = hate message, despite all evidence to the contrary. He claims that this mesage is taught in public schools but can provide absolutely no evidence for this claim.

2) He apparently does not believe that there is a theory that accounts for the origin of species. RM + NS does not count apparently, unless it is the only thing that happens and no other processes occur. He apparently does not think that anyone has learned anything about any other processes since the time of Darwin. He thinks that a true theory must be capable of predicting exactly when and where each random mutation will arise and will accept nothing less. He steadfastly refuses to read any journal article that provides evidence that refutes his ignorant claims and indeed may be incapable of doing so.

3) He does not think that the theory of evolution fits the evidence from the fossil record, apparently because he thinks that "stasis" is some kind of problem for evolution. He is unwilling to admit that punctuated equilibrium is an accepted part of modern evolutionary theory, apparently because he realizes that this admission will completely undermine all his claims.

4) He is absolutely convinced that there is a vast conspiracy, apparently involving all "scientist", to force acceptance of Darwin's ideas. He apparently thinks that this is some kind of "crusade" because all contrary evidence is somehow magically suppressed. (Well if you don't read any journals I guess you could get that mistaken impression).

5) He offeres no alternative theory with more predictive power, indeed he offers no alternative at all. Evolution just ain't good enough, so we gots to thow it all out don'ts ya know. Of course, this is just another creobot spouting nonsense so it will ultimately come down to GODDIDIT, but he refuses to admit that, at least so far. The preaching will probably commence once he realizes that he isn't goiing to fool anybody with his pseudoscientific nonsense.

Oh well, at least we have another example of the bottom of the barrel.

Which of the following promotes tolerance and scientific understanding?

1) Crusades

2) Holy wars

3) Jihads

4) Inquisitions

5) Witch hunts

6) Over one million articles in peer reviewed scientific journals

That's right Troy, it's all one big conspiracy in order to prevent you from reading that article in Genetics. It's working out pretty well so far don't you think. Go Darwin fish!

Troy said: Your intolerance is sicking. People, please note - the above is NOT how science is run, it is how a crusade is run. [snip] Science is not a place for the promotion of intolerance. Crusaders elevate it, not science.

I would offer that scientist are what scientist do. If you pose and answer new questions with the scientific method, you are a scientist. Academic degrees may be indicative, but are not a guarantee that someone is a scientist.

“There is absoutely nothing in Darwin’s theory, or any other scientific theory, that justifies any moral behavior or lack thereof.”

To use the words of Max Weber, “We know of no scientifically ascertainable ideals”. That is not to say that we can't in some way distill morals and ethics, we can – it is to simply say that science is not the tool for doing so. Today we look at a thing, notice the distillation of a moral or ethic from it, and can understandably say, “that is not science for it is doing what science does not”. I am not so sure that flipping that on its head is justified (this is science therefore it is not distilling a moral or ethic - when in fact there is reason to believe that it does).

Prior to around 1900 there was quite a movement going on wherein some people very strongly felt that science would distill all the answers of the universe, that it had such power. If it had such power, we would be able to scientifically distill morals and ethics. In England there was a very clear attempt to justify ethical and moral stance via science – Herbert Spencer made a very clear attempt at this in his Westminster Review paper wherein attempts to equate the Irish genocide to being but an act of nature driven by the law of natural selection (http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/spencer2.html ).

The idea has its roots in Malthus and is expanded upon in Darwin. It is very clear that Darwin saw the connection in his own theory, one need look no farther than “the Descent of Man” to see this.

After 1900 all that started to change. Einsteins work taught us with respect to the nature of science that, as Richard Feynman put it, “everything can be wrong!” Quantum Physics pointed to very real limits and constrains upon science. Weber was pointing to limits in science and the sociological effects (damage) from not respecting those limits. Kurt Godel tossed Principia Mathematica in the trash can via clearly defined limits on mathematical systems and logic. Jung pointed to the fallacies in the over extension of psychological theories. Etc., etc. All of these things a point to the limits of science and the need to properly account for those limits in our scientific endeavours.

We may take the work of Malthus, Spencer, and Darwin and say “hey, the nature of science itself was not so well understood when they did their work and thus we should not be so fast to judge them using standards which were unknown to them” (ignoring here Kant). Well enough. But are we really justified in saying “science has no power to distill ideals, therefore Darwin's work does no such thing?” To properly teach the nature of modern science as it is understood today, is it not our responsibility to properly account for the limits of that work, especially in light of just how far so many people have in fact ran, and do run with it? If we really understood those limits, would we not point to people with Darwin fish on their cars and say “you really have no understanding of science do you”, after all, Darwin's theory has no power to justify such symbolic claims does it, and only the ignorant would think otherwise, and only the foolish would equate science with such promotions.

Rob said: I would offer that scientist are what scientist do. If you pose and answer new questions with the scientific method, you are a scientist. Academic degrees may be indicative, but are not a guarantee that someone is a scientist.

So, Troy, how does this new spiel of yours supposed to be evidence that "Darwinism = Atheism = Hate" and that Darwin is directly responsible for all modern genocides?

Troy, why don't you explain to us how Darwin, Darwinism and "Darwinst" are responsible for the Khmer Rouge and Rwandan Genocides, or the Darfur Catastrophe?

Troy supposedly wrote:

"To properly teach the nature of modern science as it is understood today, is it not our responsibility to properly account for the limits of that work, especially in light of just how far so many people have in fact ran, and do run with it? If we really understood those limits, would we not point to people with Darwin fish on their cars and say “you really have no understanding of science do you”, after all, Darwin’s theory has no power to justify such symbolic claims does it, and only the ignorant would think otherwise, and only the foolish would equate science with such promotions."

Go right ahead. What you can't do is claim that those who attempted to justify their moral choices in the name of science were in fact justified in doing so. What you can't do is try to claim that the science is invalid because someone tried to use it in an inappropriate way. What you can't do is try to somehow claim that any of this calls the modern therory of evolution into question in any way shape or form. And, if you do try to do that, then you must rationally condemn all religion as well.

You can blubber all you want about supposed atrocities, but the fact remains that scientists do science. You have ignored the science. You have not made one valid criticism of modern evolutionary theory. One last time, are you going to read the Genetics paper or not?

As far as the Darwin fish goes, you do know that the original fish was a symbol of a secret religious sect right? You do know that it is not the symbol of a secret religious sect if it has feet on it, right? You do know that it makes no "symbolic claims", right? Oh, and if you somehow feel that it somehow claims that terrestrial tetrapods are descended from marine ancestors, that is not a "syumbolic claim". That is something for which there is a virtual mountain of empirical evidence. Now if you want to discuss that evidence, fine. You will however have to become familiar with that evidence first.

After polluting several threads with inane babble, the only thing Troy seems to be doing is making excuses for not learning anything about science, or anything else for that matter.

He appears to have thoroughly conflated stubborn, pig-headed ignorance and intellectual laziness with “scholarly” skepticism. By always finding a reason to be “skeptical” of everything, he has found what he seems to think are rational reasons for remaining stupid.

Unfortunately, his pattern of excuses and his characteristic misconceptions expose his thoroughly rube-like gullibility and the sources of his misinformation. The word games give it all away.

Troy said: “Hey, Troy, got a challenge for you. You’re a demonstrated Liar For Jesus™, so how about you try explaining what the fuck you’re talking about WITHOUT LYING?” Your intolerance is sicking. People, please note - the above is NOT how science is run, it is how a crusade is run. Which of the following is a promotion of intolerance as though it is scientifically justified? 1) H2O 2) E = MC^2 3) Christian fish symbols with legs added to it. (the Darwin fish) Science is not a place for the promotion of intolerance. Crusaders elevate it, not science.

Dave Luckett said: From Myers' speech on commencement to Keck Medical College, now on Pharyngula: "I try to communicate the excitement of science to a lay audience, and as a public intellectual, I take great pleasure in slaughtering sacred cows. Some think I perhaps take a little bit too much pleasure in not just slaughtering, but the long, slow, brutal vivisection of the sacred, but that's just who I am." Myers begins by claiming to speak not only as a scientist, but one who speaks for science, that is, as one who communicates it to a lay audience. Hence, he is saying he is a representative of science.

Dave Luckett said: Immediately after this, he acknowledges that he is engaged in the "brutal vivisection of the sacred". He claims he does this as "a public intellectual", but since his only claim to be a "public intellectual" is that he is a scientist, it is plain that the terms are essentially interchangeable in this context. That is, he is a representative of science, and he is using that status to engage in the "vivisection of the sacred".

Assholes like Steve Fuller, or his equally extreme counterpart Paul Gross cannot alter the fact that there is such a thing as "culture" and that we are all enmeshed in it whether we like it, or are even cognizant of it.

I thought you had activated your personal Romulan Cloaking Device, Troy:

Am looking forward to your rebuttal to these comments of mine:

"If Troy’s observation that 'Darwin’s theory.… is a blood sucking leach (sic) on the side of biology even today.…' is true, then how can he justify that when one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the previous century, evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed, in 1973, that, 'Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'.

"Troy should ask himself why the great Dobzhansky and countless other biologists both before and after his time recognize that modern evolutionary theory is the only valid scientific theory that explains most, if not all, the data that supports the reality of evolution from each of the biological sciences."

A number of us have been awaiting your answer to DS's question:

Is punctuated equilibrium a pattern that is recognized by mainstream modern evolutionary theory?”

As a former evolutionary biologist, I look forward to reading your replies to these remarks of mine and DS's.

Peace and Long Life (as an AiG Dalek Clone),

John Kwok

John Kwok said: Gary - I hope you are not referring to biologist Paul R. Gross, who has been one of our best foes against Intelligent Design creationism (most notably for the book he co-authored with "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design") and has done excellent service on behalf of academia as witnessed by his prior leadership of the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole and as the former provost of the University of Virginia:

Assholes like Steve Fuller, or his equally extreme counterpart Paul Gross cannot alter the fact that there is such a thing as "culture" and that we are all enmeshed in it whether we like it, or are even cognizant of it.

If you are indeed referring to Gross, then I know of nothing in his record that would warrant remotely, any semblance of comparison with that utterly delusional fool, "philosopher" Steve Fuller. Respectfully yours, John

It is boring and, more to the point, ultimately likely irrelevant. It could be good tactics to point out the differences in belief, if someone who is leaning into OEC is bothered by YEC, or the reverse. It could also, possibly, be helpful if some fence sitter hasn’t yet observed the differences. But I would dearly like to see some statistics showing that it actually works.

— Torbjörn Larsson

tomh said:

Dave Luckett said: From Myers' speech on commencement to Keck Medical College, now on Pharyngula: "I try to communicate the excitement of science to a lay audience, and as a public intellectual, I take great pleasure in slaughtering sacred cows. Some think I perhaps take a little bit too much pleasure in not just slaughtering, but the long, slow, brutal vivisection of the sacred, but that's just who I am." Myers begins by claiming to speak not only as a scientist, but one who speaks for science, that is, as one who communicates it to a lay audience. Hence, he is saying he is a representative of science.

That's a mighty tortured interpretation of the English language. Someone who tries to communicate the excitement of science to a lay audience is claiming to speak for science? That's it? By that reasoning any scientist who speaks to a lay audience is claiming to speak for all of science. I'm afraid you've let your dislike of Myers overrun your reason.

In “Only a Theory” Ken Miller noted how the ID scam succeeded in uniting anti-evolutionists and dividing “evolutionists.” Isn’t it time that we at least try to deny the activists that?

John Kwok said: So, in conclusion, Dave Luckett, Mike and myself (And I have been careful not to emphasize my recent contretemps with Myers over at Pharyngula. In fact my ample disgust with his religious bigotry surfaced after I heard about the risible "cracker" incident last summer.) have made rational, quite cogent, criticisms of the militant atheism practiced by Myers, Dawkins, Coyne and others, and I think we are all in agreement that their criticism of "religious accomodation" by science advocacy and professional scientific organizations like NCSE and AAAS does a great disservice to these very organizations and is counterproductive in the court of public opinion.

Stanton said:

Rob said: I would offer that scientist are what scientist do. If you pose and answer new questions with the scientific method, you are a scientist. Academic degrees may be indicative, but are not a guarantee that someone is a scientist.

Ergo, no one at the Discovery Institute are scientists.

Troy said: “Blab Blab Blab

tomh said:

John Kwok said: So, in conclusion, Dave Luckett, Mike and myself (And I have been careful not to emphasize my recent contretemps with Myers over at Pharyngula. In fact my ample disgust with his religious bigotry surfaced after I heard about the risible "cracker" incident last summer.) have made rational, quite cogent, criticisms of the militant atheism practiced by Myers, Dawkins, Coyne and others, and I think we are all in agreement that their criticism of "religious accomodation" by science advocacy and professional scientific organizations like NCSE and AAAS does a great disservice to these very organizations and is counterproductive in the court of public opinion.

So what? Make all the criticisms you want, he might be destroying the very essence of science, for all I know. As usual, you've completely missed the point. The assertion was made that Myers claims to be a representative of science, and to speak for science and scientists. No one has backed this up with any actual claims, just their own tortured interpretations of his speech.

Thanks for your hysterical reference to that classic "Star Trek" episode, the "Squire of Gothos". Hadn't occurred to me beforehand to think of our dear delusional twit LSS Troy as "General Trelane". But that's a rather astute observation of yours!

“However, the fundamental problem with Myers’s line of reasoning is that it gives creos like Troy “confirmation” that “belief” in “Darwinism” EQUALS “GODLESS ATHEISM”.”

One, that is not what I think (although I probably need not point that out given the plethora of examples where you display your non-stop distortion of what I say).

Second, the fundamental problem with the lines of reasoning your pointing to is that it was found to be invalid back around 1900. Unfortunately, far from educating people about the fallacy, in biology the trend has been to ignore it and or even elevate it as though it is correct – which is why we are more likely to hear people pointing at a Darwin fish saying “he is a biology teacher” than saying “look, the sign of someone who is ignorant of the limits of science.”

It is not a matter of denying that mechanical processes drive diversity – it is a matter of not kicking the non-scientific out of science.

Troy, you are monumentally bad at being clear about what you do think.

All we have managed to gather so far is that you blame Darwin for an idea that some people have abused. (Hiroshima was a horror, but E still = mc^2. Suck it up, princess.)

You seem to have this idea that "Darwinism" is some preserved text, and refuse to understand that biology is a dynamic enterprise like any other scientific endeavour.

Again, what are you on about?

tomh said:

Dave Luckett said: From Myers' speech on commencement to Keck Medical College, now on Pharyngula: "I try to communicate the excitement of science to a lay audience, and as a public intellectual, I take great pleasure in slaughtering sacred cows. Some think I perhaps take a little bit too much pleasure in not just slaughtering, but the long, slow, brutal vivisection of the sacred, but that's just who I am." Myers begins by claiming to speak not only as a scientist, but one who speaks for science, that is, as one who communicates it to a lay audience. Hence, he is saying he is a representative of science.

That's a mighty tortured interpretation of the English language. Someone who tries to communicate the excitement of science to a lay audience is claiming to speak for science? That's it? By that reasoning any scientist who speaks to a lay audience is claiming to speak for all of science. I'm afraid you've let your dislike of Myers overrun your reason.

Not kicking the non-scientific out of science?

wtf?

Are you saying kicking the non-scientific out of science is good or bad? Good __ Bad __

The way you express yourself there is still no way of knowing.

The darwin-fish isn't science, it's a joke, a poke at ignorance, and clever shorthand. People point at it and say 'that person is not a biblical literalist', or 'that person has a sense of humour'. Get a grip.

Or are you denying the evolutionary development of land animals from the sea? Y_ N_

If so, why? If not, what is your fucking point already?

Troy yammers... That is not to say that we can’t in some way distill morals and ethics, we can – it is to simply say that science is not the tool for doing so. ... ... is it not our responsibility to properly account for the limits of that work, especially in light of just how far so many people have in fact ran, and do run with it?

Troy,

So your answer is no, you have no intention of ever reading a scientific journal article, ever. Well then, I am going to kick you and your nonscientific nonsense out of science.

You don't like the Darwin fish? Too bad. It's here to stay and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. We will continue to hold our secret meetings right under your nose in our secret government labs using our mysterious pagan symbols. And we will continue to publish our results in the place where you will never be able to find them, the peer reviewed literature. Talk about someone who is ignorant of the limits of science!

Troy said: “Hey, Troy, got a challenge for you. You’re a demonstrated Liar For Jesus™, so how about you try explaining what the fuck you’re talking about WITHOUT LYING?” Your intolerance is sicking. People, please note - the above is NOT how science is run, it is how a crusade is run. Which of the following is a promotion of intolerance as though it is scientifically justified? 1) H2O 2) E = MC^2 3) Christian fish symbols with legs added to it. (the Darwin fish) Science is not a place for the promotion of intolerance. Crusaders elevate it, not science.

My dear delusional twit LSS Troy -

You haven't answered the correct questions yet:

Am looking forward to your rebuttal to these comments of mine:

“If Troy’s observation that ‘Darwin’s theory.… is a blood sucking leach (sic) on the side of biology even today.…’ is true, then how can he justify that when one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the previous century, evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed, in 1973, that, ‘Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’.

“Troy should ask himself why the great Dobzhansky and countless other biologists both before and after his time recognize that modern evolutionary theory is the only valid scientific theory that explains most, if not all, the data that supports the reality of evolution from each of the biological sciences.”

A number of us have been awaiting your answer to DS’s question:

"Is punctuated equilibrium a pattern that is recognized by mainstream modern evolutionary theory?”

As a former evolutionary biologist, I look forward to reading your replies to these remarks of mine and DS’s.

Peace and Long Life (as an AiG Dalek Clone),

John Kwok

An excellent bit of analysis, Dave, but I do have one little caveat. Myers has admitted to me that he's not a "successful and eminent scientist". He made this admission after I suggested that maybe he ought to try to be as eminent an evolutionary developmental biologist as his University of Wisconsin, Madison colleague Sean Carroll in lieu of his frequent criticism of a prominent organized religion like Roman Catholic Christianity (Instead, Myers's "fame" is due to his erstwhile excellence as a science blogger and as a bizarre agent provocateur on behalf of militant atheism.):

"You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation of his words. I differ."

"'Trying to communicate the excitement of science' was not what Myers was there to do. He said he does that on other occasions. He was there because he is a successful and eminent scientist. To that audience, he represented science, and he knew it."

"This is demonstrated by his language. Myers told his audience that they or others were 'lay', which implies that he is not. This is an interesting use of the word, considering his loathing of all religious language, and is, I think, important. What does that use imply?"

"It implies that Myers thinks that he is more learned, of course. (That's fair enough, at least within his field.) But that's not all. The 'laity-clergy' dichotomy that he invoked ascribes not only greater knowledge and learning to the 'clergy' group. It also implies a hierarchy of authority. Clergy have magisterium. They have authority, imparted by their position, that lay people do not. By calling his audience "lay", Myers is not only saying that he has something to impart to them. He is also claiming authority from his position as a member of a different, more authoritative group. They are 'laypeople', but he is a scientist."

"To claim that authority necessarily means he is not speaking only for himself. He is claiming the authority derived from his membership of that group. He is speaking for them. He therefore represents that group. The one must follow from the other."

"Myers was therefore representing science to that audience and others, and his language proves that he knew he was."

I believe Dave Luckett has refuted your inane observation about Myers's intentions with respect to his USC speech.

Dear Troy,

Evolutionary science marches on. Most recently with discovery of a "new" 47 million year old primate fossil. The results are to be published in a scientific journal PLoS on Tuesday. I hope you can read and understand it.

Rob

You can call me names all day long, all month long, and all year long - and your childish crap will only serve to indicate the need to to clarify why it is such hate promotion is always in biology.

The reason is clear enough - it is hinged directly to Darwins theory - that is, there is an aspect of Darwin's work which is used, even today, to promote intolerance. If you want to see the intolerance, go no farther than an evolution-creation board.

Do we ever stop and ask, why is it "evolution VS creation"? Is science capable of demonstrating there is no God? No it is not - certainly no more so than the other way around. Given that as the case, "evolution VS creation" makes about as much sense as "evolution VS atheism", if by "evolution" we mean some set of theories in science - after all, there are no set of theories which go against god or atheism either one.

One may argue that the science of evolution is threatened by the small group of people who want to teach the flood story and the first seven days in biology class - but such claims do not hold to observation. The presents of some people making such efforts certainly is no indication that biology is on the edge of falling.

The problem is actually exactly the opposite - it is the "evolution" side which infects the inside of biology, not the other way around. That is why when you show up at an "evolution vs creation" message board and point to the fact that Darwin's theory is used, even today, as a way to scientifically justify hate and intolerance, your instantly pegged as creationist, and advocate of ID, a moron, delusional, a Jesus freak, etc., etc., etc. That is not biology defending itself against someone with a Bible - that is a crusade against anyone who dare to speak about the real ills of a theory which is not scientifically sound.

(you can take that to mean that I don't think there is any worth in evolutionary biology - however, to do so is the same thing as pointing to yourself and saying that the only findings of worth in evolutionary biology are Darwin's - a habit which already has a long trail of examples).

Dave Luckett said: This is demonstrated by his language. Myers told his audience that they or others were "lay", which implies that he is not. This is an interesting use of the word, considering his loathing of all religious language, and is, I think, important. What does that use imply? It implies that Myers thinks that he is more learned, of course. (That's fair enough, at least within his field.) But that's not all. The 'laity-clergy' dichotomy that he invoked ascribes not only greater knowledge and learning to the 'clergy' group. It also implies a hierarchy of authority. Clergy have magisterium. They have authority, imparted by their position, that lay people do not. By calling his audience "lay", Myers is not only saying that he has something to impart to them. He is also claiming authority from his position as a member of a different, more authoritative group. They are "laypeople", but he is a scientist. To claim that authority necessarily means he is not speaking only for himself. He is claiming the authority derived from his membership of that group. He is speaking for them. He therefore represents that group. The one must follow from the other. Myers was therefore representing science to that audience and others, and his language proves that he knew he was.

John Kwok said: I believe Dave Luckett has refuted your inane observation about Myers's intentions with respect to his USC speech.

Troy babbled: You can call me names all day long, all month long, and all year long - and your childish crap will only serve to indicate the need to to clarify why it is such hate promotion is always in biology.

The reason is clear enough - it is hinged directly to Darwins theory - that is, there is an aspect of Darwin's work which is used, even today, to promote intolerance. If you want to see the intolerance, go no farther than an evolution-creation board.

Do we ever stop and ask, why is it "evolution VS creation"? Is science capable of demonstrating there is no God? No it is not - certainly no more so than the other way around. Given that as the case, "evolution VS creation" makes about as much sense as "evolution VS atheism", if by "evolution" we mean some set of theories in science - after all, there are no set of theories which go against god or atheism either one.

One may argue that the science of evolution is threatened by the small group of people who want to teach the flood story and the first seven days in biology class - but such claims do not hold to observation.

The presents of some people making such efforts certainly is no indication that biology is on the edge of falling.

The problem is actually exactly the opposite - it is the "evolution" side which infects the inside of biology, not the other way around.

That is why when you show up at an "evolution vs creation" message board and point to the fact that Darwin's theory is used, even today, as a way to scientifically justify hate and intolerance, your instantly pegged as creationist, and advocate of ID, a moron, delusional, a Jesus freak, etc., etc., etc.

That is not biology defending itself against someone with a Bible -

that is a crusade against anyone who dare to speak about the real ills of a theory which is not scientifically sound.

(you can take that to mean that I don't think there is any worth in evolutionary biology

- however, to do so is the same thing as pointing to yourself and saying that the only findings of worth in evolutionary biology are Darwin's - a habit which already has a long trail of examples).

Rob said: Dear Troy, Evolutionary science marches on. Most recently with discovery of a "new" 47 million year old primate fossil. The results are to be published in a scientific journal PLoS on Tuesday. I hope you can read and understand it.

tomh said:

John Kwok said: I believe Dave Luckett has refuted your inane observation about Myers's intentions with respect to his USC speech.

You believe a lot of weird things. Heck, you believe that Obama was born in Africa.

tomh said:

Dave Luckett said: This is demonstrated by his language. Myers told his audience that they or others were "lay", which implies that he is not. This is an interesting use of the word, considering his loathing of all religious language, and is, I think, important. What does that use imply? It implies that Myers thinks that he is more learned, of course. (That's fair enough, at least within his field.) But that's not all. The 'laity-clergy' dichotomy that he invoked ascribes not only greater knowledge and learning to the 'clergy' group. It also implies a hierarchy of authority. Clergy have magisterium. They have authority, imparted by their position, that lay people do not. By calling his audience "lay", Myers is not only saying that he has something to impart to them. He is also claiming authority from his position as a member of a different, more authoritative group. They are "laypeople", but he is a scientist. To claim that authority necessarily means he is not speaking only for himself. He is claiming the authority derived from his membership of that group. He is speaking for them. He therefore represents that group. The one must follow from the other. Myers was therefore representing science to that audience and others, and his language proves that he knew he was.

That's an awful lot of assumptions and conclusions to draw from one three letter word. It sounds like you think that a scientist who addresses the community is representing science which is certainly a reasonable enough conclusion. You also seem to think Myers does a piss-poor job of representing science. Fair enough, everyone has an opinion. But to roll all your inferences, assumptions, and opinions into a blanket statement that Myers claims to be representing all of science, and all scientists, seems extreme and disingenuous, at best. In fact, the original statement that I responded to, from Mike, was "What I object to is their claiming to be representative of the scientific and education communities." Presumably, he means, besides Myers, the usual suspects, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris; I have yet to see anyone produce a simple fact that supports this assertion for any of them, including Myers. The idea that they claim they are representing not only science but the educational community is ludicrous.

Once again, Troy evades.... The reason is clear enough - it is hinged directly to Darwins theory - that is, there is an aspect of Darwin’s work which is used, even today, to promote intolerance. If you want to see the intolerance, go no farther than an evolution-creation board.

“There is “evolution versus creationISM” because some people are told by their spiritual handlers that “descent with modification” conflicts with their spiritual beliefs, namely, that “descent with modification” conflicts with the belief that the world is 6 to 10,000 years old, and that everything that transpired in the Book of Genesis literally happened, despite a pronounced lack of physical evidence.”

While certainly there are those who do believe the earth is very young, and those who feel that descent with modification conflicts with their “spiritual” beliefs, they are a very real minority who has not the least chance of taking over the American education system.

On the other hand, the “ethical norms” which have clearly show aliment with Darwin's descent with modification are very much at odds with the ethical norms of Christianity as a whole. Whereas one may well be justified in elevating ethical norms not compatible to Christianity, science is no place to be doing that. One can demonstrate such a connection to Darwin's work far easier than demonstrating his work as scientifically valid, all the same the first we are to remain silent about and the second, well, treating it as valid is not exactly dismissed as off the mark!

“The teaching of science is threatened by a number of powerful people who feel that having accurate science curricula taught to students will somehow upset God and deprive God of willing followers, and money. These same people have many sympathetic political allies who are more than willing to wreck the school systems in order to secure more money and more votes. Or, do you think the shenanigans with the head of the Texas Board of Education that Panda’s Thumb has been reporting on is merely a paranoid fairytale?”

What I think is that the problem is no where close to as drastic as what certain politically charged groups seem to make it out to be – in fact, I think the bigger problem rest in exactly the opposite direction.

“So, if “evolution” is infecting biology as you bullshit claim, then please explain what you think is the explanation of what caused the diversities of life as we know and knew it?”

You may have noticed by now I rarely use the word “evolution”. The term means so many different things in biology. For example, in biology for years the term “evolution” was defined to mean Darwin's theory of natural selection. On the other hand “evolution” in biology can also mean the general idea that some sort of mechanical methods have diversified life on earth, while not specifying those mechanical methods (see talkorigins). Lets place these meanings in your above statements.

If we take “evolution” to mean the second of these, then your statement, “ So, if “evolution” is infecting biology as you bullshit claim” - wait – that's not at all what I claim is it – I point to a theory of a relatively specific mechanical description of causation, not to something so general as 'evolution” taken in this sense.

On the other hand, if by “evolution” one means Darwin's theory of natural selection, then I need not explain what drives the diversity of life on earth, but only need to point to the fact that it does do as claimed. Furthermore, when I state that Darwin's theory does not explain the origin of species, I can do so without any need at all to state what does explain the origin of species. A theory can be completely inadequate without the need of there being another theory.

“If you don’t want to be labeled a creationist, then stop repeating their lies verbatim.”

I don't mind being called names, you are free to hate me all you want. But on distortion, you win the prizes there – one needs only to look at your history of claims about me. Heck – take this one:

“So says the rabid hypocrite who has never brought up any evidence that Evolutionary Biology is not scientifically sound.”

Is that what I argue? What do you mean by “evolutionary”? Do you mean “Darwin's theory”? If so, then your equating “Evolutionary Biology” with being Darwin's theory – after all, it is Darwin's theory and aspects of it which I clearly have been pointing to isn't it. If you mean something a little wider than “Darwin's theory” when you say “Evolutionary Biology”, your acting as though I attack something which I do not.

Darwin's theory gives the wrong explanation for the origin of species plain and simple. It did not happen the way his theory claims. One set of evidence against his theory is the fossil record. The fossil record is a record of life forms showing up completely and fully functional, most often without any transitional forms leading to them, and then they stay that way, with only non-directional change, regardless of how long they are in the fossil record, even if there for 3 billion years. Everyone involved has known that sense his theory came out – it became publicly OK to say so in the 1970's thanks to punctured equilibrium (which is probably the biggest contribution to science punctured equilibrium made).

To date, although pretty much everyone agrees that some sort of mechanical system underlies the origin of species, there is no theory in science which adequately describes the origin of species.

Troy wrote:

"...is a crusade against anyone who dare to speak about the real ills of a theory which is not scientifically sound."

Wrong. There is absolutely nothing unsound about the modern theory of evolution. Even if there were, you wouldn't have the first clue what it was because you don't understand the first thing about it. That's what happens when you don't read the scientific literature. Being completely ignorant you are reduced to mere whining and moaning, which fools exactly no one.

"...(you can take that to mean that I don’t think there is any worth in evolutionary biology - however, to do so is the same thing as pointing to yourself and saying that the only findings of worth in evolutionary biology are Darwin’s - a habit which already has a long trail of examples)."

You are the only person who even comes close to believing that Darwin was the last word in evolution. No one who actually reads the scientific literature would ever even imagine that any such thing could possibly be true.

The "crusade" for science will continue despite all of your efforts to demonize it. Until you have some evidence, all of your nonsensical claims can be safely ignored. Go Darwin fish!

Troy wrote:

"Darwin’s theory gives the wrong explanation for the origin of species plain and simple. It did not happen the way his theory claims. One set of evidence against his theory is the fossil record. The fossil record is a record of life forms showing up completely and fully functional, most often without any transitional forms leading to them, and then they stay that way, with only non-directional change, regardless of how long they are in the fossil record, even if there for 3 billion years. Everyone involved has known that sense his theory came out – it became publicly OK to say so in the 1970’s thanks to punctured equilibrium (which is probably the biggest contribution to science punctured equilibrium made)."

Your equilibrium seems to be punctured. As I have already pointed out, you are dead wrong. Punctuated equilibrium is a well accepted part of modern evolutionary theory, a fact that you refuse to acknowledge. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record that contradicts the theory of evolution, period. If this is the best you have got then you should just give up and let the crusade wash you away. Praise be to the holy Darwin fish!

Troy babbled:

So says the rabid hypocrite who has never brought up any evidence that Evolutionary Biology is not scientifically sound.

Is that what I argue? What do you mean by “evolutionary”? Do you mean “Darwin's theory”? If so, then your equating “Evolutionary Biology” with being Darwin's theory – after all, it is Darwin's theory and aspects of it which I clearly have been pointing to isn't it. If you mean something a little wider than “Darwin's theory” when you say “Evolutionary Biology”, your acting as though I attack something which I do not.

Darwin's theory gives the wrong explanation for the origin of species plain and simple.

It did not happen the way his theory claims.

One set of evidence against his theory is the fossil record. The fossil record is a record of life forms showing up completely and fully functional, most often without any transitional forms leading to them, and then they stay that way, with only non-directional change, regardless of how long they are in the fossil record, even if there for 3 billion years.

Everyone involved has known that sense his theory came out – it became publicly OK to say so in the 1970's thanks to punctured equilibrium (which is probably the biggest contribution to science punctured equilibrium made).

To date, although pretty much everyone agrees that some sort of mechanical system underlies the origin of species, there is no theory in science which adequately describes the origin of species.

Frank J said: It's funny that, after 12 years of following the "debate", I can't imagine biology being taught without everything in the context of evolution.

The creationist propagandist hiding behind the username Troy said: "...there is no theory in science which adequately describes the origin of species.

tomh said: Do you have a reference where Myers, or any of the others you object to, claim to be "representative of the scientific and education communities"? I haven't seen that and I'd be interested to see that claim. Thanks.

Troy said: “There is “evolution versus creationISM” because some people are told by their spiritual handlers that “descent with modification” conflicts with their spiritual beliefs, namely, that “descent with modification” conflicts with the belief that the world is 6 to 10,000 years old, and that everything that transpired in the Book of Genesis literally happened, despite a pronounced lack of physical evidence.” While certainly there are those who do believe the earth is very young, and those who feel that descent with modification conflicts with their “spiritual” beliefs, they are a very real minority who has not the least chance of taking over the American education system.

Dale Husband said:

Troy said: “There is “evolution versus creationISM” because some people are told by their spiritual handlers that “descent with modification” conflicts with their spiritual beliefs, namely, that “descent with modification” conflicts with the belief that the world is 6 to 10,000 years old, and that everything that transpired in the Book of Genesis literally happened, despite a pronounced lack of physical evidence.” While certainly there are those who do believe the earth is very young, and those who feel that descent with modification conflicts with their “spiritual” beliefs, they are a very real minority who has not the least chance of taking over the American education system.

Then why do you even bother with your false ranting?

Mike said:

tomh said: Do you have a reference where Myers, or any of the others you object to, claim to be "representative of the scientific and education communities"? I haven't seen that and I'd be interested to see that claim. Thanks.

Oh come on. For instance, it was the entire thrust of Coyne's recent contentious article ridiculing "appeasement": that the NSCE, NAS, and AAAS weren't representing the scientific community by conducting the simple and obvious exercise of illustrating that science does not necessarily negate religion. Even in this very thread extreme atheist bloggers keep repeating the false claim that the majority of scientists are atheists, and that science is an atheistic endeavor. Your response is overly defensive, as has been the rule from the extreme militants. No one is demanding that anyone shut up either. Defending science education has to be done in a mature fashion, and that means emphasizing tolerance at the same time as emphasizing the authority of the scientific community in determining what the current science is.

Dale Husband said:

Troy said: “There is “evolution versus creationISM” because some people are told by their spiritual handlers that “descent with modification” conflicts with their spiritual beliefs, namely, that “descent with modification” conflicts with the belief that the world is 6 to 10,000 years old, and that everything that transpired in the Book of Genesis literally happened, despite a pronounced lack of physical evidence.” While certainly there are those who do believe the earth is very young, and those who feel that descent with modification conflicts with their “spiritual” beliefs, they are a very real minority who has not the least chance of taking over the American education system.

Then why do you even bother with your false ranting?

Mike, I strongly believe that Coyne, Dawkins, Myers and their fellow atheist sycophants need to be reminded of this excellent observation of yours:

"Defending science education has to be done in a mature fashion, and that means emphasizing tolerance at the same time as emphasizing the authority of the scientific community in determining what the current science is."

Moreover, we need to remind them that they live and work in democratic states in which the freedom of worship - and that includes the right not to believe - is considered by virtually all to be a fundamental human right. If they refuse to acknowledge that, then why should they insist that theirs are comments worthy of consideration in the court of public opinion?

Appreciatively yours,

John

According to Troy's logic, the development of the 747 means that the Wright brothers were wrong and no one knows how to make and airplane that can fly! Oh yea, and anyone who believes that you can build an airplane must be an atheist who is full of hate. All those who earn their living making airplanes are actually involved in a vast conspiracy to try to fool everyone into thinking that airplanes can actually be built. They even somehow transport people instantaneously to their destinations just to maintain the charade, but they have no idea how an actual airplane would work. Brilliant! I know I'm certainly convinced. I'll never fly again.

Mike the Canadian Xian "moderate": Oh come on. For instance, it was the entire thrust of Coyne’s recent contentious article ridiculing “appeasement”: that the NSCE, NAS, and AAAS weren’t representing the scientific community by conducting the simple and obvious exercise of illustrating that science does not necessarily negate religion.

KL said:

Mendelein said: As a reader (lurker) on this blog, I must ask you do not drive us less than scientists away.

I agree with the need to improve education and outreach for the public but I don't agree that scientists' "aloofness" drives people to anti-scientific movements.

OK, count em folks. 3 Militant Atheists out of say 750,000 scientists and affiliated professionals.

The goalposts were set up - demonstrate that Myers and others claim to speak as representatives of "science" and "education" when they evangelise for atheism. I argued that their words make that claim by necessary implication, at least in the case of "science" and would add, mutatis mutandis, in that of "education" as well.

Raven has now moved them. Now we must demonstrate that that belief is found among many scientists - a moiety, perhaps a majority.

I decline that task. It would require me to prove a falsehood. The fact that it is a falsehood is the very point. Myers and others do not speak for science, nor even for a majority of scientists. They just act as though they think they do.

Flint, as you rightly say, most scientists "don't hear any call to evangelise for their indifference", which is precisely to say that they don't regard such evangelism as any business of science or scientists. But Myers and others do so regard it, manifestly. Which is to say that they do not represent science or scientists, but (as has been separately shown) they act as though they think they do.

Which was the point.

Myers and others do not speak for science, nor even for a majority of scientists. They just act as though they think they do.

They just act as though they think they do.

raven said: The Three Horsemen of Anti-Woo speak on religion and woo as "public intellectuals" or private citizens. Which is to say they were self selected rather than elected or appointed. Any citizen has that right.

They just act as though they think they do.

This is meaningless. You can read their minds?

Whether they think they speak for all scientists or science (which I very much doubt) is irrelevant.

Scientists of which there are hundreds of thousands or more are a diverse lot and many are quite capable of speaking up for themselves, quite willing to do so, and do so frequently.

If you disagree with them or hate them, just state it and be done. Pretending to read minds and demolishing strawmen is a waste of lifespan.

sinz54 said:

KL said:

Mendelein said: As a reader (lurker) on this blog, I must ask you do not drive us less than scientists away.

I agree with the need to improve education and outreach for the public but I don't agree that scientists' "aloofness" drives people to anti-scientific movements.

In his book "The Demon-Haunted World," Carl Sagan lamented the hostility of the scientific community to scientific popularization. He attacked the "insufferable arrogance" of those scientists who seemed to regard any attempt at reaching the non-scientific public as "collaboration with the enemy." In my own work, I interacted with a lot of scientists. Some were friendly and interested in explaining to us non-scientists what they were doing. Others regarded it as a useless bother, as long as their funding was secure. I'm glad your wife is evidently of the former type.

Dave Luckett said: I disagree, not necessarily with their views on religion, but with their activities in promotion of those views, which I regard as counterproductive to the furtherance of science and science education, and, incidentally, to the furtherance of the views themselves...

tomh said: So you don't object to their views, but you object to any activities they take to promote those views, activities such as writing books and making speeches, for instance. In fact, those are about the only activities that are possible for them to take if they want to promote their views. And you further object to them thinking, (in your mind anyway), that they are representing science when they engage in these activities of writing books and making speeches. Even though it's obvious, and everyone knows, that they don't represent science. This seems like a very odd, one might even say confused, stance to take.

Yet there was a group of teachers communicating over the AP Bio teachers email list that was determined to maintain human physiology as the foundational principle of their course. It was plain, at least in their emails, that the reason they were doing this is that they didn’t “believe” in evolution. They were undoubtably less forthcoming in their submissions to the company than in their emails, but they passed the audit... Are we going to have to lose a string of court cases before we get smart too? I’m not suggesting stealth. I’m suggesting tolerance, and a compaign with appeal to the general public, who are not marching to a “new enlightenment”.

— Mike

Science is not an organization like a church, nation or political party. Persons who give talks or write books about science present science. They don't represent it. You can represent, say, the American Chemical Society if the Society as such takes a position on, say, pollution. Or you can present data on pollution without representing anyone.

There may now be ten comments arguing that in some sense a sufficiently vague layman may perceive a science book as "representing" some abstraction called science. Most people know the difference: science is an activity (plus the findings of the activity) and is presented. And ten more comments to tell me that a person presenting science may in some cases mention an additional topic.

Pete Dunkelberg said: Science is not an organization like a church...

The point is specifically that they speak as if they were representatives of science, that they believe that to be the true situation, and that they act in accordance with that belief. All citizens can speak for themselves. Myers and others act specifically as though they speak for a group - scientists.

raven said: 3. US preeminence is based on our scientific leadership. That circa $350 billion bucks is around 1/3 to 1/2 of the total world expenditures, an extraordinary amount of money. The fundies haven't thought it through at all. Becoming a banana republic benefits no one in the long run.

Many Christian fundamentalists don’t care about the long run, either because they lack the foresight to care, or because they were told that it’s wrong and sinful to worry about the long run because there’s no need to care in the next world, as well as no need to worry, what with the End Times coming up soon.

This morning I read the introduction to Harun Yahya's “Atlas of Creation, volume 3” - which is can be read online here: http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_III/atlas_creation_III_01.php

The idea which is by far given the most time in the introduction can be worded this way: Darwin's theory of evolution is incorrect as is shown by the Stasis of the fossil record.

To be certain Harun does not use the term “Stasis” even once in the introduction, but it is nonetheless the property of the fossil record to which he clearly points. His thrust upon the fossil records nature is that life forms show up suddenly and fully formed in the record and remain that way, relatively unchanged, regardless of how long they are in the record.

With respect to Darwin's theory he clearly indicates the theory is completely out of sorts with the nature of the fossil record. In so doing he is in general very much correct – the fossil record is empirical evidence against Darwin's theory.

Harun does state that not a single transitional set of fossils has been found, which is, it appears, to be an overstatement. For example there is fossil record of forminifera which appear to slowly divide into two different types of forminifera. Being fossils we are not left with “how” they did that, only that it does appear they managed to do so. All the same, such examples are by no means the norm, but in fact rare in the extreme and thus Darwin's theory is not supported by the fossil record (they would be the overwhelming norm of the record for the empirical evidence to support Darwin's theory). Harun is correct in pointing out that a number of so called missing links where nothing more than fraud, and in indicating that a number Darwinian progressions where misinterpretations of the record and are no longer understood to be such examples, such as the famous but incorrect evolution of the horse.

I feel quite sure that any honest view of his book would more or less agree that he is elevating the above listed connections, regardless of whatever else it is he does. Furthermore, it is a fact that the fossil record is against Darwin's theory (the theory is wrong not the record), the diversity of life simply did not take place the way Darwin's theory claims (a gradual progression of modifications acted on by natural selection). That is, for whatever faults Harun may have, this is not one of them.

This is not to say that Harun has everything correct or right in the introduction of his book, but only points directly to the fact that at least some of his stuff is completely correct and in line with modern science, above all, he is very correct that Darwin's theory is not supported by the empirical evidence of the fossil record.

Troy, tell us why we should trust you when, among other things, you trust the word of a man who can not tell the difference between fishing lures and mayflies or fanworms and sea lilies or even fossils from their living relatives, a man who is a plagiarizing, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, and who used his connections and his company to set up a blackmail sex ring that used his female followers as prostitutes?

The creationist propagandist hiding behind the username of Troy said (after reading the introduction to Harun Yahya's “Atlas of Creation, volume 3”: "...at least some of his (Oktar's/Yahya's) stuff is completely correct and in line with modern science, above all, he is very correct that Darwin's theory is not supported by the empirical evidence of the fossil record.

Problems with the term “evolution”.

There are very real problems with the use of the term “evolution” in the field of biology. For years the term was defined to mean Darwin's theory of natural selection, that is “Evolution = Darwin's theory”.

When one reads the introduction to Harun Yahya's “Atlas of Creation, vol. 3” http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_III/atlas_creation_III_01.php

I think it is somewhat safe to say that Harun is using the term evolution in this way “Evolution = Darwin's theory”. I say this because the introduction clearly starts out directed at Darwin's theory and really nothing but Darwin's theory. As the introduction goes on the I see nothing that is pointing to any other theory in “biology” other than Darwin's theory even though he uses the term “evolution” throughout the middle of the introduction. As one gets to the end of the introduction, one sees Harun turning back to a clear link only to Darwin's theory and no other. As a result I see no direct indication that Huran is saying all of theories in biology with respect to life form diversification are invalid, but instead find every reason to think his focus is directly upon Darwin's theory.

Of course one could argue that it is a propaganda ploy by taking down an outdated theory like Darwin's, and then hinging the use of the term “evolution” in the middle section, wants the reader to take down all of biological science as though Darwin's theory is the only thing in biology. If this is so then clearly the effort is activated via the use of the term “evolution”. If we are to be against this, and not be bias, then we would be all the more concerned with the many text books which indicate “evolution” is Darwin's theory and then move on to indicate “evolution” is a fact of nature while not making it clear that they are NOT talking about the validity of Darwin's theory. To piss on Harun for it, when multiple uses of the terms meaning go against ones general purpose, only to ignore it when it might serve some other general cause, is nothing short of being intellectually dishonest in science regardless of how advantage it may be for or against one political cause.

To clear the matter up Harun, not to mention all sorts of biologist, could either clearly define what the term “evolution” means prior to use, and stick with only that meaning, or better, drop the term all together.

“Troy, tell us why we should trust you when, among other things, you trust the word of a man who can not tell the difference between fishing lures and mayflies or fanworms and sea lilies or even fossils from their living relatives, a man who is a plagiarizing, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, and who used his connections and his company to set up a blackmail sex ring that used his female followers as prostitutes?”

One, where do you get off claiming I trust him? I can read about his past and present problems as easy as you.

Second, and far more important, I don't ask you to trust me – I invite a reading of his introduction (which is why I give a link to it) and then a comparison of it to that to which I point. It is a matter of placing my thoughts on the table and comparing them to aspects in the introduction of his book. In that way one can form ones own evaluation as to the strengths and weaknesses of the claims. I am not like you – I do not make much of the world of lofty titles and low cut downs – my elevation rest elsewhere.

The creationist propagandist hiding behind the username of Troy said: To clear the matter up Harun, not to mention all sorts of biologist, could either clearly define what the term “evolution” means prior to use, and stick with only that meaning, or better, drop the term all together.

Troy wrote:

"Darwin’s theory of evolution is incorrect as is shown by the Stasis of the fossil record."

You have been told many times that this is simply false. Why do you insist on taking the word of a fraud and charlatan over reputable scientists? Now I know how you love to answer my questions Troy, so here are a few more for you:

1) When Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier, did that mean that the Wright brothers were wrong?

2) When Jonas Sulk created a vaccine for polio, did that mean that Pasteur was wrong?

3) When Einstein created the theory of relativity, did that mean that Newton was wrong?

4) When Barbara McClintock discovered transposable elements, did that mean that Mendel was wrong?

5) When the new testament contradicted much of the old testament, did that mean that God does not exist?

"...life forms show up suddenly and fully formed in the record and remain that way, relatively unchanged, regardless of how long they are in the record."

This is only true in a few cases and applies only to morphological change recorded in the fossil record. This is in no way incompatible with modern evolutionary theory and as you yourself admit, has been an accepted part of evolutionary biology for at least forty years.

"With respect to Darwin’s theory he clearly indicates the theory is completely out of sorts with the nature of the fossil record. In so doing he is in general very much correct – the fossil record is empirical evidence against Darwin’s theory."

This is just a complete and utter falsehood.

"Harun does state that not a single transitional set of fossils has been found, which is, it appears, to be an overstatement."

This is just a a lie, period. There are virtually thousands of transitional forms that document nearly every major transition in the history of life. You could go to the Talk Origins archive and read about them, but then you would turn into an atheist and become full of even more full of hate.

I'll tell you what Troy, if you can prove that there are no transtitional fossils between terrestrial mammals and whales then maybe someone will believe you. If not, you are just lying through your teeth and everyone will know it. Good luck.

Dear Troy,

Since you have reading time, perhaps you could read the Origin of Species carefully and thoughtfully. It is an important work that effectively establishes the beginning and provides core elements of the theory of evolution. That being said, the theory of evolution is valid with or without Darwin based in the fossil record, morphology, development, genetics, biochemistry, geographical distribution, observed evolution of modern organisms, etc.

Troy yammers.... You may have noticed by now I rarely use the word “evolution”.

The term means so many different things in biology.... (followed by lots of concern over semantics)

Darwin’s theory gives the wrong explanation for the origin of species plain and simple. It did not happen the way his theory claims...

Problems with the term “force”. Blah blah blah Why can't nature & science be simpler?

The creationist propagandist hiding behind the username of Troy said: Harun does state that not a single transitional set of fossils has been found...

I know that Troy will choose to remain ignorant, but for anyone who doubts that transitional forms have been found, here is just the index from the transitional FAQ at Talk Origins (talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html):

PART I has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
Introduction:
Types of transitions
Why are there gaps?
Predictions of creationism & evolution
What's in this FAQ
Timescale
Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
Transition from fishes to first amphibians
Transitions among amphibians
Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
Transitions among reptiles
Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
Transition from reptiles to first birds

PART 2 has transitions among mammals (starting with primates), including numerous species-to-species transitions, discussion, and references. If you're particularly interested in humans, skip to the primate section of part 2, and also look up the fossil hominid FAQ.
Overview of the Cenozoic
Primates
Bats
Carnivores
Rodents
Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares)
Condylarths (first hoofed animals)
Cetaceans (whales & dolphins)
Perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs)
Elephants
Sirenians (dugongs & manatees)
Artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.)
Species transitions from other miscellaneous mammal groups
Conclusion:
A bit of historical background
The major features of the fossil record
Good models & bad models: which theories match the data best?
The main point.
References

Of course this only includes vertebrates (my favorite is the Cetaceans). There are many transitional forms between invertebrates as well. Darwin would be so proud.

Troy said: This morning I read the introduction to Harun Yahya's “Atlas of Creation, volume 3” - which is can be read online here: http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_III/atlas_creation_III_01.php The idea which is by far given the most time in the introduction can be worded this way: Darwin's theory of evolution is incorrect as is shown by the Stasis of the fossil record.

To be certain Harun does not use the term “Stasis” even once in the introduction, but it is nonetheless the property of the fossil record to which he clearly points. His thrust upon the fossil records nature is that life forms show up suddenly and fully formed in the record and remain that way, relatively unchanged, regardless of how long they are in the record.

With respect to Darwin's theory he clearly indicates the theory is completely out of sorts with the nature of the fossil record. In so doing he is in general very much correct – the fossil record is empirical evidence against Darwin's theory.

Harun does state that not a single transitional set of fossils has been found, which is, it appears, to be an overstatement.

For example there is fossil record of forminifera which appear to slowly divide into two different types of forminifera. Being fossils we are not left with “how” they did that, only that it does appear they managed to do so.

All the same, such examples are by no means the norm, but in fact rare in the extreme and thus Darwin's theory is not supported by the fossil record (they would be the overwhelming norm of the record for the empirical evidence to support Darwin's theory). Harun is correct in pointing out that a number of so called missing links where nothing more than fraud,

and in indicating that a number Darwinian progressions where misinterpretations of the record and are no longer understood to be such examples, such as the famous but incorrect evolution of the horse.

I feel quite sure that any honest view of his book would more or less agree that he is elevating the above listed connections, regardless of whatever else it is he does. Furthermore, it is a fact that the fossil record is against Darwin's theory (the theory is wrong not the record),

the diversity of life simply did not take place the way Darwin's theory claims (a gradual progression of modifications acted on by natural selection).

That is, for whatever faults Harun may have, this is not one of them. This is not to say that Harun has everything correct or right in the introduction of his book, but only points directly to the fact that at least some of his stuff is completely correct and in line with modern science, above all, he is very correct that Darwin's theory is not supported by the empirical evidence of the fossil record.

Pete Dunkelberg said: There may now be ten comments arguing that in some sense a sufficiently vague layman may perceive a science book as "representing" some abstraction called science.

Troy is receiving attention grossly disproportionate to the merits of his arguments.

raven said:

Mike the Canadian Xian "moderate": Oh come on. For instance, it was the entire thrust of Coyne’s recent contentious article ridiculing “appeasement”: that the NSCE, NAS, and AAAS weren’t representing the scientific community by conducting the simple and obvious exercise of illustrating that science does not necessarily negate religion.

Mike is confused here. Myers, Dawkins, and Coyne are 3 people. There are about 1/2 to 1 million bioscientists in the USA. OK, count em folks. 3 Militant Atheists out of say 750,000 scientists and affiliated professionals. About all this shows is that someone isn't real good at percentages. So who elected Dawkins, Myers, and Coyne as spokespeople for science or atheism for that matter? Actually no one and they hold no positions in either the World Monolithic International Atheists or Scientists. They aren't even employed by the UN or the Illuminati. The three horsemen of anti woo speak only for themselves on non science matters and when they speak for their employers, they are teaching biology. Which is entirely their right, last I heard the US consitution was still law of the land. Well got to go. Got a meeting of the World Atheists tonight. We are hosting the Illuminati, the Darwinist World Conspiracy, the Bilderbergers, the Catholic church, Grey Reptiloid Aliens, Elves, and The Democratic party. The real rulers of the New World Order are people no one has ever heard of. If you had, they wouldn't be a conspiracy now, would they? PS Just skipped all the Troy bashing posts. Really, you are dealing with a schizophrenic or early Alzheimers. The lights are dim and no one is home, meaning, he isn't showing any cognitive abilities.

I don't think that anyone can be critical of Mike's excellent point, regardless of one's religious orientation:

"Defending science education has to be done in a mature fashion, and that means emphasizing tolerance at the same time as emphasizing the authority of the scientific community in determining what the current science is.”

Troy said: One, where do you get off claiming I trust him? I can read about his past and present problems as easy as you.

Second, and far more important, I don't ask you to trust me – I invite a reading of his introduction (which is why I give a link to it) and then a comparison of it to that to which I point. It is a matter of placing my thoughts on the table and comparing them to aspects in the introduction of his book. In that way one can form ones own evaluation as to the strengths and weaknesses of the claims.

I am not like you – I do not make much of the world of lofty titles and low cut downs – my elevation rest elsewhere.

rward said: Troy is receiving attention grossly disproportionate to the merits of his arguments.

To disclose fully: I disagree, not necessarily with their views on religion, but with their activities in promotion of those views, which I regard as counterproductive to the furtherance of science and science education, and, incidentally, to the furtherance of the views themselves, though I am not arguing that last point. I don't hate them. That suggestion constitutes a strawman of your own, but I have set up none.

rward said: Troy is receiving attention grossly disproportionate to the merits of his arguments.

My dear delusional LSS Troy -

Accepting Harun Yahoo to be a credible authority on science is akin to having Stalin as the final arbiter as to whether or not Lysenko's bizarre ideas on genetics and the rest of biology as reasonable, quite accurate, scientific interpretations of biological data. Harun has no credible scientific pedigree, period.

Since you have ample free time for reading, may I suggest reading Douglas Futuyma's excellent introductory textbook on evolution, Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True", Niles Eldredge's "Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life", and last, but not least, Charles Darwin's original edition of "On the Origin of Species"? Please read these books before posting more examples of your verbal diarrhea here at PT.

Live Long and Prosper (as an AiG Dalek Clone),

John Kwok

“‘Trying to communicate the excitement of science’ was not what Myers was there to do. He said he does that on other occasions. He was there because he is a successful and eminent scientist.

Myers has not published anything peer-reviewed since 1998, as per Google Scholar. That's not my idea of a "successful and eminent scientist." He's an eminent and vociferous blogger, alright.

Troy wrote:

"...indicating that a number Darwinian progressions where misinterpretations of the record and are no longer understood to be such examples, such as the famous but incorrect evolution of the horse."

Really, what's "incorrect" about it Troy?. Here is a link that lists twenty seven different intermediate forms in horse evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#peri

Ar they all frauds? Are they all misinterpretations? Are the all "incorrect". Please, enlighten us. You do know that some have four toes and some have three and some have one right? Is three intermediate between four and one Troy?

You have been sadly misinformed about modern biology by those who seek to attack a version that is one hundered and fifty years old. I will leave it to you to determine their motivation in this, but rest assured that their conclusions are dead wrong. If you lie down with creationists Troy, all you get is fleas - and they will evolve.

paul lurquin said: “‘Trying to communicate the excitement of science’ was not what Myers was there to do. He said he does that on other occasions. He was there because he is a successful and eminent scientist. Myers has not published anything peer-reviewed since 1998, as per Google Scholar. That's not my idea of a "successful and eminent scientist." He's an eminent and vociferous blogger, alright.

rward wrote:

"Troy is receiving attention grossly disproportionate to the merits of his arguments."

Agreed. However, for once he is actually posting on the topic of the thread. We can't ban him if he is on-topic and not breaking the rules can we? Maybe we can ban him on the next thread when he continues to spout the same nonsense regardless of the thread topic.

Go Darwin fish!

DS said: rward wrote: "Troy is receiving attention grossly disproportionate to the merits of his arguments." Agreed. However, for once he is actually posting on the topic of the thread...

Of course one could argue that it is a propaganda ploy by taking down an outdated theory like Darwin’s, and then hinging the use of the term “evolution” in the middle section, wants the reader to take down all of biological science as though Darwin’s theory is the only thing in biology.

Ha ha! Stanton back on the censorship kick!

Oh, and DS.

Newspeak, do you crash parties a lot in real life? Do you show up at the electrical supply department at Home Depot and rant about how Ohm's Law is all atheist propaganda?

(headshake) What is wrong with these people.

I suppose Troy has switched on his personal Romulan Cloaking Device again.

It's been at least two days since DS and I posted these questions, and he's refused to try:

You haven’t answered the correct questions yet:

Am looking forward to your rebuttal to these comments of mine:

“If Troy’s observation that ‘Darwin’s theory.… is a blood sucking leach (sic) on the side of biology even today.…’ is true, then how can he justify that when one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the previous century, evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed, in 1973, that, ‘Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’.

“Troy should ask himself why the great Dobzhansky and countless other biologists both before and after his time recognize that modern evolutionary theory is the only valid scientific theory that explains most, if not all, the data that supports the reality of evolution from each of the biological sciences.”

A number of us have been awaiting your answer to DS’s question:

“Is punctuated equilibrium a pattern that is recognized by mainstream modern evolutionary theory?”

As a former evolutionary biologist, I look forward to reading your replies to these remarks of mine and DS’s.

Mike said: The problem with the "new atheists" (Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, et al.) isn't that they're writing and giving speeches. There have been, and are, high profile atheist scientists who have managed to popularize science without being intolerant and insulting. Being intolerant and insulting toward religion isn't necessarily problematic either, but "the new atheists" have melded opposition to the anti-science education campaign with their militant atheism. At the same time they claim that this is the natural and necessary position of the scientific community.

jfx said: This "challenge" PZ has presented to ID is a fucking waste of time. We already know they don't do science. We already know they can't prove design empirically. And the chief cdesignproponentsists know it too. That's not the point for them. The point is to obfuscate, defenestrate, bloviate, and generally muck up the pipes, with as much high language, as much hand-waving, and as much rhetorical noise as possible. THIS MAKES IT APPEAR TO THE LAY AUDIENCE THAT THERE IS A REAL CONTROVERSY IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. Once again, PZ Myers hands ID exactly what it wants. Attention. Engagement. Credibility as a nemesis. Fucking waste of time.

Stanton said: You have to realize that there is a difference between giving Creationists credibility, and turning the lights up so everyone can watch them squirm. I mean, Creationists don't have magical powers of hypnotism and mind control, and I can't fathom how watching a Creationist rant on live television on how Darwin, and not Hitler, single-handedly started the Holocaust in response to a question about how reading the Bible is scientific will instantly turn the viewers into slavering Jesus zombies.

That's why we need to stop spending time trying to debate Intelligent Design proponents, and spend more time airing their dirty secrets, like, how Intelligent Design proponents know that Intelligent Design was never meant to be science or even an alternative to Evolutionary Biology, or even how, for the past 2, 3 decades, the Discovery Institute has never so much as spent a single penny of their million dollar annual budget on research.

Furthermore, explain to me how pointing out that the Intelligent Design movement is both wholly unmotivated to find, as well as totally incapable of finding even a single piece of evidence to support their pernicious bluster for the last three decades will positively affect their credibility.

Troy is receiving attention grossly disproportionate to the merits of his arguments.

— rward

That’s why we need to stop spending time trying to debate Intelligent Design proponents, and spend more time airing their dirty secrets, like, how Intelligent Design proponents know that Intelligent Design was never meant to be science or even an alternative to Evolutionary Biology, or even how, for the past 2, 3 decades, the Discovery Institute has never so much as spent a single penny of their million dollar annual budget on research.

— Stanton

The Left has traditionally assumed that human nature is so malleable, so perfectible, that it can be shaped in almost any direction.

Conservatives object, arguing that social order arises not from rational planning but from the spontaneous order of instincts and habits.

Darwinian biology sustains conservative social thought

by showing how the human capacity for spontaneous order arises from social instincts and a moral sense shaped by natural selection in human evolutionary history.

Stanton said: That's why we need to stop spending time trying to debate Intelligent Design proponents, and spend more time airing their dirty secrets, like, how Intelligent Design proponents know that Intelligent Design was never meant to be science or even an alternative to Evolutionary Biology, or even how, for the past 2, 3 decades, the Discovery Institute has never so much as spent a single penny of their million dollar annual budget on research. Furthermore, explain to me how pointing out that the Intelligent Design movement is both wholly unmotivated to find, as well as totally incapable of finding even a single piece of evidence to support their pernicious bluster for the last three decades will positively affect their credibility.

jfx said: Yes, by all means, spend more time airing the dirty secrets. Barbara Forrest is the best at this. The most powerful ammunition out there is ID's own words, specifically the cultural transformation gobbledy-gook from the Wedge document where the religious intent is put down in stark writing, and the goals of provoking the scientific community into "public debate" are clearly explicated. ... Scientists don't have to throw down direct scientific "challenges" to pseudoscientists. They only need throw down direct legal challenges, whenever these creeps try to vampirize science curriculum. Keep the focus on the purely creationist origin, the documented obfuscation of that origin, and the unconstitutionality of teaching that crap as science. No need to wade superfluously into technical OR cultural quicksand, unless it's in a boardroom or courtroom as an evidentiary matter.

Mike Elzinga said: Of course, the reason why many school districts don’t do this is precisely because of the ID/creationist political machines operating in those districts. So the science community needs to be pressing harder to find, field, and vigorously support school board candidates who will push to include real biology in the biology courses that are core requirements.

jfx said:

Mike Elzinga said: Of course, the reason why many school districts don’t do this is precisely because of the ID/creationist political machines operating in those districts. So the science community needs to be pressing harder to find, field, and vigorously support school board candidates who will push to include real biology in the biology courses that are core requirements.

Mike, I made one correction, and I agree with everything else you said.

harold,

One of leading skeptic Michael Shermer's key points in his book, "Why Darwin Matters", is to explain to libertarians and conservatives why Darwin's ideas are consistent with their political philosophies. IMHO, Shermer succeeds most admirably, especially when he employs the language of Adam Smith, who, incidentally, did inspire Darwin's thinking on the "economy of nature".

John

....for the past 2, 3 decades, the Discovery Institute has never so much as spent a single penny of their million dollar annual budget on research. ----Stanton

The CSC (Center for Science and Culture) offers fellowships of up to $60,000 a year for "support of significant and original research in the natural sciences, the history and philosophy of science, cognitive science and related fields." Since its founding in 1996, the institute's CSC has spent 39 percent of its $9.3 million on research according to (Dr.) Stephen Meyer, underwriting books or papers, or often just paying universities to release professors from some teaching responsibilities so that they can work on intelligent design related scholarship. Over those nine years, $792,585 financed laboratory or field research in biology, paleontology or biophysics, while $93,828 helped graduate students in paleontology, linguistics, history and philosophy. ----Wikipedia

Stanton,

Both you and jfx have made several excellent points in your recent posts. I agree we need to show the public what ID and other forms of "scientific" creationism really are; namely religiously-motivated, pseudoscientific mendacious intellectual pornography.

However, I have to concur with jfx's assessment of Myers's recent "challenge" to the Dishonesty Institute as not merely a gross instance of something that is a waste of time, but more importantly, as evidence that only a "GODLESS ATHEIST" like Myers subscribes to the "faith" known as "Darwinism". Unfortunately for our side, militant atheists like Coyne, Dawkins and Myers have done such a great job of giving aid and comfort to delusional Xians who contend that "belief" in evolution EQUALS denial of GOD (It is for this very reason that I must emphasize again the importance of organizations like NCSE and the Clergy Letter Project in stressing that mainstream religious beliefs do not contradict the findings of modern science, and that there are some, most notably, the Dalai Lama, who recognize that religion should conform more closely to scientific evidence.).

Personally I would rather have moderate atheists like Barbara Forrest and Genie Scott go on the offensive against the Dishonesty Institute rather than ceding the floor to those, like Coyne, Dawkins and Myers, who insist emphatically that religion is completely incompatible with science; a point of view that is clearly in the minority, assuming that the poll result I've been citing courtesy of Donald Prothero - that 56% of evolutionary biologists have some kind of religious belief - is true.

Regards,

John

.…for the past 2, 3 decades, the Discovery Institute has never so much as spent a single penny of their million dollar annual budget on research. —-Stanton

Since its founding in 1996, the institute’s CSC has spent 39 percent of its $9.3 million on research according to (Dr.) Stephen Meyer, underwriting books or papers, or often just paying universities to release professors from some teaching responsibilities so that they can work on intelligent design related scholarship. Over those nine years, $792,585 financed laboratory or field research in biology, paleontology or biophysics, while $93,828 helped graduate students in paleontology, linguistics, history and philosophy.

FL said:

....for the past 2, 3 decades, the Discovery Institute has never so much as spent a single penny of their million dollar annual budget on research. ----Stanton

The CSC (Center for Science and Culture) offers fellowships of up to $60,000 a year for "support of significant and original research in the natural sciences, the history and philosophy of science, cognitive science and related fields." Since its founding in 1996, the institute's CSC has spent 39 percent of its $9.3 million on research according to (Dr.) Stephen Meyer, underwriting books or papers, or often just paying universities to release professors from some teaching responsibilities so that they can work on intelligent design related scholarship. Over those nine years, $792,585 financed laboratory or field research in biology, paleontology or biophysics, while $93,828 helped graduate students in paleontology, linguistics, history and philosophy. ----Wikipedia

So where are all these alleged research projects the Discovery Institute have allegedly been funding?

In Heaven with the Intelligent Designer?

Stanton said: So where are all these alleged research projects the Discovery Institute have allegedly been funding? In Heaven with the Intelligent Designer?

"Quit throwing your garbage into our dimension"

John Kwok said: Or probably, more likely, on the planet Qo'nos, in the capital city of the Klingon Empire, several centuries in the future:

Stanton said: So where are all these alleged research projects the Discovery Institute have allegedly been funding? In Heaven with the Intelligent Designer?

39 percent of its $9.3 million on research according to (Dr.) Stephen Meyer,…

Mike Elzinga said:

39 percent of its $9.3 million on research according to (Dr.) Stephen Meyer,…

That would be $3.63 million. I don’t think FL understands what $3.63 million buys in real scientific research. I don’t think FL understands the number of papers that are produced for that kind of money in real scientific research, the number of results produced and verified, upon which others are able to build. I don’t think FL appreciates the paucity of results that the “Discovery” Institute has produced, or that such a waste of money would be considered fraud or extreme mismanagement in any publicly funded research. I think FL has just put his finger on why ID/creationism is a pseudo-science.

So where are all these alleged research projects the Discovery Institute have allegedly been funding?

.…for the past 2, 3 decades, the Discovery Institute has never so much as spent a single penny of their million dollar annual budget on research.

John Kwok said: That could still fund quite a bit of paleobiological research, Mike, but your point is well taken. For most scientists, $3.63 million would buy virtually zilch with respect to publishable scientific research:

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: That could still fund quite a bit of paleobiological research, Mike, but your point is well taken. For most scientists, $3.63 million would buy virtually zilch with respect to publishable scientific research:

I realize that the nature of the research and how technologically intensive it is makes a big difference. However I know for a fact that there are thousands of labs cranking out good research for far less money than that. I have personally built up and worked in at least four complete research-producing labs for far less money than that. And all of them involved expensive equipment.

FL said: Here's some of them. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/intelligent_design_research_la.html FL

FL said:

So where are all these alleged research projects the Discovery Institute have allegedly been funding?

Here's some of them. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/intelligent_design_research_la.html So we can at least retract and eliminate the following claim, right?

.…for the past 2, 3 decades, the Discovery Institute has never so much as spent a single penny of their million dollar annual budget on research.

FL

FL said: Here's some of them. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/intelligent_design_research_la.html

John Kwok said: I am thinking of "high profile" research projects like sequencing the human genome or building the new CERN supercollider when I observed that the money would buy "zilch". But even in much of the biological sciences, that sum of money could still produce a lot of really productive, quite publishable, research:

jfx said:

FL said: Here's some of them. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/intelligent_design_research_la.html

Dude. You're killing me. That piece was written in 2006, right. So, then we go to the actual website of the "serious scientific research lab" (and I have no doubt that there are some actual well-intentioned religious fanatic scientists in that building, and some actual vented hoods and test tubes and whatnot)... http://biologicinstitute.org/ ...and we find that the April Fool's joke about the replicating automobile posted on April 1 2009 is the most concrete, empirical piece of work on the whole damn site. Go on, waste some more time and money. This is comedy gold. Where's Behe? Has he got some lab space over there? I want to see what's in his petri dish. Or do we have to wait for his next science fiction novel to find out?

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: I am thinking of "high profile" research projects like sequencing the human genome or building the new CERN supercollider when I observed that the money would buy "zilch". But even in much of the biological sciences, that sum of money could still produce a lot of really productive, quite publishable, research:

Understood. But the high-profile, ultra-expensive, glamorous research makes it appear that basic research is extremely expensive when, in fact, it is proportionately far less expensive and has at least as great a multiplying effect as do the larger projects. Often much of the larger project budgets are farmed out to smaller projects around the country and the world. The less glamorous projects don’t get the public attention, but these are often the ones that do the deep plowing. Anyway, this quibbling is detracting from the fact that ID/creationist pseudo-science is a waste of money and a fraud to boot. There is no way it compares with real science; and FL has no basis for judgment whatsoever. Those of us who have been there and done that do.

Hopefully a senior member of the Romulan Senate will remind delusional twit LSS Troy of his responsibilities as a loyal citizen of the Romulan Star Empire, which include answering these questions:

Troy, you haven’t answered the correct questions yet:

Am looking forward to your rebuttal to these comments of mine:

“If Troy’s observation that ‘Darwin’s theory.… is a blood sucking leach (sic) on the side of biology even today.…’ is true, then how can he justify that when one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the previous century, evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed, in 1973, that, ‘Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’.

“Troy should ask himself why the great Dobzhansky and countless other biologists both before and after his time recognize that modern evolutionary theory is the only valid scientific theory that explains most, if not all, the data that supports the reality of evolution from each of the biological sciences.”

A number of us have been awaiting your answer to DS’s question:

“Is punctuated equilibrium a pattern that is recognized by mainstream modern evolutionary theory?”

As a former evolutionary biologist, I look forward to reading your replies to these remarks of mine and DS’s.

FL said: So we can at least retract and eliminate the following claim, right?

.…for the past 2, 3 decades, the Discovery Institute has never so much as spent a single penny of their million dollar annual budget on research.

FL

Stanton said: No, why should I? How come the Discovery Institute still hasn't come up with anything substantial, besides a half dozen or so lousy, fact-free books, and an anti-science, anti-education agenda?

FL said: Here's some of them. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/intelligent_design_research_la.html

FL said:

So where are all these alleged research projects the Discovery Institute have allegedly been funding?

Here's some of them. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/intelligent_design_research_la.html So we can at least retract and eliminate the following claim, right?

.…for the past 2, 3 decades, the Discovery Institute has never so much as spent a single penny of their million dollar annual budget on research.

FL

An article in the latest issue of New Scientist highlights the exciting work of scientists at the Biologic Institute, a new research lab conducting biological research and experiments from an intelligent design perspective. While writer Celeste Biever can't suppress her visceral pro-Darwin bias from the story (which carries the dismissive title "Intelligent design: The God Lab"), Biever's article is going to make it very difficult for Darwinists to continue to assert that scientists who support intelligent design aren't conducting scientific research.

Pay a visit to the Biologic Institute and you are liable to get a chilly reception. "We only see people with appointments," states the man who finally responds to my persistent knocks. Then he slams the door on me. I am standing on the ground floor of an office building in Redmond, Washington, the Seattle suburb best known as home town to Microsoft. What I'm trying to find out is whether the 1-year-old institute is the new face of another industry that has sprung up in the area - the one that has set out to try to prove evolution is wrong. This is my second attempt to engage in person with scientists at Biologic. At the institute's other facility in nearby Fremont, researchers work at benches lined with fume hoods, incubators and microscopes - a typical scene in this up-and-coming biotech hub. Most of them there proved just as reluctant to speak with a New Scientist reporter. The reticence cloaks an unorthodox agenda. "We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design," says George Weber, the only one of Biologic's four directors who would speak openly with me. "The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism." Weber is not a scientist but a retired professor of business and administration at the Presbyterian Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington. He heads the Spokane chapter of Reasonstobelieve.org, a Christian organisation that seeks to challenge Darwinism.

“We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design"

FL said:

The CSC (Center for Science and Culture) offers fellowships of up to $60,000 a year for "support of significant and original research in the natural sciences, the history and philosophy of science, cognitive science and related fields." Since its founding in 1996, the institute's CSC has spent 39 percent of its $9.3 million on research according to (Dr.) Stephen Meyer, underwriting books or papers, or often just paying universities to release professors from some teaching responsibilities so that they can work on intelligent design related scholarship. Over those nine years, $792,585 financed laboratory or field research in biology, paleontology or biophysics, while $93,828 helped graduate students in paleontology, linguistics, history and philosophy. ----Wikipedia

jfx said:

“We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design"

And you are very badly behind schedule! Phase I of the Wedge Strategy called for this part of the business to be done by 2003! Doug Axe was supposed to be churning out empirical evidence a decade ago. Get on with it, fellas! The other Phases are waiting! I do agree about the "appointments only" thing. It's virtually impossible to do fake science with constant distractions at the door. Serious fake science takes a great deal of privacy and security. And a WHOLE LOTTA private money.

Dale Husband said: [SNIP] Then we go to the actual article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225824.000-intelligent-design-the-god-lab.html

[SNIP] The reticence cloaks an unorthodox agenda. "We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design," says George Weber, the only one of Biologic's four directors who would speak openly with me. "The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism." Weber is not a scientist but a retired professor of business and administration at the Presbyterian Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington. He heads the Spokane chapter of Reasonstobelieve.org, a Christian organisation that seeks to challenge Darwinism.

"was found to have seriously misunderstood the purpose of Biologic and to have misrepresented it."

And you are very badly behind schedule! Phase I of the Wedge Strategy called for this part of the business to be done by 2003! Doug Axe was supposed to be churning out empirical evidence a decade ago. Get on with it, fellas! The other Phases are waiting!

— jfx

Stanton, why not simply say "Okay, I was mistaken on that one point, the DI did actually spend a little money on research after all", and THEN move on from there?

FL :)

Stanton said:

Troy said: This morning I read the introduction to Harun Yahya's “Atlas of Creation, volume 3” - which is can be read online here: http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_III/atlas_creation_III_01.php The idea which is by far given the most time in the introduction can be worded this way: Darwin's theory of evolution is incorrect as is shown by the Stasis of the fossil record.

In other words, you've wasted more of your precious time, and you're a lying hypocrite whenever you claim that you don't oppose modern science.

To be certain Harun does not use the term “Stasis” even once in the introduction, but it is nonetheless the property of the fossil record to which he clearly points. His thrust upon the fossil records nature is that life forms show up suddenly and fully formed in the record and remain that way, relatively unchanged, regardless of how long they are in the record.

Adnan Oktar says this because he's never actually looked at the fossil record.

With respect to Darwin's theory he clearly indicates the theory is completely out of sorts with the nature of the fossil record. In so doing he is in general very much correct – the fossil record is empirical evidence against Darwin's theory.

So, if Adnan Oktar has found proof that Darwin was wrong, how come he's never published any peer-reviewed paper detailing how Darwin was wrong?

Harun does state that not a single transitional set of fossils has been found, which is, it appears, to be an overstatement.

No, Adnan Oktar is lying.

For example there is fossil record of forminifera which appear to slowly divide into two different types of forminifera. Being fossils we are not left with “how” they did that, only that it does appear they managed to do so.

So, in other words, what you're saying is that forAminifera fossils look like they're evolving, but they really aren't. So, can you explain why you and Holocaust-denialist Adnan Oktar are right, and all of the thousands of foraminiferan specialists are wrong?

All the same, such examples are by no means the norm, but in fact rare in the extreme and thus Darwin's theory is not supported by the fossil record (they would be the overwhelming norm of the record for the empirical evidence to support Darwin's theory). Harun is correct in pointing out that a number of so called missing links where nothing more than fraud,

So tell us why you think that Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Puijila, Enaliarctos, Helohyus, Parahyus, Achaenodon, Ichthyolestes, Maiacetus, Pakicetus, as well as all of the fossil hominids are frauds.

and in indicating that a number Darwinian progressions where misinterpretations of the record and are no longer understood to be such examples, such as the famous but incorrect evolution of the horse.

If you're suggesting that the extremely outdated idea that horse evolution is a linear progression from Hyracotherium to Equus, then yes, that is incorrect. Having said that, do be aware that horse evolution is now viewed as being a "bushy tree," taking into account that horses evolved from palaeotheres during the Early Eocene, along side their closest relatives, the brontotheres, and, later in their evolutionary history, different taxa of horses would invade Eurasia and Africa numerous times, until they all went extinct in North America during the Late Pleistocene. So, Troy, if you're going to make haughty pronouncements, it would help you greatly if you made an effort to not rely on creationist propaganda sites.

I feel quite sure that any honest view of his book would more or less agree that he is elevating the above listed connections, regardless of whatever else it is he does. Furthermore, it is a fact that the fossil record is against Darwin's theory (the theory is wrong not the record),

That's not what the experts say, actually.

the diversity of life simply did not take place the way Darwin's theory claims (a gradual progression of modifications acted on by natural selection).

A) Darwin came to his conclusions from studying living things, i.e., the finches of the Galapagos, and pigeon breeds, for two things. B) Please read an actual book about evolutionary biology, and not the bullshit propaganda written by creationists.

That is, for whatever faults Harun may have, this is not one of them. This is not to say that Harun has everything correct or right in the introduction of his book, but only points directly to the fact that at least some of his stuff is completely correct and in line with modern science, above all, he is very correct that Darwin's theory is not supported by the empirical evidence of the fossil record.

Adnan Oktar has NOTHING correct or right in the entirety of his book, not his mislabeled pictures, and especially not in his feeble attempts to disprove Evolutionary Biology, or geology, or paleontology.

FL said: Stanton, why not simply say "Okay, I was mistaken on that one point, the DI did actually spend a little money on research after all", and THEN move on from there? FL :)

FL,

Why not simply say that the DI has spent lots of money on stuff they call research, but they still do not have anything to show for it. Therefore, either all of their hypotheses were conclusively falsified by their own research, or they really were never doing real research in the first place. Either way, they have made absolutely no progress whatsoever in getting their ideas accepted by mainstream science, despite all of the money they have wasted.

Oh well, there is plenty more money where that came from. Maybe their next research project will be to develop a fish that can eat the Darwin fish. Now that would be progress.

Care to defend Oktar? That was the topic of this thread.

Raging Bee,

You got Troy all wrong. He actually doesn't believe any of the nonsense that he spouts because he is completely ignorant of all of modern science. How would he know if yahoo serious (or whatever that guys name is) is right or not? All he want to do is point out that other guys disagree with Darwin until people get fed up with him and call him names. Then he can prove how full of hate we all are. Being inconsistent in his claims just fuels the fire. Remember:

Darwin equals atheism equals hate

Stasis is somehow a problem for Darwinist and punctured equilibrium is not accepted by mainstream scientist

There are no transitional fossils and horse evolution is all wrong (for some unspecified reason only Troy knows)

Har har hardy har har. I think this yahoo can be safely ignored. He obvioulsy isn't fooling anyone whith his creationst nonsense.

FL said: Stanton, why not simply say "Okay, I was mistaken on that one point, the DI did actually spend a little money on research after all", and THEN move on from there? FL :)

I see there is resistance to the claim that Stasis is against Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory, as he gave it, requires very long slow process's of gradual modification that then account for the formation of species. Clearly Stasis supports no such idea. In Darwin's day he understood that the fossil record did not support his theory. The tendency was to elevate the idea that the fossil record is imperfect and the demonstration of his theory was missing due to the imperfection. Furthermore, the lack of scientific demonstration was downplayed.

Today we do have the matter of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium states that we need to account for Stasis of the fossil record instead of tossing under the claim of “imperfection”. It claims that Darwin was incorrect in his ideas of how long it takes. The idea runs as follows: individual groups of species become isolated – when that happens Darwin's theory acts on the groups and thereby gives rise to new species. This process happens so fast that in general we have no view of it in the fossil record because of the records “imperfection”.

The field of genetics was placed under the umbrella of Darwin's theory via the conception of “random” mutation. The random mutations accumulate over time, over millions of years, combined with natural selection then give rise to species. With punctuated equilibrium the millions of years factor is dropped and the isolation factor elevated and the time of action for speciation greatly decreased (which brings random mutation in line with punctuated equilibrium). This in turn places constraints upon random mutation which are brought into focus by mathematicians. The faster all the random mutations need accumulate to make many of the fully formed in tact species which decorate our fossil record, the less probable it is that “random” mutation worked as an underlying component. The problem with this is not the mathematics of the matter. If random mutation did not run it, then the field of genetics might not be under the Darwin umbrella, which amounts to the same thing as saying Darwin's theory may not be the causal agent of speciation that accounts for the nature of speciation in the fossil record.

Earlier I said that the Statsis goes against Darwin's theory (which actually it does). However, if we deal with updated Darwinism then such a claim may need to be augmented into something like this: Stasis and mathematics give us grounds for at very least claiming that Darwin's theory is under very serious question. As always, the demonstration that Darwin's theory in its neo form lead directly to the speciation and stasis topology of the fossil record rest on those who claim such to be the case.

To be fair, on this web site anything I say is dismissed as completely worthless – the standard claim being that I have never read anything, suffer from all sorts of mental illness, am a creationist, and advocate of ID, push for Jesus (all of which one is suppose to equate as being a fundamental weakness and characteristic of the less fit) – which in the end reflects the Dawkins school of thought that no one is allowed in the conversation unless they are a Darwinist to start with. They of course will argue that it is not a reflection of the Dawkins school, but instead a reflection that I never read anything, suffer from all sorts of mental illness, am a creationist, and advocate of ID, push for Jesus (all of which one is suppose to equate as being a fundamental weakness and characteristic of the less fit). Nice colour isn't it!!

Well DS, delusional twit LSS Troy has had three days to answer your question on punctuated equilibrium, and he hasn't done it yet. Now he's doing what we expect from most creo lurkers; hiding out somewhere until it's time to come in from "the cold".

DS said: Raging Bee, You got Troy all wrong. He actually doesn't believe any of the nonsense that he spouts because he is completely ignorant of all of modern science. How would he know if yahoo serious (or whatever that guys name is) is right or not? All he want to do is point out that other guys disagree with Darwin until people get fed up with him and call him names. Then he can prove how full of hate we all are. Being inconsistent in his claims just fuels the fire. Remember: Darwin equals atheism equals hate Stasis is somehow a problem for Darwinist and punctured equilibrium is not accepted by mainstream scientist There are no transitional fossils and horse evolution is all wrong (for some unspecified reason only Troy knows) Har har hardy har har. I think this yahoo can be safely ignored. He obvioulsy isn't fooling anyone whith his creationst nonsense.

Troy said: I see there is resistance to the claim that Stasis is against Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory, as he gave it, requires very long slow process's of gradual modification that then account for the formation of species. Clearly Stasis supports no such idea. In Darwin's day he understood that the fossil record did not support his theory. The tendency was to elevate the idea that the fossil record is imperfect and the demonstration of his theory was missing due to the imperfection. Furthermore, the lack of scientific demonstration was downplayed. Today we do have the matter of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium states that we need to account for Stasis of the fossil record instead of tossing under the claim of “imperfection”. It claims that Darwin was incorrect in his ideas of how long it takes. The idea runs as follows: individual groups of species become isolated – when that happens Darwin's theory acts on the groups and thereby gives rise to new species. This process happens so fast that in general we have no view of it in the fossil record because of the records “imperfection”.

To be fair, on this web site anything I say is dismissed as completely worthless – the standard claim being that I have never read anything, suffer from all sorts of mental illness, am a creationist, and advocate of ID, push for Jesus (all of which one is suppose to equate as being a fundamental weakness and characteristic of the less fit) – which in the end reflects the Dawkins school of thought that no one is allowed in the conversation unless they are a Darwinist to start with. They of course will argue that it is not a reflection of the Dawkins school, but instead a reflection that I never read anything, suffer from all sorts of mental illness, am a creationist, and advocate of ID, push for Jesus (all of which one is suppose to equate as being a fundamental weakness and characteristic of the less fit). Nice colour isn't it!!

...

oh, never mind. It really is pointless.

Stanton said: No, why should I? How come the Discovery Institute still hasn't come up with anything substantial, besides a half dozen or so lousy, fact-free books, and an anti-science, anti-education agenda?

FL said: So we can at least retract and eliminate the following claim, right?

.…for the past 2, 3 decades, the Discovery Institute has never so much as spent a single penny of their million dollar annual budget on research.

FL

One of leading skeptic Michael Shermer’s key points in his book, “Why Darwin Matters”, is to explain to libertarians and conservatives why Darwin’s ideas are consistent with their political philosophies.

IMHO, Shermer succeeds most admirably, especially when he employs the language of Adam Smith, who, incidentally, did inspire Darwin’s thinking on the “economy of nature”.

Darwin’s theory, as he gave it, requires very long slow process’s of gradual modification that then account for the formation of species. Clearly Stasis supports no such idea.

So who the fuck still advocates anything resembling "stasis" these days anyway? What "stasis" is Troy blithering about that any serious scientists in any field actually believe? The concensus seems to be that the Universe is changing, the Sun is changing, the Earth is changing, the Earth's climate has been changing since the Earth was formed, and life on Earth is changing to adapt to the Earth's climate changes. File under "D" for "Duh," right?

Seriously, nothing supports "stasis," so who gives a shit what "stasis" supports or doesn't support? AFAIK, it's crap, and so is everything that useless pretentious dime-store obscurantist Troy has written about it. "Creationist" or not, he has no clue what he's talking about, and is just making up nonsense in his head and pretending it causes "problems" for "Darwin's theory."

harold said: John Kwok -

One of leading skeptic Michael Shermer’s key points in his book, “Why Darwin Matters”, is to explain to libertarians and conservatives why Darwin’s ideas are consistent with their political philosophies.

But they are consistent with any political philosophy, except those that explicitly deny scientific reality. Science tells us objectively what is happening. What we "should" do is our own subjective decision. Darwin himself correctly rejected the idea of "social Darwinism". Look, you can be a "social Darwinist" if you want. If you favor the outcomes that such a system would produce, it is rational for you to promote such a system. If you have a wrong idea about the outcomes that such a system would produce, as you may, that doesn't mean that your understanding of more straightforward, objective science is wrong. The theory of evolution in no way tells anyone what political philosophy to adopt. Furthermore, the actual historical trend in human societies is toward more recognition of human rights and more guaranteed help for those who need it. One could easily say that the evolved empathy of a social animal helps explain these trends.

IMHO, Shermer succeeds most admirably, especially when he employs the language of Adam Smith, who, incidentally, did inspire Darwin’s thinking on the “economy of nature”.

Raging Bee said: Darwin’s theory, as he gave it, requires very long slow process’s of gradual modification that then account for the formation of species. Clearly Stasis supports no such idea. So who the fuck still advocates anything resembling "stasis" these days anyway? What "stasis" is Troy blithering about that any serious scientists in any field actually believe? The concensus seems to be that the Universe is changing, the Sun is changing, the Earth is changing, the Earth's climate has been changing since the Earth was formed, and life on Earth is changing to adapt to the Earth's climate changes. File under "D" for "Duh," right? Seriously, nothing supports "stasis," so who gives a shit what "stasis" supports or doesn't support? AFAIK, it's crap, and so is everything that useless pretentious dime-store obscurantist Troy has written about it. "Creationist" or not, he has no clue what he's talking about, and is just making up nonsense in his head and pretending it causes "problems" for "Darwin's theory."

While I'm not interested in pouring more gasoline on this issue, I am surprised that neither raven nor other militant atheists here have commented on the online hysteria over at PZ Myers's blog related to Charlotte Allen's recent diatribe against militant atheism that was published in the Sunday edition of the Los Angeles Times:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/charlotte_allen_really_is_angr.php#comments

While I don't endorse Allen's views, I do understand and appreciate her sentiment, and I think she does make some excellent points such as these:

"What primarily seems to motivate atheists isn't rationalism but anger -- anger that the world isn't perfect, that someone forced them to go to church as children, that the Bible contains apparent contradictions, that human beings can be hypocrites and commit crimes in the name of faith."

Care to defend Oktar? That was the topic of this thread.

— DS

I see there is resistance to the claim that Stasis is against Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory, as he gave it, requires very long slow process’s of gradual modification that then account for the formation of species. Clearly Stasis supports no such idea.

In Darwin’s day he understood that the fossil record did not support his theory. The tendency was to elevate the idea that the fossil record is imperfect and the demonstration of his theory was missing due to the imperfection. Furthermore, the lack of scientific demonstration was downplayed.

Today we do have the matter of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium states that we need to account for Stasis of the fossil record instead of tossing under the claim of “imperfection”. It claims that Darwin was incorrect in his ideas of how long it takes. The idea runs as follows: individual groups of species become isolated – when that happens Darwin’s theory acts on the groups and thereby gives rise to new species. This process happens so fast that in general we have no view of it in the fossil record because of the records “imperfection”.

The field of genetics was placed under the umbrella of Darwin’s theory via the conception of “random” mutation. The random mutations accumulate over time, over millions of years, combined with natural selection then give rise to species.

With punctuated equilibrium the millions of years factor is dropped and the isolation factor elevated and the time of action for speciation greatly decreased (which brings random mutation in line with punctuated equilibrium). This in turn places constraints upon random mutation which are brought into focus by mathematicians. The faster all the random mutations need accumulate to make many of the fully formed in tact species which decorate our fossil record, the less probable it is that “random” mutation worked as an underlying component. The problem with this is not the mathematics of the matter. If random mutation did not run it, then the field of genetics might not be under the Darwin umbrella, which amounts to the same thing as saying Darwin’s theory may not be the causal agent of speciation that accounts for the nature of speciation in the fossil record.

Earlier I said that the Statsis goes against Darwin’s theory (which actually it does). However, if we deal with updated Darwinism then such a claim may need to be augmented into something like this: Stasis and mathematics give us grounds for at very least claiming that Darwin’s theory is under very serious question.

As always, the demonstration that Darwin’s theory in its neo form lead directly to the speciation and stasis topology of the fossil record rest on those who claim such to be the case.

To be fair, on this web site anything I say is dismissed as completely worthless –

the standard claim being that I have never read anything, suffer from all sorts of mental illness, am a creationist, and advocate of ID, push for Jesus (all of which one is suppose to equate as being a fundamental weakness and characteristic of the less fit) –

which in the end reflects the Dawkins school of thought that no one is allowed in the conversation unless they are a Darwinist to start with.

They of course will argue that it is not a reflection of the Dawkins school, but instead a reflection that I never read anything, suffer from all sorts of mental illness, am a creationist, and advocate of ID, push for Jesus (all of which one is suppose to equate as being a fundamental weakness and characteristic of the less fit). Nice colour isn’t it!!

There is no stasis in nature; not in the fossil record, nor anywhere else.

John Kwok -

We pretty much agree on matters of religion and science.

However, I took a look at the Charlotte Allen piece and found it to be basically "reverse anti-religious bias".

While correctly accusing a small number of prominent professional atheists of being deliberately insulting and paranoid (a rather obvious observation), and while correctly noting the basic silliness of being deliberately insulting and then getting paranoid, Allen does exactly what she condemns.

She's deliberately insulting and paranoid. And frankly, with the majority on her side, she looks worse, because she comes across as bullying a small group of people. There's a lot of contradiction and hypocrisy there. First she ridicules the idea that atheists are ever unpopular or discriminated against; then she launches into a paragraph that begins with the words "Maybe atheists wouldn't be so unpopular if..."

I strongly support everyone's right to live and believe as they see fit, including, of course, their absolute constitutional right to insult everyone who lives or believes differently, and their absoluteconstitutional right to make impotent, unenforceable demands that other people "shut up".

I strongly dislike false claims that science "supports" either atheism or any particular religion.

But I wasn't crazy about that piece.

Evolutionary stasis is real.

Some morphologies which are highly adapted to relatively stable environments have persisted in the biosphere for what appears to be a long time, by human standards.

Evolutionary stasis is real.

Some morphologies which are highly adapted to relatively stable environments have persisted in the biosphere for what appears to be a long time, by human standards.

Evolutionary stasis is real.

Some morphologies which are highly adapted to relatively stable environments have persisted in the biosphere for what appears to be a long time, by human standards.

harold said: John Kwok -

Evolutionary stasis is real.

We don't have a disagreement here, I said -

Some morphologies which are highly adapted to relatively stable environments have persisted in the biosphere for what appears to be a long time, by human standards.

And that can be described as evolutionary stasis, implying relative evolutionary stasis. But there is no absolute stasis in nature, and even in very adapted populations, each reproduction results in a completely unique individual, and even the most stable environment constantly changes. I did not understand Troy to be referring to a correctly understood concept of evolutionary stasis, but rather, to some idea that absolute unchanging stasis which contradicts the theory of evolution is observed.

harold said: John Kwok - We pretty much agree on matters of religion and science. However, I took a look at the Charlotte Allen piece and found it to be basically "reverse anti-religious bias". While correctly accusing a small number of prominent professional atheists of being deliberately insulting and paranoid (a rather obvious observation), and while correctly noting the basic silliness of being deliberately insulting and then getting paranoid, Allen does exactly what she condemns. She's deliberately insulting and paranoid. And frankly, with the majority on her side, she looks worse, because she comes across as bullying a small group of people. There's a lot of contradiction and hypocrisy there. First she ridicules the idea that atheists are ever unpopular or discriminated against; then she launches into a paragraph that begins with the words "Maybe atheists wouldn't be so unpopular if..." I strongly support everyone's right to live and believe as they see fit, including, of course, their absolute constitutional right to insult everyone who lives or believes differently, and their absoluteconstitutional right to make impotent, unenforceable demands that other people "shut up". I strongly dislike false claims that science "supports" either atheism or any particular religion. But I wasn't crazy about that piece.

While I don’t endorse Allen’s views, I do understand and appreciate her sentiment, and I think she does make some excellent points such as these:

“What primarily seems to motivate atheists isn’t rationalism but anger – anger that the world isn’t perfect, that someone forced them to go to church as children, that the Bible contains apparent contradictions, that human beings can be hypocrites and commit crimes in the name of faith.”

Did Allen mention anger at the fact that religious/magical thinking was not only irrational, but has often led to behaviors that were dishonest, maladaptive, countrproductive, destructive, murderous, and downright evil?

Also, if Allen really understood what she was talking about, she'd know that plenty of theists are just as angry about the same things as the atheists are, and for pretty much the same reasons. You don't have to be an atheist (militant or not) to understand that lying for Jesus is still lying, and still wrong.

You've been pwned by a few of us here at PT. Time to go back to your Romulan scout ship, Troy.

FL said: Stanton, why not simply say "Okay, I was mistaken on that one point, the DI did actually spend a little money on research after all", and THEN move on from there? FL :)

Once again, Troy yammers.... Darwin’s theory, as he gave it, requires very long slow process’s of gradual modification that then account for the formation of species. Clearly Stasis supports no such idea.

jfx said: Get on with it, fellas! The other Phases are waiting!

Stanton said:

FL said: Stanton, why not simply say "Okay, I was mistaken on that one point, the DI did actually spend a little money on research after all", and THEN move on from there? FL :)

I'm not going to rescind my statement about the Discovery Institute having never spent any money on any research because no one at the Discovery Institute ever does any research there, to begin with, and your posting of Bill Dembski and crew's lies from evolutionnews will not change this fact. In fact, out of all the years you've infested Panda's Thumb, FL, you've never even bothered to explain how Intelligent Design is supposed to be a scientific explanation, despite our constant requests and demands that you do so.

stevaroni said:

Once again, Troy yammers.... Darwin’s theory, as he gave it, requires very long slow process’s of gradual modification that then account for the formation of species. Clearly Stasis supports no such idea.

Darwin's theory, "as he gave it", is 160 years out of date. Arguing that evolution is wrong because Chuckie D oversimplified his first guess is like arguing that flight is impossible because James Watt didn't foresee the thermodynamics of jet engines. But again, Troy, let's simply assume that you are right and Darwin and the legions of scientists that came after him are wrong. So what's your explanation for all the physical evidence? Actually, I'll make it easier and we'll pick one tiny piece for you to start with; If we're not evolved from ancient apes, what's your explanation for all the ancient protohuman fossils that keep turning up in Africa?

Did Allen mention anger at the fact that religious/magical thinking was not only irrational, but has often led to behaviors that were dishonest, maladaptive, countrproductive, destructive, murderous, and downright evil?

But , in conclusion, she did anticipate your observation:

Also, if Allen really understood what she was talking about, she'd know that plenty of theists are just as angry about the same things as the atheists are, and for pretty much the same reasons. You don't have to be an atheist (militant or not) to understand that lying for Jesus is still lying, and still wrong.

By noting this as her concluding paragraph: "What atheists don't seem to realize is that even for believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God exists just beyond the scrim of the senses. So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?"

And once again, Troy falls back on the "you're all persecuting me" card when everything he says is conclusively proven wrong...

To be fair, on this web site anything I say is dismissed as completely worthless – the standard claim being that I have never read anything, suffer from all sorts of mental illness, am a creationist, and advocate of ID, push for Jesus...

Yes, little man, we say all that because that's what the evidence leads us to believe; and you have offered no other countervailing evidence to disprove any of it.

And as long as you're trying to show how brilliant Harun Yahya is, why don't you tell us how you feel about his followers' tactics of threatening physical violence against professors who try to teach evolution in Turkey? If Yahya/Oktar is a real scientist with real insights, why does he need a goon squad?

Your support of this pretentious gangster proves how morally retarded you really are.

I pointed to the fact that Harun Yahya was elevating the property of Stasis in his book. Objections where raised that I went to far when claiming that Statsis is contradictory to Darwin's theory. When one actually reads Darwin, the record is against it, however, there are updates to his theory so shall put the matter it this way:

Time constraints seriously elevate reason to reject random mutation as the leading causal factor in generating a fossil record having the properties we find in that record. In turn this raises very serious question as to if Darwin's theory in its modern form is a viable explanation for the nature of the fossil record.

Regardless of how it is put, one aspect worthy of note - the tension rest upon the question of Darwin's theory is of worth.

In addition the matter of the problems with the term “evolution” was touched upon. One person pointed to the idea that everyone on this web site share exactly the same meaning of that term (regardless of the fact that even as militant of a place as talkorigin is, they still point to just how problematic the term is within the scientific community). My feeling is that there is not much contention with the term being problematic nor is there any contention (that I noticed) to Harun using the term as it equates to Darwin's theory.

With that said we move on to another aspect of Harun Yahya's, namely the relation of Darwin's theory to very negative social aspects of people claiming scientific justification for intolerance via Darwin's work.

The obvious way to start looking into this aspect is by looking into social Darwinsm. To get something of a feel for it, as it is presented to society at least in some limited way, is to open up Google, type in “Social Darwinism”, hit return, and view the contents of the first ten results – which is exactly what is done here (later will we look at the matter with in light of some things Max Weber pointed out, but first things first). In doing so I get the following ten web pages (May 18th, 2009):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml
Social Darwinism - MSN Encarta

http://books.google.com/books?id=A31Izksd2I0C&dq=social+darwinism&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=ES4Mwcvl_H&sig=SqePZtRXy9nR1GZaGcwKzobPfyU&hl=en&ei=hZYRSof6LJb4tAPkoL2MAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.html
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/SocDarw.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/index.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html
http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/socdar.html

One of these sources is a link to a book and a couple of others to specialty issues of narrow construct. Of those remaining some special features do present themselves. Many indicate that social Darwinism is natural selection applied to human society and just as many indicate the connection of this habit to Herbert Spencer. When it comes to Darwin's theory there is less agreement, some having his theory connected to social Darwinism, some indicating only a lose connection, and some indicating that really there is no such connection at all, or else a very small connection. With respect to Darwin the person one site has a lose connection to him and others claim there is no connection at all. Two sites go so far as to claim Darwin never used the term “survival of the fittest” and none give reference to his use of the term.

In general the overall structure of these sites reflects this sort of thing: Social Darwinsm is linked to Herbert Spencer (and some others), Darwin's theory is somewhat connected to it, but maybe not, and Darwin the person is not really connected to it.

Harun Yahya has two messages with respect to Darwin's theory 1), the fossil record is against Darwin's theory, and 2) Darwin's theory is used to justify intolerance.

With respect to social Darwinism and the tendencies reflected in the Google search, Harun clearly links Herbert Spencer into the mix (Google “Harun Yahya Herbert Spencer” to see examples). Harun very strongly elevates Darwin's theory as being directly related to social Darwinism. Harun also equates Darwin the man with being directly connected to social Darwinism, although he tends to play on that less often preferring it seems to stick with the theory, not the man. The question then comes up, is one correct in connecting social Darwinism to Darwin's theory?

FL said: Stanton, why not simply say "Okay, I was mistaken on that one point, the DI did actually spend a little money on research after all", and THEN move on from there? FL :)

No, Troy, the question that keeps coming up, again and again, is what the fuck is your point????

Social Darwinism doesn't mean modern evolutionary theory is wrong, in the same way that Hiroshima doesn't mean atomic theory is wrong.

Your ideas about "Darwinism" are outdated. The world has moved past you. You are irrelevant.

Once again we see evidence that the IQ scale has no lower bound.

With Troy, it gets well into the negative numbers.

0 = no knowledge and no ability to learn.

IQ less than 0 is the territory where everything in the brain is dead wrong, resulting in obsessive/compulsive drooling.

Time constraints seriously elevate reason to reject random mutation as the leading causal factor in generating a fossil record having the properties we find in that record. In turn this raises very serious question as to if Darwin’s theory in its modern form is a viable explanation for the nature of the fossil record.

The question then comes up, is one correct in connecting social Darwinism to Darwin's theory?

Troy said: I see there is resistance to the claim that Stasis is against Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory, as he gave it, requires very long slow process's of gradual modification that then account for the formation of species. Clearly Stasis supports no such idea. In Darwin's day he understood that the fossil record did not support his theory. The tendency was to elevate the idea that the fossil record is imperfect and the demonstration of his theory was missing due to the imperfection. Furthermore, the lack of scientific demonstration was downplayed. Today we do have the matter of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium states that we need to account for Stasis of the fossil record instead of tossing under the claim of “imperfection”. It claims that Darwin was incorrect in his ideas of how long it takes. The idea runs as follows: individual groups of species become isolated – when that happens Darwin's theory acts on the groups and thereby gives rise to new species. This process happens so fast that in general we have no view of it in the fossil record because of the records “imperfection”.

brightmoon said: NO ...social-darwinism is a misunderstanding of how natural selection really works in populations

Troy said: With respect to social Darwinism and the tendencies reflected in the Google search, Harun clearly links Herbert Spencer into the mix (Google “Harun Yahya Herbert Spencer” to see examples). Harun very strongly elevates Darwin's theory as being directly related to social Darwinism. Harun also equates Darwin the man with being directly connected to social Darwinism, although he tends to play on that less often preferring it seems to stick with the theory, not the man. The question then comes up, is one correct in connecting social Darwinism to Darwin's theory?

How is Social Darwinism connected to Darwin's theory?

I here start by turning attention to Max Weber's work “Economy and Society”. Because Weber had a very particular thing in mind with respect to what sociology is, I think it best to point to his abstract definition prior to getting into detail least not doing so gives rise to misunderstandings.

“Sociology ..... is a science concerning itself with the interpretive understanding of social action and thereby with a causal explanation of its course and consequences. We shall speak of “action” so far as the acting individual attaches subjective meaning to his behavior ...... Action is “social” insofar as its subjective meaning takes account of the behavior of others and is thereby oriented in its course.”
(Economy and Society, vol. 1, chapter 1, sec 1)

With that said we turn to chapter V, “Ethnic groups” and quote the opening sentence:

“A much more problematic source of social action ...... is “race identity”: common inherited and inheritable traits that actually derive from common descent.”

Weber goes on to illustrate the problematic issues with respect to race identity (as applied to sociology). He points out that race identity can and does hinge upon cultural aspects every bit as much, if not more-so, than upon biological aspect. He goes on to say:

“The belief in group affinity, regardless of whether it has any objective foundation, can have important consequences especially for the formation of a political community . We shall call “ethnic groups” those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent ...... in our sense, ethnic membership does not constitute a group; it only facilitates group formation of any kind, particularly in the political sphere. On the other hand, it is primarily the political community .... that inspires the belief in common ethnicity. This belief tends to persist even after the disintegration of the political community ........ ” (emphasis my own).

Now let us turn our attention from Sociology to Psychology:

“In order to free the fiction of the sovereign State – in other words, the whims of the chieftains who manipulate it – from every wholesome restriction, all socio-political movements tending in this direction invariably try to cut the ground from under religion. For, in order to turn the individual into a function of the State, his dependence on anything else must be taken from him. Religion means depends on and submission to the irrational facts of experience. These do not refer directly to social and physical conditions; they concern far more the individual's psychic attitude.”
“But it is possible to have an attitude to external conditions of life only when there is a point of reference outside them. Religion gives, or claims to give, such a standpoint, thereby enabling the individual to exercise his judgment and his power of decision. It builds up a reserve, as it were, against the obvious and inevitable force of circumstances to which everyone is exposed who lives only in the outer world and has no other ground under his feet except pavement. If statistical reality is the only one, then that is sole authority. There is then only one condition, and since no contrary condition exist, judgment and decision are not only superfluous but impossible. Then the individual is bound to be a function of the State or whatever the abstract principle of order may be called.”

(Carl Jung, collected works, vol. 10, chapter IV, part 2, paragraph 505 & 506).

The above examples from the fields of sociology and psychology indicate political interest in elevating ethnic identity and in a diminishing of the worthiness of religion. If we are going to find how social Darwinsm is actually attached to Darwin's theory, and why it elevates it, one would be well advised, I think, to look in that theory for “ethnic identity” and or “common descent” along with anything in the ballpark of undermining religion. In addition, following Jung's lead, if religion is replaced by science and its statistical reality, we would have pretty much everything needed in the theory for the theory to be actively used by any political group. I think we can make a pretty damn strong case for at least that much!

No. You can't.
You are a pinhead and a wanker who knows fuck all about biology. Go away, already.

To summarize Troy's book report above:

1) Troy is scared of the idea of a world without religion.

2) Troy feels threatened by science in general and "Darwinism" in particular.

3) Troy needs to quote-mine dead spiritualist philosophers in order to construct a false narrative that science unyoked from religion inevitably leads to moral and cultural oblivion.

Conclusion: Troy is in denial of reality, and frightfully averse to the overwhelming evidence that he, along with the rest of us, is a glorified ape who eats, sleeps, breathes, poops, and fucks.

Get over it, Troy. Science makes no pronouncements about the spiritual dimension. It simply tells you about the natural world, of which you are a living animal part, whether you like it or not. Whether you can handle it or not.

jfx said: To summarize Troy's book report above: 1) Troy is scared of the idea of a world without religion. 2) Troy feels threatened by science in general and "Darwinism" in particular. 3) Troy needs to quote-mine dead spiritualist philosophers in order to construct a false narrative that science unyoked from religion inevitably leads to moral and cultural oblivion. Conclusion: Troy is in denial of reality, and frightfully averse to the overwhelming evidence that he, along with the rest of us, is a glorified ape who eats, sleeps, breathes, poops, and fucks. Get over it, Troy. Science makes no pronouncements about the spiritual dimension. It simply tells you about the natural world, of which you are a living animal part, whether you like it or not. Whether you can handle it or not.

jfx said: To summarize Troy's book report above: 1) Troy is scared of the idea of a world without religion. 2) Troy feels threatened by science in general and "Darwinism" in particular. 3) Troy needs to quote-mine dead spiritualist philosophers in order to construct a false narrative that science unyoked from religion inevitably leads to moral and cultural oblivion. Conclusion: Troy is in denial of reality, and frightfully averse to the overwhelming evidence that he, along with the rest of us, is a glorified ape who eats, sleeps, breathes, poops, and fucks. Get over it, Troy. Science makes no pronouncements about the spiritual dimension. It simply tells you about the natural world, of which you are a living animal part, whether you like it or not. Whether you can handle it or not.

The creationist propagandist hiding behind the username Troy said: How is Social Darwinism connected to Darwin's theory?

Well, Troy's logic is once again unassailable.

Obviously "Social Darwinism" and "Darwinin Evolution" are the obviously same thing, after all, they use the same word.

Just like "Social Engineering" and, say, "electrical Engineering" are the same thing, because they have the same name, and use all the same concepts, like complicated equations involving magnetic fields, and subtle understandings of the energy states of electrons within silicon crystals.

Or "Aircraft in flight" and "Fugitive in flight" are the same thing because they both, um, get shot at during wartime. Yeah. That's it.

Now I understand everything, Troy.

Troy, "Social Darwinism" is nothing more than a retelling of the so-called "Divine Right of Kings," except that "Nature/Evolution," instead of "Because God Said So," is used as the catch-all excuse. "Social Darwinism" is simply an excuse made by the rich and powerful to worm their way out of parting with (some of) their money to help the poor, ill and disenfranchised. Of course, anyone dishonest enough to accuse Charles Darwin of founding and or inspiring Social Darwinism is stupid enough to neglect to know that Charles Darwin thoroughly repudiated and verbally eviscerated the arguments for "Social Darwinism" in On The Descent of Man, where he eloquently stated that using whatever excuse, God, Nature, Evolution, to counteract the human instinct of compassion would utterly destroy human civilization as we know it, if not our entire species.

Folks, this thread is up to over 350 comments. I'm going to close comments now before the software gets its knickers in a twist and refer you all to After the Bar Closes if you wish to continue.

Thanks for playing!