Creationist at a community college

I'm sure "Casey at the bar" was ready with law suit in hand had this been cancelled. But it appears to have been handeled well.

Somebody should have asked why the Campus Crusade for Christ has disguised their name and goals, and why Sherwin's talk was originally advertised as if it was legitimate science.

It is also interesting that Sherwin gave a talk later the same day that had a slightly different introduction - see http://www.youngearth.org/

I'll give a talk to any public school that invites me to condemn Darwinism. Anytime, anywhere. I will also debate the goons at the NCSE, but they are way too scared of me.

Atheistoclast said: I'll give a talk to any public school that invites me to condemn Darwinism. Anytime, anywhere. I will also debate the goons at the NCSE, but they are way too scared of me.

Idiots lacking any kind of intellectual integrity can be scary, indeed.

Glen Davidson

Atheistoclast said: I will also debate the goons at the NCSE, but they are way too scared of me.

I have removed the comment by the IBIG troll to the bathroom wall. I will allow 1 comment from the Atheistoclast troll, and 1 response each to the AC troll from other commenters. Further comments by the AC troll will be sent to the bathroom wall, as will multiple responses to that troll. If anyone wants to have an intelligent discussion, please do not let me stop you, but feeding trolls is not intelligent.

Our creationist trolls (e.g., IBIG and Bozo Joe) need to understand that the science community has figured out the taunting shtick of the ID/creationists a long time ago.

ID/creationists desperately want a free ride on the backs of legitimate scientists and legitimate educational institutions. Scientists will no longer allow themselves to be used by ID/creationists for political publicity leverage.

It has nothing to do with fear; it’s about inflicting on ID/creationists the pain of facing up to reality. You don’t get free rides in science; you do the science or get out. It’s not a sissy child’s game that you win by taunting.

Thanks for keeping an eye out, Ms (Mrs.? Dr.?) Weis! I'm glad to see this came to a responsible resolution from Aims, with all the stealth Creationism coverage that's been going on hear at the Thumb I was starting to lower my expectations.

I don't see why creationists have such a tough time, since everyone in the universe is a closet creationist. They quote every single person in the universe, and the quotes are always proving creationism beyond the shadow of a doubt. They actually literally quote every single freaking person in the entire universe. I don't think I'm exaggerating on that.

Atheistoclast is welcome to come to my department to give a talk. No problem, if he can get himself here (budgets are tight). Here's the catch, though. Casey Luskin came two years ago. He completely controlled the microphone. Questions were strictly limited to one per person with no follow up, and Casey went on for 15 minutes each, "answering" the questions. None of that BS here. You get to give your talk, then you get grilled. No limitations, no restrictions. You have to answer questions from the audience, and the questioner can ask away to their heart's delight. Just think of it. So if you feel like you know more than a bunch of anatomists, functional anatomists, behavioral ecologists, genetists, systematists, etc etc etc, then do come by. And we can record the whole thing and post it on the web. Oh, and by the way....no one tried to censor Casey Luskin or stop him from speaking. In fact, we regularly have creationists speaking in various venues on campus. I'll bet you anything that Creationist organizations and colleges cannot say the same about evolutionary biologists.

In fact, we regularly have creationists speaking in various venues on campus. I’ll bet you anything that Creationist organizations and colleges cannot say the same about evolutionary biologists.

mplavcan said: Atheistoclast is welcome to come to my department to give a talk. No problem, if he can get himself here (budgets are tight). Here's the catch, though. Casey Luskin came two years ago. He completely controlled the microphone. Questions were strictly limited to one per person with no follow up, and Casey went on for 15 minutes each, "answering" the questions. None of that BS here. You get to give your talk, then you get grilled. No limitations, no restrictions. You have to answer questions from the audience, and the questioner can ask away to their heart's delight. Just think of it. So if you feel like you know more than a bunch of anatomists, functional anatomists, behavioral ecologists, genetists, systematists, etc etc etc, then do come by. And we can record the whole thing and post it on the web. Oh, and by the way....no one tried to censor Casey Luskin or stop him from speaking. In fact, we regularly have creationists speaking in various venues on campus. I'll bet you anything that Creationist organizations and colleges cannot say the same about evolutionary biologists.

Atheistoclast said: I will also debate the goons at the NCSE, but they are way too scared of me.

mplavcan,

Please record this historic occasion and present it here for all to see. I would suggest that someone ask Joe the definition of the following terms:

new

novel

derived

neofunctionalization

I would also like to know exactly what he thinks controls development, genes and cascades of gene expression being insufficient and all. Then again, he might be saving that little tidbit for his ground breaking talk at the developmental biology meetings next year. FInally, the Nobel Prize committee will have something to talk about.

Paul Burnett said:

Atheistoclast said: I will also debate the goons at the NCSE, but they are way too scared of me.

Does the NCSE even know (or care) that you exist?

DS said: mplavcan, Please record this historic occasion and present it here for all to see. I would suggest that someone ask Joe the definition of the following terms: new novel derived neofunctionalization I would also like to know exactly what he thinks controls development, genes and cascades of gene expression being insufficient and all. Then again, he might be saving that little tidbit for his ground breaking talk at the developmental biology meetings next year. FInally, the Nobel Prize committee will have something to talk about.

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said: Atheistoclast is welcome to come to my department to give a talk. No problem, if he can get himself here (budgets are tight). Here's the catch, though. Casey Luskin came two years ago. He completely controlled the microphone. Questions were strictly limited to one per person with no follow up, and Casey went on for 15 minutes each, "answering" the questions. None of that BS here. You get to give your talk, then you get grilled. No limitations, no restrictions. You have to answer questions from the audience, and the questioner can ask away to their heart's delight. Just think of it. So if you feel like you know more than a bunch of anatomists, functional anatomists, behavioral ecologists, genetists, systematists, etc etc etc, then do come by. And we can record the whole thing and post it on the web. Oh, and by the way....no one tried to censor Casey Luskin or stop him from speaking. In fact, we regularly have creationists speaking in various venues on campus. I'll bet you anything that Creationist organizations and colleges cannot say the same about evolutionary biologists.

You're on. If you want an entirely open and free Q and A discussion, then I accept. I will also attend at entirely my own expense - as long as you are not based in Australiasia (Europe and N. America only). I do think I can handle any points raised by either experts or students - but it would be helpful to keep any debate focused on certain areas of evolutionary biology. You can send a formal invitation to: postdarwinism@ymail.com If I do not hear from you, I will assume you were bluffing all along.

DS said: mplavcan, Please record this historic occasion and present it here for all to see. I would suggest that someone ask Joe the definition of the following terms: new novel derived neofunctionalization I would also like to know exactly what he thinks controls development, genes and cascades of gene expression being insufficient and all. Then again, he might be saving that little tidbit for his ground breaking talk at the developmental biology meetings next year. FInally, the Nobel Prize committee will have something to talk about.

mplavcan said: I need your name, institutional and departmental affiliation, and a suggested topic for a talk. I will present that to my colleagues and friends to determine an appropriate venue.

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said: I need your name, institutional and departmental affiliation, and a suggested topic for a talk. I will present that to my colleagues and friends to determine an appropriate venue.

My name and my scholarly credentials (for the present) are given below: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=joseph+esfandiar+hannon+bozorgmehr&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on Most bloggers and evo geeks know of me. You can suggest the topic and format. But I will eat my shoes with mustard if you are brave enough to allow the one and only Atheistoclast onto your campus. I doubt you will. Northwest Arkansas and hick country is fine with me. I have a friend who lives around there. It is up to you - if you want the mother of all debates, I am ready.

Here in Europe we probably have less issues with creationists, but I've already been involved in some debates with such extremist individuals... It is very hard to argue with people with no rational reasoning.

My eyes and ears are always open to detect any form of related comment or discussion among my student audience during my lectures (biology, life sciences, neuroscience) at the University...

A

http://viewsontheworld.blog.com/

PS: I appologize if my English is not good enough, hope my point was clear...

Creationists actually took over the student government at my community college a few years ago and spent their year in office agitating against gay rights (they endorsed California's Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage) and arguing that the college curriculum was oppressive to their beliefs (e.g., anthropology and geology professors telling students that the earth is billions of years old). It was a relief when they were finally kicked out.

Always be on guard.

The IBIG troll belongs on the Bathroom Wall.

It deliberately misconstrued the point of Matt’s post, and now it word-games, whines, and taunts for attention.

Atheistoclast is welcome to come to my department to give a talk. No problem, if he can get himself here (budgets are tight).

mplavcan said: Yes, we have your name and those papers. You are from Manchester. Very nice. But what is you INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION, your CURRENT POSITION, and you BACKGROUND? For example, I am Professor of Anthropology at the University of Arkansas, Graduated from Duke University in 1990, have a number of publications, with my research focusing mainly on sexual dimorphism in primates, etc etc. All that those papers of yours give is your address in Manchester. How about some information? Where did you get your degree? Do you have a current academic position, or are you employed in industry? Is this a comprehensive publication list? Etc. It is hard to sell "a largely anonymous and uncredentialed creationist from England who published two papers and otherwise spends his time insulting people on the web" as interesting.

Atheistoclast said: Sure they do. Nick Matzke knows of me, as does Glenn Branch, Kevin Padian and Steve Newton.

But I am not a largely anonymous person - I am Atheistoclast - and I have published 3 papers so far (2 more have recently been accepted). Unlike you, I don't feel the need to flaunt my biography and CV on this site. I am a very modest and sincere person, not some egomaniac academic with a point to prove.

Matt Young said: \-- just let us know when the time and place have been decided.

A-Clast is British? How dissapointing I had hoped he was from Kentucky, all my assumptions about him would have then been neatly fulfilled.

robert van bakel said: A-Clast is British? How dissapointing I had hoped he was from Kentucky, all my assumptions about him would have then been neatly fulfilled.

robert van bakel said:

A-Clast is British? How dissapointing I had hoped he was from Kentucky, all my assumptions about him would have then been neatly fulfilled.

Who's the real IDiot here? Its spelled disappointing. I even wear shoes. J.S. in Kentucky.

Didn't mplavcan identify his/her location as northwest Arkansas above? Maybe SWT needs to be not so quick with stereotypical place/thought process assumptions.

But I am unhappy with the use of the word "goons" in a comment above. I am acquainted with some people who work for the NCSE. They are quite nice. I also found "my" creationist speaker to be a rather personable, warm and friendly fellow.

I favor discussions that are based on the scientific validity of ideas, not personal attacks.

gaythia said: Didn't mplavcan identify his/her location as northwest Arkansas above? Maybe SWT needs to be not so quick with stereotypical place/thought process assumptions.

@SWT Whoops! my comment should be made at John S. regarding his disappointment about assuming Kentucky. I'm sorry for the error.

gaythia said: Didn't mplavcan identify his/her location as northwest Arkansas above? Maybe SWT needs to be not so quick with stereotypical place/thought process assumptions.

But I am unhappy with the use of the word "goons" in a comment above. I am acquainted with some people who work for the NCSE. They are quite nice.

I also found "my" creationist speaker to be a rather personable, warm and friendly fellow.

I favor discussions that are based on the scientific validity of ideas, not personal attacks.

gaythia said: But I am unhappy with the use of the word "goons" in a comment above. I am acquainted with some people who work for the NCSE. They are quite nice. I also found "my" creationist speaker to be a rather personable, warm and friendly fellow. I favor discussions that are based on the scientific validity of ideas, not personal attacks.

harold said: So do I. However, when dishonest tactics are used, they must be pointed out. When very flawed ideas are advanced, the ideas must be criticized with rigor. I strongly favor civility, both as a personal ethical preference, and because it is more effective at persuading third party observers. However, civility is not obsequiousness. In the case of Joseph Bozorgmehr, I appreciate how hard he has worked on his publications, and I think it is tragic that this effort and apparent baseline ability are wasted due to unresolved emotional problems. However, facts are facts. Most people here are happy to discourse with Mr. Bozorgmehr, if that is, in fact, his real name; we do so in this venue. An official invitation to give an institution-sanctioned talk at a major research taxpayer-supported university like University of Arkansas cannot reasonably be offered to a lay person with a small collection of low impact publications, none of which either report original material or insightfully review currently active areas, simply because that person denies scientific reality. I personally think the idea of Joseph Bozorgmehr bothering to travel to Arkansas for an informal debate is absurd. There's no reason to think that any arguments that haven't be extensively covered in this forum would be raised. He should save his money.

SWT said:

robert van bakel said: A-Clast is British? How dissapointing I had hoped he was from Kentucky, all my assumptions about him would have then been neatly fulfilled.

He's disclosed that he's American(I asked), but I don't recall him mentioning his home state.

gaythia said: @SWT Whoops! my comment should be made at John S. regarding his disappointment about assuming Kentucky. I'm sorry for the error.

All creationist talks that I have attended and participated in have actually be very polite.

Harold, You speak of violating constitutional rights. Do we not live in a republic where the laws are made by representatives of the majority? The majority of Americans believe in God, do they not? Why then should they not educate their children in that belief? If the majority that pays taxes to fund schools, maybe even your salary (I may be wrong) believes that God created everything what is wrong with teaching them their origin is from Him? And are you not being dishonest taking money paid in taxes by people who believe in God to promote your disbelief in Him? I'm not disputing your right to believe or disbelieve, but your logic to me is faulty.

John S. said: Harold, You speak of violating constitutional rights. Do we not live in a republic where the laws are made by representatives of the majority? The majority of Americans believe in God, do they not? Why then should they not educate their children in that belief? If the majority that pays taxes to fund schools, maybe even your salary (I may be wrong) believes that God created everything what is wrong with teaching them their origin is from Him? And are you not being dishonest taking money paid in taxes by people who believe in God to promote your disbelief in Him? I'm not disputing your right to believe or disbelieve, but your logic to me is faulty.

John S. said: Harold, You speak of violating constitutional rights. Do we not live in a republic where the laws are made by representatives of the majority? The majority of Americans believe in God, do they not? Why then should they not educate their children in that belief? If the majority that pays taxes to fund schools, maybe even your salary (I may be wrong) believes that God created everything what is wrong with teaching them their origin is from Him? And are you not being dishonest taking money paid in taxes by people who believe in God to promote your disbelief in Him? I'm not disputing your right to believe or disbelieve, but your logic to me is faulty.

John S. said: If the majority that pays taxes to fund schools...believes that God created everything what is wrong with teaching them their origin is from Him?

And are you not being dishonest taking money paid in taxes by people who believe in God to promote your disbelief in Him? I'm not disputing your right to believe or disbelieve, but your logic to me is faulty.

John S. said: You speak of violating constitutional rights. Do we not live in a republic where the laws are made by representatives of the majority?

The majority of Americans believe in God, do they not? Why then should they not educate their children in that belief?

What the Dover case says:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/what_the_dover.html

Harold, You speak of violating constitutional rights. Do we not live in a republic where the laws are made by representatives of the majority? The majority of Americans believe in God, do they not?

Why then should they not educate their children in that belief?

If the majority that pays taxes to fund schools, maybe even your salary (I may be wrong) believes that God created everything what is wrong with teaching them their origin is from Him?

And are you not being dishonest taking money paid in taxes by people who believe in God to promote your disbelief in Him?

I’m not disputing your right to believe or disbelieve, but your logic to me is faulty.

John S. said: Harold, You speak of violating constitutional rights. Do we not live in a republic where the laws are made by representatives of the majority? The majority of Americans believe in God, do they not? Why then should they not educate their children in that belief?

CLAVDIVS said:

John S. said: Harold, You speak of violating constitutional rights. Do we not live in a republic where the laws are made by representatives of the majority? The majority of Americans believe in God, do they not? Why then should they not educate their children in that belief?

That's how we do it in Australia. The major religions (Catholic, Protestant, Muslim) send pastors (or whatver) to each public primary school each week to lead Scripture classes. Parents can opt in or out. We're also introducting "Ethics" classes, hopefully soon, for the non-religious. All this is in recognition of the fact that the parents are taxpayers, in spite of section 116 of the Australian Constitution stating "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." (wonder where they copied that from?) Personally I think this is a fairly balanced approach.

By the way, I usually find that Australia does things in a less messed up and more intelligent way than we do them here, but there are occasional exceptions.

Harold, You don't respect my rights! If you did you wouldn't be advocating shoving your godless religion down the throats of innocent children whose morals are in the process of forming. I'm not advocating teaching them any religion, even though our country was founded on biblical basics. If you deny that you are certainly ignorant of history. When you teach them we came from apes and all we are is an animal thats your religion. I don't have any trouble with teaching science but you know that evolution concerning origins is nothing but speculation. I wasn't there when it all began and neither were you although by the sharpness of your speech one would think you know it all. You want to talk about the constitution, read the constitution. The founding fathers believed in the Creator. You are deceived and don't even know it and that is one reason this country is in the mess its in. The majority of people in this country still believe in God but the minority and special interests are running this country. You people need to wake up because things are not going to continue on like this forever. Enjoy it while you can. Have a nice day. Now, go ahead send me to the Bathroom Wall. Have a nice day.

Harold, You don’t respect my rights!

If you did you wouldn’t be advocating shoving your godless religion down the throats of innocent children whose morals are in the process of forming.

I’m not advocating teaching them any religion,

even though our country was founded on biblical basics. If you deny that you are certainly ignorant of history.

When you teach them we came from apes and all we are is an animal thats your religion.

I don’t have any trouble with teaching science but you know that evolution concerning origins is nothing but speculation.

I wasn’t there when it all began and neither were you although by the sharpness of your speech one would think you know it all.

You want to talk about the constitution, read the constitution.

The founding fathers believed in the Creator.

You are deceived and don’t even know it and that is one reason this country is in the mess its in. The majority of people in this country still believe in God but the minority and special interests are running this country. You people need to wake up because things are not going to continue on like this forever. Enjoy it while you can. Have a nice day. Now, go ahead send me to the Bathroom Wall. Have a nice day.

John S. said: Harold, You don't respect my rights! If you did you wouldn't be advocating shoving your godless religion down the throats of innocent children whose morals are in the process of forming. I'm not advocating teaching them any religion, even though our country was founded on biblical basics. If you deny that you are certainly ignorant of history. When you teach them we came from apes and all we are is an animal thats your religion. I don't have any trouble with teaching science but you know that evolution concerning origins is nothing but speculation. I wasn't there when it all began and neither were you although by the sharpness of your speech one would think you know it all. You want to talk about the constitution, read the constitution. The founding fathers believed in the Creator. You are deceived and don't even know it and that is one reason this country is in the mess its in. The majority of people in this country still believe in God but the minority and special interests are running this country. You people need to wake up because things are not going to continue on like this forever. Enjoy it while you can. Have a nice day. Now, go ahead send me to the Bathroom Wall. Have a nice day.

My reply to the latest comment by John S is in moderation. Probably something triggered an auto-delay.

Fortunately, mplavcan has basically said everything I said, only better.

As for my indignant and critical (although basically civil) tone, well, I consider it justified in this case.

Harold, You don’t respect my rights! If you did you wouldn’t be advocating shoving your godless religion down the throats of innocent children whose morals are in the process of forming.

"Since the evolutionist theory is not a religion, to require an instructor to teach this theory is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.... Evolution is a scientific theory based on the gathering and studying of data, and modification of new data. It is an established scientific theory which is used as the basis for many areas of science. As scientific methods advance and become more accurate, the scientific community will revise the accepted theory to a more accurate explanation of life's origins. Plaintiffs assertions that the teaching of evolution would be a violation of the Establishment Clause is unfounded."

John S. said: Harold, You don't respect my rights! If you did you wouldn't be advocating shoving your godless religion down the throats of innocent children whose morals are in the process of forming. I'm not advocating teaching them any religion, even though our country was founded on biblical basics. If you deny that you are certainly ignorant of history. When you teach them we came from apes and all we are is an animal thats your religion. I don't have any trouble with teaching science but you know that evolution concerning origins is nothing but speculation. I wasn't there when it all began and neither were you although by the sharpness of your speech one would think you know it all. You want to talk about the constitution, read the constitution. The founding fathers believed in the Creator. You are deceived and don't even know it and that is one reason this country is in the mess its in. The majority of people in this country still believe in God but the minority and special interests are running this country. You people need to wake up because things are not going to continue on like this forever. Enjoy it while you can. Have a nice day. Now, go ahead send me to the Bathroom Wall. Have a nice day.

John S. said: Harold, You don't respect my rights! If you did you wouldn't be advocating shoving your godless religion down the throats of innocent children whose morals are in the process of forming.

I'm not advocating teaching them any religion...

...even though our country was founded on biblical basics.

If you deny that you are certainly ignorant of history.

When you teach them we came from apes and all we are is an animal thats your religion.

I don't have any trouble with teaching science but you know that evolution concerning origins is nothing but speculation.

a low tolerance for folks derailing threads

Matt Young said:

a low tolerance for folks derailing threads

And, I fear, getting lower with time. It seems to me that John S. (as opposed to John_S) has been effectively refuted, but if he has anything intelligent to add in his defense, I will let a few more comments stand. I will not, however, tolerate unsupported assertions like Comment 272406, not because they are false (they are), but because they do not advance the debate.

Paul Burnett said: [snip](Or are you in a class being taught by William Dembski?)

Paul Burnett said:

John S. said: ...even though our country was founded on biblical basics.

Say what? Please give us a couple of examples.

I just got back from a thoroughly excellent Denver Cafe Scientifique2 gathering featuring Jeffrey Kieft and James Degregori. One of James points, which I believe would apply here, was that he thought it was a poor strategy to legitimize Creationists by giving them the platform of a debate. He thought that not all positions are equal, and if no facts based argument could be presented and no research could back up positions that there was really no basis for continuing the discussion. He compared it to the Texas Rangers refusing to play a T-ball team.

Matt, I'd recommend that James and Jeffrey be encouraged to write a guest post or posts here.

To change the subject a little, I'd like to know how one can be informed about when creationist talks are happening in one's area. I would have gone to this talk if I had known about it. Is there a mailing list somewhere? I'm already on Mike Antolin's (Colorado State, CERT) mailing list but it didn't appear there.

Howard said: ...I'd like to know how one can be informed about when creationist talks are happening in one's area.

mplavcan said:

SWT said:

robert van bakel said: A-Clast is British? How dissapointing I had hoped he was from Kentucky, all my assumptions about him would have then been neatly fulfilled.

He's disclosed that he's American(I asked), but I don't recall him mentioning his home state.

His address is in Manchester England. That is all I know.

Very few scientists can claim to be the sole author of a published paper - but I can.

Most bloggers and evo geeks know of me. You can suggest the topic and format. But I will eat my shoes with mustard if you are brave enough to allow the one and only Atheistoclast onto your campus. I doubt you will. Northwest Arkansas and hick country is fine with me. I have a friend who lives around there. It is up to you - if you want the mother of all debates, I am ready.

co said:

Very few scientists can claim to be the sole author of a published paper - but I can.

Cute weasel-wording there about "very few". I would postulate that *most* current scientists (in the United States) have been only-author publishers before. Every single scientist I *know* has at least one of those, and most of these people are young, either post-doctoral or just out of the post-doctoral stage. Granted, I don't know whether scientists in, e.g., India or China, often publish by themselves, but I'm going to ask today at work. In any case, your "very few" is ridiculously unsubstantiated.

Bozorgmehr (aka "Atheistoclast) is one of the leading critics of Darwinian evolutionary theory, active on most of the web-based science forums. He is also the author of several peer-reviewed papers on the subject. He holds BSc and BEng degrees from highly reputed universities in England, and is an analytical programmer by profession, specializing in complex algorithmic development, modelling and simulation. He has predicted on the Panda's Thumb that the field of evo-devo will collapse within the next 10 years and has stated that he is looking forward to seeing a new paradigm emerge which embraces many aspects of Vitalism. While he is sympathetic to both creationism and ID, he is not part of their movement but considers himself to be offering something of a Third Way approach.

Edward Everett, President of harvard, 15th Gov. of Mass., Sec. of State, and U.S. Senator, speaking with Lincoln at Gettysburg said, "All the distinctive features and superiority of our republican institutions are derived from the teachings of SCRIPTURE." Study the Old Deluder Act of 1647, Thomas Paine said, "whenever we step aside from the first article (that of believing in God) we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty. I could go on and on but what use. Men convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.

Um... so what?

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said:

SWT said:

robert van bakel said: A-Clast is British? How dissapointing I had hoped he was from Kentucky, all my assumptions about him would have then been neatly fulfilled.

He's disclosed that he's American(I asked), but I don't recall him mentioning his home state.

His address is in Manchester England. That is all I know.

I am a U.S citizen and can prove it if I have to. I just happen to live in the Old Country right now. I know Harold thinks that I am a "layman", just as PZ calls me a "crank", but I hold two science degrees (though not a doctorate), even if I am not an academic who lives off public money. Very few scientists can claim to be the sole author of a published paper - but I can. I would gladly present a lecture at the U of A on the need for a critical evaluation of evolutionary theory in the classroom, and why materialistic biology has failed and has no explanatory power wrt the most important areas of the life sciences such as the origin of information, form and behavior. I am confident I can easily deal with any questions and objections. It would be a walk in the park.

Atheistoclast said:

co said:

Very few scientists can claim to be the sole author of a published paper - but I can.

Cute weasel-wording there about "very few". I would postulate that *most* current scientists (in the United States) have been only-author publishers before. Every single scientist I *know* has at least one of those, and most of these people are young, either post-doctoral or just out of the post-doctoral stage. Granted, I don't know whether scientists in, e.g., India or China, often publish by themselves, but I'm going to ask today at work. In any case, your "very few" is ridiculously unsubstantiated.

It is very rare to see a scientific paper published by a sole author and one who is also unaffiliated and unfunded. Anyway,I am prepared to go to Arkansas to do battle with the Darwinists. Here is how I would introduce myself:

Bozorgmehr (aka "Atheistoclast) is one of the leading critics of Darwinian evolutionary theory, active on most of the web-based science forums. He is also the author of several peer-reviewed papers on the subject. He holds BSc and BEng degrees from highly reputed universities in England, and is an analytical programmer by profession, specializing in complex algorithmic development, modelling and simulation. He has predicted on the Panda's Thumb that the field of evo-devo will collapse within the next 10 years and has stated that he is looking forward to seeing a new paradigm emerge which embraces many aspects of Vitalism. While he is sympathetic to both creationism and ID, he is not part of their movement but considers himself to be offering something of a Third Way approach.

I would say in advance that I will not be signing any autographs.

John S. said: Edward Everett, President of harvard, 15th Gov. of Mass., Sec. of State, and U.S. Senator, speaking with Lincoln at Gettysburg said, "All the distinctive features and superiority of our republican institutions are derived from the teachings of SCRIPTURE." Study the Old Deluder Act of 1647, Thomas Paine said, "whenever we step aside from the first article (that of believing in God) we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty. I could go on and on but what use. Men convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.

I should have said "Debunking this claim does NOT require that the University actively and formally invite a presenter..."

I need more coffee.

along with a bad case of science envy

Howard said: To change the subject a little, I'd like to know how one can be informed about when creationist talks are happening in one's area. I would have gone to this talk if I had known about it. Is there a mailing list somewhere? I'm already on Mike Antolin's (Colorado State, CERT) mailing list but it didn't appear there.

co said:

Most bloggers and evo geeks know of me. You can suggest the topic and format. But I will eat my shoes with mustard if you are brave enough to allow the one and only Atheistoclast onto your campus. I doubt you will. Northwest Arkansas and hick country is fine with me. I have a friend who lives around there. It is up to you - if you want the mother of all debates, I am ready.

Is it possible to film this and release said film? My humble opinion is that the world should see the "debate" (or "lecture", or whatever it turns out to be).

John S. said: Edward Everett, President of harvard, 15th Gov. of Mass., Sec. of State, and U.S. Senator, speaking with Lincoln at Gettysburg said, "All the distinctive features and superiority of our republican institutions are derived from the teachings of SCRIPTURE." Study the Old Deluder Act of 1647, Thomas Paine said, "whenever we step aside from the first article (that of believing in God) we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty. I could go on and on but what use. Men convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.

Joe,

How about including this reference in your talk:

Deng et. al. (2010) Evolution of an antifreeze protein by neofunctionalization under escape from adaptive conflict. PNAS 107(50):21593-98.

The editor is one of your close personal friends.

TIme for the bathroom wall once again.

OK, enough comments about AC's credentials, or lack thereof. Though it might be nice to know exactly what institutions and what degrees ....

DS said: Joe, How about including this reference in your talk: Deng et. al. (2010) Evolution of an antifreeze protein by neofunctionalization under escape from adaptive conflict. PNAS 107(50):21593-98. The editor is one of your close personal friends. TIme for the bathroom wall once again.

I am confident I can easily deal with any questions and objections. It would be a walk in the park.

It is very rare to see a scientific paper published by a sole author and one who is also unaffiliated and unfunded.

I will, however, be attending Evolution 2012 in Ottawa and will be submitting conference presentations there. It is part of the “Final Push” to unseat Darwinism once and for all.

So whether or not Darwinism (whatever that is – do you mean modern evolutionary theory?) is “unseated”, are we to take it that this Push really is a Final one?

Atheistoclast said: I will, however, be attending Evolution 2012 in Ottawa and will be submitting conference presentations there. It is part of the “Final Push” to unseat Darwinism once and for all.

co said:

I will, however, be attending Evolution 2012 in Ottawa and will be submitting conference presentations there. It is part of the “Final Push” to unseat Darwinism once and for all.

So whether or not Darwinism (whatever that is -- do you mean modern evolutionary theory?) is "unseated", are we to take it that this Push really is a Final one?

Atheistoclast said: I would be happy to talk about this paper in any debate. But I doubt anyone would allow me to do so. I notice that mplavcan has not formally invited me. He just says I should show up and he will try and find a room. But ,if I am to cross the Atlantic, back into the New World, I expect some sort of official confirmation in advance. So why should I bother? I will, however, be attending Evolution 2012 in Ottawa and will be submitting conference presentations there. It is part of the "Final Push" to unseat Darwinism once and for all. Btw, human evolution is a pet subject for me. I could take mplavcan to the cleaners in any one-on-one debate. I have amassed a whole load of evidence.

Atheistoclast said:

co said:

I will, however, be attending Evolution 2012 in Ottawa and will be submitting conference presentations there. It is part of the “Final Push” to unseat Darwinism once and for all.

So whether or not Darwinism (whatever that is -- do you mean modern evolutionary theory?) is "unseated", are we to take it that this Push really is a Final one?

I think so.

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: Joe, How about including this reference in your talk: Deng et. al. (2010) Evolution of an antifreeze protein by neofunctionalization under escape from adaptive conflict. PNAS 107(50):21593-98. The editor is one of your close personal friends. TIme for the bathroom wall once again.

I covered that article here already. If you care to actually read that paper, which you have not done, you will see it is mostly bluster. It describes the modification of the C-term of an enzyme that conferred a basic ice-binding function. Despite some optimizing changes, including 7 deletions, it has been duplicated 30 times because it is so sub-optimal. The entire N-terminus was destroyed. Sure, it is a classic case of opportunistic adaptation, but it only really shows how limited evolution is. I would be happy to talk about this paper in any debate. But I doubt anyone would allow me to do so. I notice that mplavcan has not formally invited me. He just says I should show up and he will try and find a room. But ,if I am to cross the Atlantic, back into the New World, I expect some sort of official confirmation in advance. So why should I bother? I will, however, be attending Evolution 2012 in Ottawa and will be submitting conference presentations there. It is part of the "Final Push" to unseat Darwinism once and for all. Btw, human evolution is a pet subject for me. I could take mplavcan to the cleaners in any one-on-one debate. I have amassed a whole load of evidence.

mplavcan said:

Atheistoclast said: I would be happy to talk about this paper in any debate. But I doubt anyone would allow me to do so. I notice that mplavcan has not formally invited me. He just says I should show up and he will try and find a room. But ,if I am to cross the Atlantic, back into the New World, I expect some sort of official confirmation in advance. So why should I bother? I will, however, be attending Evolution 2012 in Ottawa and will be submitting conference presentations there. It is part of the "Final Push" to unseat Darwinism once and for all. Btw, human evolution is a pet subject for me. I could take mplavcan to the cleaners in any one-on-one debate. I have amassed a whole load of evidence.

You can show up, I will find a room. Propose a date. The claim was the we censor people like you from talking, not that we do not extend formal invitations to give featured talks. Human evolution is a fine topic for a talk.

DS said: If you had actually read the paper you would know that a new function evolved, something you said could not happen. So all of your bluster about no new information and no new functions was all bullshit. No designer did this. No vitalistic force was involved.

So you refuse to accept the invitation? Start eating your shoes hypocrite.

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: If you had actually read the paper you would know that a new function evolved, something you said could not happen. So all of your bluster about no new information and no new functions was all bullshit. No designer did this. No vitalistic force was involved.

No. A new function did not evolve. It was merely the result of the amplification and optimization of an existing function - as the authors freely admit. You fail again.

So you refuse to accept the invitation? Start eating your shoes hypocrite.

Dr. Plavcan has refused to offer me a formal invitation. He just offers me a room - which could be a jail cell for all I know. I have better things to do with my time. All the Darwinists are terrified of me - they know I mean the end of the supply of milk and honey they have been subsidized with by the government for too long now. It is time for the likes of Plavcan to go - it is time for regime change.

DS said:

mplavcan said:

Atheistoclast said: I would be happy to talk about this paper in any debate. But I doubt anyone would allow me to do so. I notice that mplavcan has not formally invited me. He just says I should show up and he will try and find a room. But ,if I am to cross the Atlantic, back into the New World, I expect some sort of official confirmation in advance. So why should I bother? I will, however, be attending Evolution 2012 in Ottawa and will be submitting conference presentations there. It is part of the "Final Push" to unseat Darwinism once and for all. Btw, human evolution is a pet subject for me. I could take mplavcan to the cleaners in any one-on-one debate. I have amassed a whole load of evidence.

You can show up, I will find a room. Propose a date. The claim was the we censor people like you from talking, not that we do not extend formal invitations to give featured talks. Human evolution is a fine topic for a talk.

Great. I'd love to hear Joe explain the chromosome data, including the centromeres and telomeres on human chromosome two. I'd love to hear him explain the mitochondrial and Y chromosome data and the support for the out of Africa hypothesis. I'd really love to hear him explain the nested hierarchy of SINE insertions that are seen in primates, including humans. I'd love to hear his explanation for why all of these independent data sets give exactly the same answer. He must really be an expert in all of this evidence. Not bad for someone with no training, degrees, lab or funding.

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: If you had actually read the paper you would know that a new function evolved, something you said could not happen. So all of your bluster about no new information and no new functions was all bullshit. No designer did this. No vitalistic force was involved.

No. A new function did not evolve. It was merely the result of the amplification and optimization of an existing function - as the authors freely admit. You fail again.

So you refuse to accept the invitation? Start eating your shoes hypocrite.

Dr. Plavcan has refused to offer me a formal invitation. He just offers me a room - which could be a jail cell for all I know. I have better things to do with my time. All the Darwinists are terrified of me - they know I mean the end of the supply of milk and honey they have been subsidized with by the government for too long now. It is time for the likes of Plavcan to go - it is time for regime change.

Just mustard? What about ketchup?

Whenever we step aside from this article, (i.e. the Deist position on the existence of a god) by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation.

Except in the first article in the Christian creed, that of believing in God, there is not an article in it but fills the mind with doubt as to the truth of it, the instant man begins to think. Now every article in a creed that is necessary to the happiness and salvation of man, ought to be as evident to the reason and comprehension of man as the first article is, for God has not given us reason for the purpose of confounding us, but that we should use it for our own happiness and His glory. The truth of the first article is proved by God Himself, and is universal; for the creation is of itself demonstration of the existence of a Creator. But the second article, that of God's begetting a son, is not proved in like manner, and stands on no other authority than that of a tale.

DS said: No, they used the term neofunctionalization in the title, something you can't seem to get your head around. If this is your idea of being a scientist, I pity you.

mplavcan said: You seem to forget that people can read. I offered a room, and to put up flyers. This what I would do for any informal talk. And mustard.

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: No, they used the term neofunctionalization in the title, something you can't seem to get your head around. If this is your idea of being a scientist, I pity you.

Actually, they referred to it the sialic acid synthase gene as "bifunctional". So, by "neofunctionalization" they aren't referring to the emergence of a "new function" but rather the modification of an existing one (i.e. the C-terminal domain). Of course, you are incapable of understanding anything for yourself and need to be spoon-fed. I am happy to talk about this with the use of a projector. If you claim to be an academic/scholar, which you are not, maybe you should invite me to your university? I am sure Professor Plavcan is a very busy man anyway - writing all those papers on sexual dimorphism in primates (which is interesting from an evo-devo standpoint).

You're not a VIP, functional cretin.

Glen Davidson

Henry J said: Just mustard? What about ketchup?

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said: You seem to forget that people can read. I offered a room, and to put up flyers. This what I would do for any informal talk. And mustard.

I want the full VIP treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said: You seem to forget that people can read. I offered a room, and to put up flyers. This what I would do for any informal talk. And mustard.

I want the full VIP treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I’ll give a talk to any public school that invites me to condemn Darwinism. Anytime, anywhere.

I want the full VIP treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.

IMHO, if any of you were seriously interested in talking with/to/at each other, you could set up a joint video conference and just go for it.

Not only would airfare be saved, but also carbon credits.

gaythia said: IMHO, if any of you were seriously interested in talking with/to/at each other, you could set up a joint video conference and just go for it. Not only would airfare be saved, but also carbon credits.

mplavcan said:

gaythia said: IMHO, if any of you were seriously interested in talking with/to/at each other, you could set up a joint video conference and just go for it. Not only would airfare be saved, but also carbon credits.

At issue here is censorship. In point of fact, Bozorgmehr is not being censored here (thanks Matt, for letting this exercise continue), and a video conference would effectively be the same as a typed discussion forum, which is what we are doing now. The claim was that Universities censor creationists from giving talks. We do not.

mplavcan said: At issue here is censorship. In point of fact, Bozorgmehr is not being censored here (thanks Matt, for letting this exercise continue), and a video conference would effectively be the same as a typed discussion forum, which is what we are doing now. The claim was that Universities censor creationists from giving talks. We do not.

Atheistoclast said: It also marks the end of Darwinism.

Atheistoclast said: Dr. Plavcan has refused to offer me a formal invitation. He just offers me a room - which could be a jail cell for all I know. I have better things to do with my time. All the Darwinists are terrified of me - they know I mean the end of the supply of milk and honey they have been subsidized with by the government for too long now. It is time for the likes of Plavcan to go - it is time for regime change.

Atheistoclast said: 2012 is the end of a major epoch in the Mayan calendar. It also marks the end of Darwinism. I am very excited at the prospect of the demise of the greatest evil inflicted upon science and culture.

Here is a perfect example of Bill Jack at AiG bragging about his “debate” with a museum curator in part three of his video series.

Note the smarmy, oozing jealousy about what he asserts is “artificial authority.” He just has to latch onto some of that authority and then bring home to his rubes his triumph at having “won a debate.”

This is it; this is what ID/creationism is and always has been.

D P Robin said:

Atheistoclast said: 2012 is the end of a major epoch in the Mayan calendar. It also marks the end of Darwinism. I am very excited at the prospect of the demise of the greatest evil inflicted upon science and culture.

Good Heavens! Atheistoclast has finally brought the level of discourse down to the level of Yahoo! Answers. IMHO, there is nothing left to do but to put him/her/other on permanent moderation and let the thread originator decide if the post is germane to the thread or to the BW. dpr

DS said:

D P Robin said:

Atheistoclast said: 2012 is the end of a major epoch in the Mayan calendar. It also marks the end of Darwinism. I am very excited at the prospect of the demise of the greatest evil inflicted upon science and culture.

Good Heavens! Atheistoclast has finally brought the level of discourse down to the level of Yahoo! Answers. IMHO, there is nothing left to do but to put him/her/other on permanent moderation and let the thread originator decide if the post is germane to the thread or to the BW. dpr

Agreed. After all, if mplavcan doesn't teach at a community college, all of this is completely off topic. Anyway the professor obviously has a publication record much superior to Joe, so there is no question who is better qualified. Still, it would have been great to watch Joe squirm as an expert anthropologist grilled him on the hominid fossil record.

Also notice that Joe didn't even bother to address the evidence for human evolution, even on a free web site. Does nayone really think that he could do so in front of real scientists?

Mustard is for hot dogs. How appropriate.

gaythia said: He compared [scientists debating creationists] to the Texas Rangers refusing to play a T-ball team.

John S. said: Edward Everett, President of harvard, 15th Gov. of Mass., Sec. of State, and U.S. Senator, speaking with Lincoln at Gettysburg [gave us his opinion] Thomas Paine [also gave his opinion] I could go on and on but what use. Men convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.

mplavcan said:

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said: You seem to forget that people can read. I offered a room, and to put up flyers. This what I would do for any informal talk. And mustard.

I want the full VIP treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I figured you would back out. Note how the creationist, in keeping with the theme of the Community College incident, is trying to use the opportunity to speak to garner legitimacy by getting the University to sponsor him.

I don't want to hire out a room on your campus; I want the ability to tell your students why they are being lied to by your ilk.

Atheistoclast said: I want the ability to tell your students why they are being lied to by your ilk.

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said:

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said: You seem to forget that people can read. I offered a room, and to put up flyers. This what I would do for any informal talk. And mustard.

I want the full VIP treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I figured you would back out. Note how the creationist, in keeping with the theme of the Community College incident, is trying to use the opportunity to speak to garner legitimacy by getting the University to sponsor him.

If you expect me to cross the Atlantic just to be introduced to a room, then forget it. I want you to allow me to lecture your students and for them to question me back. If you want a formal debate on the evidence for human evolution, then I am all for it. It is not my specialist subject, but I know the evidence well enough to win against you. Anything else is censorship and discrimination. I don't want to hire out a room on your campus; I want the ability to tell your students why they are being lied to by your ilk.

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said:

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said: You seem to forget that people can read. I offered a room, and to put up flyers. This what I would do for any informal talk. And mustard.

I want the full VIP treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I figured you would back out. Note how the creationist, in keeping with the theme of the Community College incident, is trying to use the opportunity to speak to garner legitimacy by getting the University to sponsor him.

If you expect me to cross the Atlantic just to be introduced to a room, then forget it. I want you to allow me to lecture your students and for them to question me back. If you want a formal debate on the evidence for human evolution, then I am all for it. It is not my specialist subject, but I know the evidence well enough to win against you. Anything else is censorship and discrimination. I don't want to hire out a room on your campus; I want the ability to tell your students why they are being lied to by your ilk.

Atheistoclast said: If you expect me to cross the Atlantic just to be introduced to a room, then forget it. I want you to allow me to lecture your students and for them to question me back. If you want a formal debate on the evidence for human evolution, then I am all for it. It is not my specialist subject, but I know the evidence well enough to win against you. Anything else is censorship and discrimination. I don't want to hire out a room on your campus; I want the ability to tell your students why they are being lied to by your ilk.

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: No, they used the term neofunctionalization in the title, something you can't seem to get your head around. If this is your idea of being a scientist, I pity you.

Actually, they referred to it the sialic acid synthase gene as "bifunctional". So, by "neofunctionalization" they aren't referring to the emergence of a "new function" but rather the modification of an existing one (i.e. the C-terminal domain). Of course, you are incapable of understanding anything for yourself and need to be spoon-fed. I am happy to talk about this with the use of a projector. If you claim to be an academic/scholar, which you are not, maybe you should invite me to your university? I am sure Professor Plavcan is a very busy man anyway - writing all those papers on sexual dimorphism in primates (which is interesting from an evo-devo standpoint).

P.S. We have data projectors and CPUs in all of the classrooms, so AV will not be a problem.

mplavcan said: You keep changing and dictating the conditions. Whatever. The offer and conditions were clear and consistent with the original challenge.

Do tell about the human evolution part. You have sparked my curiosity, and I eagerly await your discourse, right here, right now. We can go to the bathroom wall if you like, since that will not waste Matt Young's space on this thread detracting from the theme of speaking engagements, censorship, and creationists misrepresentation. But since you brought the topic up on this thread, it would be nice to kick the ball off here, so that the audience can then move over to the alternate, more flexible forum. I am waiting.....

DS said: P.S. We have data projectors and CPUs in all of the classrooms, so AV will not be a problem.

DS said: Of course if it's my students they will grill you about your supposed hypothesis and they will be far more knowledgeable than you about population genetics, evolutionary genetics and developmental genetics.

DS,

both you and mplavcan are being too kind and generous to our friend.

Good for you.

harold said: ... I have an ongoing concern about not only the quantity, but the sheer brazen quality of reality denial in contemporary US society. What you say is simple fact. Creationists frequently speak at mainstream institutions, but critics of creationism are censored from Liberty Universtiy, BIOLA, and so on. ...

Sorry, but I have had enough of Atheistoclast. He was offered a chance to speak at a university at his own expense and then upped the ante by demanding that the talk be held before a class. He seems to think that a measly 3-5 publications make him an expert, but he refuses to state his qualifications beyond those 3-5 publications. Why would anyone attend a talk by someone who refuses to divulge his background and current position?

Further discussion on this topic will be dispatched to the bathroom wall. Please let us know after you have come to an agreement and not before then.

Anything else is censorship and discrimination.

Sorry, crossed posts. I'm done with this topic anyway.

DavidK said:

harold said: ... I have an ongoing concern about not only the quantity, but the sheer brazen quality of reality denial in contemporary US society. What you say is simple fact. Creationists frequently speak at mainstream institutions, but critics of creationism are censored from Liberty Universtiy, BIOLA, and so on. ...

Simple explanation. Public institutions have to allow freedom of speech access whereas private do not. And to reject "free speech" entertains lawsuits from lackluster people like Luskin who are all-too-ready to pounce with their law suit. But it's interesting the ploy they us is one of free speech, save for their own citidals of ignorance.

Thanks Matt.

Atheistoclast said: Science is indeed self-correcting,but,if you keep erasing things out, you end up with nada.

bplurt said: Chances are John S just lifted his incomplete version from someone like David Barton, and didn't intend to mislead.

But the lesson remains: Never trust a creationist quote.

I have just one question... Did Frank Sherwin pass out a sheet listing the sources for his quotes? Including publication, publication date, and page numbers?

No???

Do ANY "intelligent design" speakers do this??

No???

Gee, I wonder why not....

"......If you expect me to cross the Atlantic just to be introduced to a room, then forget it. I want you to allow me to lecture your students and for them to question me back. ..............
If you want a formal debate on the evidence for human evolution, then I am all for it. It is not my specialist subject, but I know the evidence well enough to win against you. ..."

And therein lies a major difference between creationists and real science... Real science isn't trying to "win" a contest, competition, or crusade - unlike creationists' "competition to prove Christ right"; real science is painstaking research - and other than being the "first" to publish, the main "prize" is usually increased information about how things actually work - and arose - in the real world.

harold said:

along with a bad case of science envy

I was just going to comment that being an unknown, commercially employed computer programmer seems to be a strong risk factor for developing pathetic delusions of expertise in fields of science of which one is extremely ignorant, and adopting denialist positions. Perhaps this is why. Learning programming is a quick way out for self-proclaimed "geniuses" who secretly lack the cojones to test their genius with advanced work.

Roger said:

harold said:

along with a bad case of science envy

I was just going to comment that being an unknown, commercially employed computer programmer seems to be a strong risk factor for developing pathetic delusions of expertise in fields of science of which one is extremely ignorant, and adopting denialist positions. Perhaps this is why. Learning programming is a quick way out for self-proclaimed "geniuses" who secretly lack the cojones to test their genius with advanced work.

You sent a shiver down my spine as I happen to be an unknown, commercially employed computer programmer but I swear I'm only doing it for the money. And in my defence, nobody warned me about the risk of pathetic delusions of expertise when I signed up.

Robert Byers said: It all seems such a unAmerican attempt to deeply use institutions for a particular side.

Robert Byers lied: Our views are historic, very popular, and legal.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers lied: Our views are historic, very popular, and legal.

While your creationist views may be legal in Canada (I have no idea), they have been ruled illegal in the United States by the US Supreme Court and Federal Courts. In Edwards v. Aguillard, for instance, the US Supreme Court ruled that teaching of creationism in public schools was illegal. Why would you say that your creationist views are legal when they are clearly illegal (to present in public schools)?

Roger said:

harold said:

along with a bad case of science envy

I was just going to comment that being an unknown, commercially employed computer programmer seems to be a strong risk factor for developing pathetic delusions of expertise in fields of science of which one is extremely ignorant, and adopting denialist positions. Perhaps this is why. Learning programming is a quick way out for self-proclaimed "geniuses" who secretly lack the cojones to test their genius with advanced work.

You sent a shiver down my spine as I happen to be an unknown, commercially employed computer programmer but I swear I'm only doing it for the money. And in my defence, nobody warned me about the risk of pathetic delusions of expertise when I signed up.

Maybe AClast could speak at Hogwarts.

cwjolley said:

Roger said:

harold said:

along with a bad case of science envy

I was just going to comment that being an unknown, commercially employed computer programmer seems to be a strong risk factor for developing pathetic delusions of expertise in fields of science of which one is extremely ignorant, and adopting denialist positions. Perhaps this is why. Learning programming is a quick way out for self-proclaimed "geniuses" who secretly lack the cojones to test their genius with advanced work.

You sent a shiver down my spine as I happen to be an unknown, commercially employed computer programmer but I swear I'm only doing it for the money. And in my defence, nobody warned me about the risk of pathetic delusions of expertise when I signed up.

Think how at risk I am. I'm an unknown, publicly employed computer programmer. My head feels like it's filled with drier lint. OTOH, I'm smart enough to know not to feed the troll. ;)

It is a common creationist tactic to claim that they “know” that evolution must be wrong because they are computer programmers, and therefore know about “information”.

As I mentioned above, that wasn't intended as an insult to all computer programmers. ...

I have banished the comment by the Byers troll to the bathroom wall. I will let the 2 responses stand, because combined they make an important point. But pleeeze do not feed these trolls any more; I have a mountain of papers to read.

cwjolley said:

As I mentioned above, that wasn't intended as an insult to all computer programmers. ...

No offence taken. Just being silly. I have the same casual impression as you, except it's directed at engineers. Shows why casual impression and evidence are two different things. NB Creationists take note.

Atheistoclast said: I think so. Naturalistic materialism in biology has reached an impasse. Just 25 years ago, it seemed to be on the cusp of total victory, but so did the Soviet Union after the fall of Saigon. But someone dared to think this in response: "Here's my strategy: we win, they lose." Within a decade the mighty communist/atheist empire of the East had collapsed. Why? Because it wasn't working - it couldn't provide bread and milk for its oppressed people. Likewise, Darwinism just isn't explaining anything. 2012 is the end of a major epoch in the Mayan calendar. It also marks the end of Darwinism. I am very excited at the prospect of the demise of the greatest evil inflicted upon science and culture.

dalehusband said: Also, Communism has nothing to do with evolution. NOTHING! It's just prejudicial crap.

W. H. Heydt said:

cwjolley said:

As I mentioned above, that wasn't intended as an insult to all computer programmers. ...

No offence taken. Just being silly. I have the same casual impression as you, except it's directed at engineers. Shows why casual impression and evidence are two different things. NB Creationists take note.

Heh.... So I'm doubly at risk... EECS major who is a programmer. Fortunately, between (as noted) knowledge of "garbage in, garbage out" and the engineering attitude that one must deal with the world as it is, not as one wishes it to be, I am a firm supporter of scientific theories describing the world as best we know it, based on empirical data. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

dalehusband said: Also, Communism has nothing to do with evolution. NOTHING! It's just prejudicial crap.

Kevin B -

I'm a pathologist (as I mentioned above). There was an active creationist pathologist at one time (he was based at a large community hospital in Nebraska and had a web site). His web site has been down for ages, or at least isn't Google searchable. He may have been requested to take it down, just stopped keeping it up, or something. He may have gotten negative feedback from other physicians; if I recall correctly, he was undiluted YEC. We're all familiar with Dr. Egnor. I believe Ron Paul is on record denying evolution, although his followers spin so fast when that comes up that it's hard to tell. As far as I know, Rand Paul doesn't include evolution denial in his bag of self-serving but wacky beliefs.

As I've mentioned before, I don't care what people "believe" in private, but I do care about violations of rights and misleading the public. Physicians publicly denying evolution definitely fits in the "misleading the public" category. There is a move to include evolution in medical school curricula. Although a physician can have any undergraduate degree they want as long as they take the basic prerequisites, the basic prerequisites plus medical school should be enough to demonstrate the strength of the theory of evolution to any reasonable, unbiased mind. That's true even if "evolution" isn't formally taught. Things like extensive evidence of common descent and obvious examples of natural selection are strongly inherent in the standard medical curriculum, which includes biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, microbiology, neuroscience, etc.

Off hand, that's all the public, active creationists in medicine I can think of. In dentistry, we're all familiar Don McLeroy.

I do think that exposure to biomedical science is an imperfect but somewhat effective barrier to evolution denial. There are the likes of Johnathon Wells and Michael Egnor, but to maintain denial through that level of exposure requires an enormous tolerance for cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure even Joseph "Atheistoclast" Bozorgmehr would be up to that level of cognitive dissonance tolerance. To do what the real champs do, you have to admit what the evidence actually is and then deny it anyway. The average creationist prefers to deny the existence of the evidence.

Atheistoclast said: mplavcan will find some excuse not to host me, just as Dawkins has done to avoid being humiliated by William Lane Craig at his alma mater. You can bet on that. Btw, if you want an answer to those points, why don't you bother to read my papers?

John S. said: Harold, You speak of violating constitutional rights. Do we not live in a republic where the laws are made by representatives of the majority? The majority of Americans believe in God, do they not? Why then should they not educate their children in that belief? If the majority that pays taxes to fund schools, maybe even your salary (I may be wrong) believes that God created everything what is wrong with teaching them their origin is from Him? And are you not being dishonest taking money paid in taxes by people who believe in God to promote your disbelief in Him? I'm not disputing your right to believe or disbelieve, but your logic to me is faulty.

MosesZD said:

John S. said: Harold, You speak of violating constitutional rights. Do we not live in a republic where the laws are made by representatives of the majority? The majority of Americans believe in God, do they not? Why then should they not educate their children in that belief? If the majority that pays taxes to fund schools, maybe even your salary (I may be wrong) believes that God created everything what is wrong with teaching them their origin is from Him? And are you not being dishonest taking money paid in taxes by people who believe in God to promote your disbelief in Him? I'm not disputing your right to believe or disbelieve, but your logic to me is faulty.

Ah, ha ha ha ha... Citing the Constitution while ignoring it... Maybe you should read it. Like this part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Congress cannot make a law to establish a religion. End of story. They also can't stop you from enjoying and practicing yours. Which is a good thing, btw. Because if it were up to me, and I were involved with my families religion, we'd all be Reformed Mennonites..." And I'm sure you wouldn't like that...

Actually Henry when the founding fathers failed to enforce their puritan beliefs on the English many of them first set sail to the Netherlands. Upon arrival they were horrified to see the famous Dutch tolerance of not only other Protestant denominations, but also Catholics, and horror of horrors, the Christ killers themselves, Jews. They promptly set off for Plymouth to create their own intolerant theocracy, and never looked back:)

Secondary quibble: the idiots who arrived on the Mayflower and promptly nearly died out completely were Separatists, a subset of Puritans. Separatists saw the Anglican Church as corrupt beyond redemption; Puritans wished to purge it of its evil. This schism had occurred in the 1620s, when the government of Charles I began persecuting Protestant nonconformists and dissenters as well as (of course) Catholics.

The main issue was, as usual with Church politics, not actual belief as such, but tribal groupings and the political relationships between them. Sure, Puritans wished to simplify and strip away any practice, artefact, or aspect of the service whatsoever that to them smacked of Rome - vestments, altar, liturgy, images, whatever - but the crucial issue was that they wouldn't accept the authority of Bishops. Ah, but Bishops were appointed by the King. Their authority depended on his. Denying theirs meant denying his.

So off went the Separatists to Plymouth, where they didn't have either Kings or Bishops. And then other separatists separated from them, and went off to Rhode Island. And so on.

Meanwhile, in England, the Puritans became roughly correlated with those who didn't like Royal authority generally, and it all came to an unpleasantness. Later, almost everyone decided that it wasn't worth all that fuss. As it turned out, the religion part of it wasn't. But the Royal authority part of it, it would seem, was.

It is very rare to see a scientific paper published by a sole author and one who is also unaffiliated and unfunded.

Kevin B said: It has been remarked on in the past that the ranks of the creationists are over-populated with engineers and "medics" ... These groups learn how to *use* science, rather than what science *is*. I suspect that there may some sort of deficiency in the way these people are taught that leads ro a mind-set in which those bits of science that are actually used within the subject area are "locked" into the practice of the subject (possibly using models that are out-of-date, but which give the "right" answers) and that the rest of science is marginalised and made irrelevant. My suspicion is that the creationist engineers, etc, are likely to be the "second-division" ones - clever, but without the extra "mental gear" that is needed to be able to "think outside the box".

Maybe creationists who happen to be engineers are on average more vocal than creationists who don't have technical backgrounds?

Henry

Dang, seems like AC's offer to come to Arkansas is equivalent to Hovind's $250,000 "challenge". Neither ever had the slightest intention of paying off, no matter what conditions were met.

Time to sit on mah porch swing and pick my tooth and a tune on the banjo while drawing down one a them thar fat pay checks that I gits cuz I’m a lazy good fer nothin hound dog of a perfessor preachin sin an amorality that I just make up out my imainashun to the good peeple a this here natural state. Yes siree.

Matt Young,

Regarding your original post, it is clear you're upset with this group holding a voluntary meeting to discuss what they called, "an alternative viewpoint to the theory of evolution." I am curious as to why you seem so upset about this. Has evolution been proven to be the one and only theory or explanation for how life began and how we arrived at the point we are in the process? What if there were clear evidences within nature of the possibility of a creator or designer? Have you ever considered an Intelligent Design argument as an "alternative viewpoint?"

One question I have always had with evolution that I would like to pose to you, and hopefully discuss further, is how exactly specific attributes evolved. As I understand it on a very basic level regarding, say, wings, through the evolutionary process small creatures eventually made attempts to fly, perhaps a flap of skin began to develop, though not fully functioning as a wing, but over time this flap figured out through the evolutionary process its fuller purpose and the best way to catch air underneath it so as to give lift to the creature. Thus, once fully developed, you have a new creature.

My question is this: How would a recessive trait that doesn't fully advance the creature's life in increase it's ability to hunt or find food continue to pass on? If there was a point the wing was not fully developed, then it would hinder rather than advance this creatures life and ability to function. Over time under an evolutionary viewpoint, this creature with a non-functioning wing would be viewed as maligned and weak, and thus not the prime choice for a mate - that is, unless the creatures in general had faith in some future version and plan according to a non-revealed evolutionary process knew that this flap would eventually become a wing allowing them to fly. But, if they evolved from simpler life forms, how could then understand this flap's capabilities having never seen flight?

I guess my point is that evolution would require blind faith in an un-revealed purpose for things unknown to them. So this then becomes either a faith discussion within the evolutionary process, or becomes a discussion that puts us on the trajectory towards a discussion of the possibility of an "alternative viewpoint to the theory of evolution" leading towards Intelligent Design and creationism. What are your thoughts on this matter?

JMaz,

You are incorrect. I would suggest taking a course in introductory biology, then zoology, then genetics and developmental biology, then population genetics and finally evolutionary genetics. You might also want to throw in a smattering of math and physics, followed by chemistry.

Or you could simply listen to what the real experts have concluded. You know, the guys who actually took all of those courses, then went out and did the experiments and collected the evidence. Until then, remember ignorance and incredulity are not evidence. Never have been, never will be.

JMaz said: Matt Young, . Has evolution been proven to be the one and only theory or explanation for how life began and how we arrived at the point we are in the process? What if there were clear evidences within nature of the possibility of a creator or designer?

Have you ever considered an Intelligent Design argument as an "alternative viewpoint?"

I guess my point is that evolution would require blind faith in an un-revealed purpose for things unknown to them. So this then becomes either a faith discussion within the evolutionary process, or becomes a discussion that puts us on the trajectory towards a discussion of the possibility of an "alternative viewpoint to the theory of evolution" leading towards Intelligent Design and creationism. What are your thoughts on this matter?

Jmaz,

You won't get an honest answer from the folks here. They need to see God 'in the flesh' so to speak. Otherwise, its evolutionary China. Walk softly but with humility.

But its said that God is not flesh. What to do? What to do? How do you speak to nothingness? Sit still and listen. Listen.

DS is looking for God under the moss covered stone; Lovell in the floor plan.

But sh*t! He's always a noshow. Damn.

Enought of this God sh*t already. Evolution. F*ck if its a Chris angel. At least I know that there's a method to the madness.

Maybe Bill Conner has something to say about that. Zawinul turns to speak from the void.

"As I understand it on a very basic level regarding, say, wings, through the evolutionary process small creatures eventually made attempts to fly, perhaps a flap of skin began to develop, though not fully functioning as a wing, but over time this flap figured out through the evolutionary process its fuller purpose and the best way to catch air underneath it so as to give lift to the creature. Thus, once fully developed, you have a new creature."

You understand it so catastrophically, risibly, comically wrongly that it's impossible to imagine that you have made the faintest, tiniest attempt to understand it at all.

There were no "attempts to fly". There is no "figuring of its fuller purpose". There is no freaking purpose. Nothing was "figured out". Sure, there was a new organism (not creature). There's a whole mess of 'em, every generation, and every one is a little different from all the others. And every single one of them survives to reproduce only if it's a little better than some of the others at fitting its environment. If that environment gives a net advantage to those that can fall a little further without damage than others, that's all that's needed. Give it a few tens of thousands of generations, and voila: wings!

Yes, that's right. No plans. No intent. No attempts to fly. No looking up and wishing. No purpose. Just reproduction with variation, selection, and time. That's it. That's all. Nothing more required.

I recall that the Rabbi Hillel was asked to explain the whole of the Law while standing on one foot. He replied: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your friend. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary – go and study it."

His words have merit. If you want to know, go and study.

JMaz said: Matt Young, Regarding your original post, it is clear you're upset with this group holding a voluntary meeting to discuss what they called, "an alternative viewpoint to the theory of evolution."

I am curious as to why you seem so upset about this.

Has evolution been proven to be the one and only theory or explanation for how life began and how we arrived at the point we are in the process?

What if there were clear evidences within nature of the possibility of a creator or designer?

Have you ever considered an Intelligent Design argument as an "alternative viewpoint?"

One question I have always had with evolution that I would like to pose to you, and hopefully discuss further, is how exactly specific attributes evolved. As I understand it on a very basic level regarding, say, wings, through the evolutionary process small creatures eventually made attempts to fly, perhaps a flap of skin began to develop, though not fully functioning as a wing, but over time this flap figured out through the evolutionary process its fuller purpose and the best way to catch air underneath it so as to give lift to the creature. Thus, once fully developed, you have a new creature.

My question is this: How would a recessive trait that doesn't fully advance the creature's life in increase it's ability to hunt or find food continue to pass on? *inane and ignorant postulation snipped*

I guess my point is that evolution would require blind faith in an un-revealed purpose for things unknown to them. So this then becomes either a faith discussion within the evolutionary process, or becomes a discussion that puts us on the trajectory towards a discussion of the possibility of an "alternative viewpoint to the theory of evolution" leading towards Intelligent Design and creationism. What are your thoughts on this matter?

Steve P. lied: Jmaz, You won't get an honest answer from the folks here. They need to see God 'in the flesh' so to speak. Otherwise, its evolutionary China. Walk softly but with humility.

JMaz said: If there was a point the wing was not fully developed, then it would hinder rather than advance this creatures life and ability to function.

apokryltaros said:

Steve P. lied: Jmaz, You won't get an honest answer from the folks here. They need to see God 'in the flesh' so to speak. Otherwise, its evolutionary China. Walk softly but with humility.

Ol pompous Steve P coming around again to come lying and shitting, and whining that we won't eat up his shit like fine caviar. How typical and pathetic. After all, Steve P, if you want us to believe your bullshit, why can't you present any evidence to support your bullshit? Oh, wait, no, you can't, you even made up snotty excuses that you're not obligated to get evidence.

JMaz, let me illustrate for you how your comment is heard by working evolutionary scientists:

"I JMaz, having no expertise in the relevant fields, have nonetheless concluded, after many minutes of introspection, that because I cannot personally envision a scenario where wings could evolve, it is therefore reasonable to reject entire fields of science."

Sound reasonable to you?

Those who have put words into my mouth have done a creditable job. Mr. JMaz needs to learn as much about evolution as many of us know about religion. In particular, he should understand that the term evolution is ambiguous in that is used to refer both to descent with modification and to the theory that best explains descent with modification. More particularly, descent with modification is an observed fact; any belief, religious or otherwise, that denies descent with modification is flatly wrong and must be reevaluated if it is to conform with known fact.