Troubles in Paradise: an amazing pro-science resource by James Downard (summary and interview)

Also follow on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/NickJMatzke/status/572538730826899456

Yay, finally got password reset so I may comment. Hopefully there will be a few questions out there in Pandas land, and folk will explore the TIP project to get useful info

GoFundMe link is broken.

BCH

I was giving talks on this back in the late 1970s, the 80s, and early 90s. The early "Scientific" Creationists - particularly in the form of Henry Morris, Duane Gish, et. al. at the Institute for Creation Research started immediately bending and breaking scientific concepts and evidence in order to harass teachers and provoke public debates with scientists.

Duane Gish used to show up unannounced in the biology classes in Kalamazoo, Michigan and harass the teachers; and a good friend of mine who was a multiple award-winning instructor was particularly singled out by him in his war on biology teachers. His favorite trick was to try to intimidate biology teachers with the second law of thermodynamics "argument" against evolution.

Since my background is physics and mathematics, my early talks on this were primarily about how the Scientific Creationists - and the later ID advocates - butchered the physics at every level; even at the high school level. I showed directly how they did it; juxtaposing their junk with the real stuff.

When I gave talks to church groups, this comparison of butchered ID/creationist science with the real science was extremely effective. Church folks don't like being associated with such duplicity; and their consternation with Morris, Gish, Brown and the others was very evident when I as able to point out to them what these characters were doing. It was also a chance to teach some real science.

Although I have harped on it repeatedly here on Panda's Thumb and other places, I can't overemphasize how important it is to recognize that all of the misconceptions and misrepresentations of basic science still exist in ID; nothing has fundamentally changed in the way they bend and break scientific concepts to fit sectarian dogma.

The arguments of Dembski, Sewell, Abel, Behe, et. al. are all based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of matter-matter interactions and the second law of thermodynamics. Everything they do in their calculations is bogus and totally irrelevant because of these fundamental misconceptions.

No working chemist or physicist calculates the probabilities of molecular assemblies the way ID/creationists do. Just look at the 2013 Nobel Prize in chemistry to see how vastly different science is from ID/creationism.

ID/creationists - "PhDs" included - cannot even comprehend the real science; high school level logarithms are as "advanced" mathematically as it ever gets with them. Even PhD mathematician, Granville Sewell, can't get units correct when plugging his meaningless "X-entropies" into a diffusion equation; and he has been trying to do this for something like 12 to 15 years now. Even high school physics and chemistry students can have a good laugh over the stupidity of what these ID/creationist characters are trying to do.

As some of us old geezers begin to pass from the scene, we hope the upcoming generations don't forget to look at those basic misconceptions and misrepresentations of even high school level science that permeate the ID/creationist movement. This is fundamental, basic science ID/creationists are getting dead wrong; and even bright high school students can understand the difference when it is pointed out.

And, never forget, ID/creationism is a sectarian socio/political movement attempting to take over society with its ideas while also trying to distort history, destroy science, and repeal the Enlightenment. Its tactics are always political; there is nothing scientific going on with any of them.

link should be www.GoFundMe.com/dseego

Just checked link is ok

Heartily concur with Mike on Sewell, who is beating that dead 2nd Law horse even as it is less commonly used in current YEC set. Organisms objectively reproduce and do so with inevitable natural mutations whose effects we can describe and even experiment with (paleogenomics another new field all but invisible on the antievolution scope, but not on mine at TIP project), so all theoretical attempts to defuse that process' implications by glib assumption doesn't cut much mustard among the scientists doing the work.

I'll concur with Mike also on the Kulturkampf conservative politics of antievolutionism (see TIP 1.6 and 1.7 for scads on that) but with the following methodological caveat: the deep core of how antievolutionists gum up so thoroughly is more about their individual Tortucan abilities to bypass relevant data. Tortucans come in all political and cultural contexts, it just happens we're seeing a particular demographic sampling of them in the antievolution subculture. Other areas (anti-vaccination or 9/11 conspiracy followers for instance) show identical methodology but with different political and cultural demographic veneer

James Downard: “Troubles in Paradise” alludes to the twin aspects of creationism: its troubling methodological failures and the overt religious component to the antievolution demographic. Most notable antievolutionists are “culture-war” conservative Christians seeking to return an imagined state of devout certainties. This demographic reality of the creationist movement cannot be ignored, and the persistent role of Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) in creationism means that there is hardly an area of human inquiry that doesn’t get tramped on in their worldview. This is the “Troubles” part.

James Downard said: Tortucans come in all political and cultural contexts, it just happens we're seeing a particular demographic sampling of them in the antievolution subculture. Other areas (anti-vaccination or 9/11 conspiracy followers for instance) show identical methodology but with different political and cultural demographic veneer

Burt Humburg said: GoFundMe link is broken. BCH

Burt Humburg said: GoFundMe link is broken. BCH

Ray Martinez said:

James Downard: “Troubles in Paradise” alludes to the twin aspects of creationism: its troubling methodological failures and the overt religious component to the antievolution demographic. Most notable antievolutionists are “culture-war” conservative Christians seeking to return an imagined state of devout certainties. This demographic reality of the creationist movement cannot be ignored, and the persistent role of Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) in creationism means that there is hardly an area of human inquiry that doesn’t get tramped on in their worldview. This is the “Troubles” part.

Since American Young Earth Creationism accepts conceptual existence of natural selection, microevolution, and macroevolution, that is, the main claims of the Darwinian worldview, the Fundamentalists reside in the evolutionary "paradise," standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you and your Atheist brothers and sisters. Ray Martinez (Paleyan Creationist; species immutabilist)

The GoFundMe link worked for me, I left my share and want to encourage others to do the same.
sparc

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q said: The GoFundMe link worked for me, I left my share and want to encourage others to do the same. sparc

I'm really appreciating the approach of highlighting how flawed anti-evolutionist "research" is, to the point of failing even an understanding of how to cite literature. It's something I noticed about their style of argument a while back, along with their nigh-absolute inability to simply describe the science correctly. I think that also deserves to be highlighted and called out specifically: anti-evolutionists never even seem to grasp the thing they're flailing against, because they can't tell you how it's supposed to work without getting it wrong.

I got a 503 on tortucan.com this morning and it looks like an image is broken on the GoFundMe page right now.

Then again, I have been having issues with my internet service recently and that could be to blame.

Wouldn't you know that the first time I try to look at the site I get a message telling me the server is down?

It just worked for me but got a 503 earlier, perhaps a bandwidth issue...

Turns out my web hoster has shifted it to www.tortucan.wordpress.com/ so hopefully will stay put there

ksplawn said: I'm really appreciating the approach of highlighting how flawed anti-evolutionist "research" is, to the point of failing even an understanding of how to cite literature. It's something I noticed about their style of argument a while back, along with their nigh-absolute inability to simply describe the science correctly. I think that also deserves to be highlighted and called out specifically: anti-evolutionists never even seem to grasp the thing they're flailing against, because they can't tell you how it's supposed to work without getting it wrong. I got a 503 on tortucan.com this morning and it looks like an image is broken on the GoFundMe page right now. Then again, I have been having issues with my internet service recently and that could be to blame.

I’ll concur with Mike also on the Kulturkampf conservative politics of antievolutionism (see TIP 1.6 and 1.7 for scads on that) but with the following methodological caveat: the deep core of how antievolutionists gum up so thoroughly is more about their individual Tortucan abilities to bypass relevant data. Tortucans come in all political and cultural contexts, it just happens we’re seeing a particular demographic sampling of them in the antievolution subculture. Other areas (anti-vaccination or 9/11 conspiracy followers for instance) show identical methodology but with different political and cultural demographic veneer

James Downard said: I'd love to see any creationist who accepts macroevolution, or even when push comes to shove, soeciation (apart from the schizoid requirement Flood Geology has to allow super-fast speciation to proliferate the vague post-Flood kinds)

harold said: Rarely in the history of the world has any mainstream socio-political group been as invested in denial of known scientific facts, and the latter day Fox/Limbaugh/Republican ideology/subculture. This large scale post-rational denial of known science is a new reaction to science.

harold said: James Downward - First of all, congratulations and thanks for being here. I'm strongly in favor of fairness, but I do think we must be careful to avoid false equivalence in the name of fairness.

I’ll concur with Mike also on the Kulturkampf conservative politics of antievolutionism (see TIP 1.6 and 1.7 for scads on that) but with the following methodological caveat: the deep core of how antievolutionists gum up so thoroughly is more about their individual Tortucan abilities to bypass relevant data. Tortucans come in all political and cultural contexts, it just happens we’re seeing a particular demographic sampling of them in the antievolution subculture. Other areas (anti-vaccination or 9/11 conspiracy followers for instance) show identical methodology but with different political and cultural demographic veneer

Anti-vaccination activism is actually increasingly associated with the same demographic as evolution denial, as was demonstrated recently when Chris Christie spoke out in favor of vaccine "choice". 9/11 conspiracy followers are small group with no coherent political agenda. They may use similar illogical cognitive tricks, but do not compare to a movement that has actively inserted dogma into public school curricula on a number of occasions, won school board elections on a number of occasions, and has taken its cause to the supreme court, where a they lost, but found favor with a dissenting justice, the only justice from that period still sitting. Evolution denial follows the same demographic as climate change denial, cigarette/health denial, most HIV denial, and American history censorship/denial, right off the top of my head. It is also incredibly important not to conflate pre-scientific beliefs, anachronistically, with denial of known science. The seventeenth century equivalent of creationism would be denial of facts known in the seventeenth century. Rarely in the history of the world has any mainstream socio-political group been as invested in denial of known scientific facts, and the latter day Fox/Limbaugh/Republican ideology/subculture. This large scale post-rational denial of known science is a new reaction to science.

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: Rarely in the history of the world has any mainstream socio-political group been as invested in denial of known scientific facts, and the latter day Fox/Limbaugh/Republican ideology/subculture. This large scale post-rational denial of known science is a new reaction to science.

The irony is that these people do it while basking in the technological luxury of everything science has provided them. They are simply raucous whiners trying to get the entire pie by constantly kvetching about how unfair life is to them.

James Downard said: Raucus whinning notwithstanding, the worrisome thing is the degree to which they can interact without proper challenge by the skeptical secular community. A methods-based approach, if more widely adopted, could I contend make a difference. A school board member properly primed to ask what sources the antievolutionist witness has drawn on and what (likely none) "critical analysis" of their own side's works they had done will put the antievolutionist claimant in the indefensible position of appearing visibly unprepared and superficial. A similar opportunity was missed when Richard Dawkins grilled the head of Concerned Women for America some years ago, failing to ask her what critical analysis (which she was recommended be done on evolution) she had ever done on her own side's work. I guarantee you that question will not get a rigorous and powerful reply.

Mike Elzinga said:

James Downard said: Raucus whinning notwithstanding, the worrisome thing is the degree to which they can interact without proper challenge by the skeptical secular community. A methods-based approach, if more widely adopted, could I contend make a difference. A school board member properly primed to ask what sources the antievolutionist witness has drawn on and what (likely none) "critical analysis" of their own side's works they had done will put the antievolutionist claimant in the indefensible position of appearing visibly unprepared and superficial. A similar opportunity was missed when Richard Dawkins grilled the head of Concerned Women for America some years ago, failing to ask her what critical analysis (which she was recommended be done on evolution) she had ever done on her own side's work. I guarantee you that question will not get a rigorous and powerful reply.

That paralysis has been quite puzzling in recent years. Part of it is due to the fact that authoritarian, sectarian bullies have managed to politically maneuver themselves onto school boards and into public office and then shut down any challenges to their assertions. I am even more disappointed in the US press corps. If reporters and politicians in England can hit our Republican politicians with probing questions about absurd Republican beliefs, why can't the press corps in our country be willing to make politicians just as uncomfortable? I think the press has an obligation to stand up to political bullying. For some strange reason, our reporters seem too timid and uninformed in comparison with the British press. Chris Christy didn't pull his bullying crap with reporters in England; and Scott Walker avoids probing questions in England and this country and apparently gets away with it. It has taken comedians like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and John Oliver to get in the hard whacks at these demagogues; everyone else seems to be afraid to take them on.

Apparently bandwidth usage forced the shunting of the TIP files to that tortucan.wordpress.com location, Alex says it should be back on the www.tortucan.com location after 9pm PST, I'll do a test click to be sure. This does suggest there may have been some heavy traffic to the info, nof if that only translates into similar support for www.GoFundMe.com/dseego I;ll be a happier camper

the TIP files are still at www.tortucan.wordpress.com will post a notice when they get back to the planned home address

Mike Elzinga said:

James Downard said: I'd love to see any creationist who accepts macroevolution, or even when push comes to shove, soeciation (apart from the schizoid requirement Flood Geology has to allow super-fast speciation to proliferate the vague post-Flood kinds)

There are quite a number of ways to show the absurdity of YEC arguments about the flood, ID arguments about "tornados-in-junkyards," and the use of ASCII characters as stand-ins for the properties and behaviors of atoms and molecules. The LOWEST ENERGY scenario for the deposition of all that water on the Earth in 40 days has the rate of energy deposition equivalent to about 40 kg of TNT going off every second for every square meter of the Earth's surface. That will raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to about 11,000 degrees Fahrenheit and the pressure to over 850 atmospheres. All that is required to do this calculation is a little high school level physics. A slightly more advanced analysis has to solve a nonlinear differential equation to show that this heating will occur within less than a week into the downpour. If the YEC claims that this is not the way it happened, they are then obligated to show a LESS energetic way it could have happened with their scenarios of moving solid rock around to produce the ocean basins and the continents. Another simple, high school level calculation shows that if junkyard parts and ASCII characters had the same charge-to-mass ratios as electron and protons, the energies of their interactions at a separation of 1 meter would amount to the energy in 10^10 megatons of TNT. So how do they still justify the use of these in their "calculations" of the "improbability" of evolution and abiogenesis occurring? In the 50 some odd years I have been watching ID/creationists, I have never found an ID/creationist who can do such high school level calculations; despite the pompous airs they put on pretending to know about advanced concepts in science. (There could have been a recent single exception with a certain Sal Cordova over at UD, but he bollixed the results by showing he couldn't get beyond plug-and-chug in his ability to understand what it all meant.) ID/creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations of science hit at primary and secondary school students; with Ken Ham directing most of his junk at elementary and middle school students. Even if there were no culture war motivations behind these efforts by ID/creationists, none of their crap belongs in ANY meaningful program of education; it's just plain DEAD WRONG.

I am even more disappointed in the US press corps. If reporters and politicians in England can hit our Republican politicians with probing questions about absurd Republican beliefs, why can’t the press corps in our country be willing to make politicians just as uncomfortable? I think the press has an obligation to stand up to political bullying.

harold said:

I am even more disappointed in the US press corps. If reporters and politicians in England can hit our Republican politicians with probing questions about absurd Republican beliefs, why can’t the press corps in our country be willing to make politicians just as uncomfortable? I think the press has an obligation to stand up to political bullying.

A number of factors contribute to this terrible situation. 1) The Republican brand is incredibly well-established, and vast numbers of people mindlessly associate it with the relatively rational Nixon/Ford era policy set. This statement is not a defense of Nixon or Ford policies, I said "relatively". William F. Buckley started out as a right wing raver against the "socialist" Eisenhower administration. The point here is not to defend Republican administrations of the past but to note that a large fraction of Americans don't completely get how the party has changed. To put it another way, the term "Republican" itself carries a respectable aura, and by taking over the Republicans, the nuts did gain some of that prestige. 2) The pandering to bigotry has spectrum effect. Only 25% or so of Americans proudly and openly support racism, homophobia, and sexism, but the rest respond unconsciously to those cues to varying degrees. When tensions run extremely high, there is a general sense that the Democrats "favor" ethnic minorities and the Republicans "favor" whites. (And in fact this is true of Republicans, and also possibly locally true of Democrats in some municipal administrations.) At various times, this factor may cause all other factors to be overlooked. 3) The mainstream media is very strongly biased in favor of Republicans. This is true of anything on a larger scale than MSNBC. The right wing outlets (Fox, Time, etc), are openly right wing but the less right wing outlets refuse to strongly attack Republicans and treat the conservative Democratic party as if it were "left wing". They all have token overt conservatives, and all the "liberals" are ordered to constantly be "fair" to conservatism, that is to say, to censor strong criticism. An incredibly pervasive feature is the refusal to admit what works in other similar societies. For example, Canada has a strong universal health care program, and affordable university education. Health care coverage and student debt in the US are major issues but it is taboo for the mainstream media to even describe how the Canadian systems work. Incidentally, it used to be common for the US media to make false negative claims about the Canadian health care system, and the main thing that stopped it was threats of civil legal action by the Canadian Medical Association. The one piece of good news is that the science denial is one of the things that hurts the right wing consensus the most. They gain money when they deny global climate science or cigarettes/health. They gain a little money from creationism, too. Authoritarian billionaires do give money to things that support creationism. But they don't directly gain any votes. These policies are a weak point, and very vulnerable to criticism.

TomS said: While the mathematics is quite obvious to many of us, anything involving numbers is repulsive to a large proportion of people. I suggest that this can be handled by writing apps for smart phones. For example, can't there be a app which will demonstrate the physical inconsistencies of the Flood and the Ark?

I would love to see the information in Mark Isaak's classic, comprehensive overview of the Flood problem done as an interactive app.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said:

James Downard said: It probably would be possible to illustrate problems graphically. Part of the problem with Flood Geology is its "observational wanderlust" (I go into this in Dinomania section of old TIP at www.tortucan.wordpress.com/) avoiding explaining their own backyard as they obsess on the Grand Canyon or polystrate tree stumps. Biogeography another visual tool, imagining how Australian or Madagascaran biota embarked on block tour junkets to get from Ararat to their current environs, oddly matching the fossil data of those regions. I'd love to see any creationist who accepts macroevolution, or even when push comes to shove, soeciation (apart from the schizoid requirement Flood Geology has to allow super-fast speciation to proliferate the vague post-Flood kinds)

There are quite a number of ways to show the absurdity of YEC arguments about the flood, ID arguments about "tornados-in-junkyards," and the use of ASCII characters as stand-ins for the properties and behaviors of atoms and molecules. The LOWEST ENERGY scenario for the deposition of all that water on the Earth in 40 days has the rate of energy deposition equivalent to about 40 kg of TNT going off every second for every square meter of the Earth's surface. That will raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to about 11,000 degrees Fahrenheit and the pressure to over 850 atmospheres. All that is required to do this calculation is a little high school level physics. A slightly more advanced analysis has to solve a nonlinear differential equation to show that this heating will occur within less than a week into the downpour. If the YEC claims that this is not the way it happened, they are then obligated to show a LESS energetic way it could have happened with their scenarios of moving solid rock around to produce the ocean basins and the continents. Another simple, high school level calculation shows that if junkyard parts and ASCII characters had the same charge-to-mass ratios as electron and protons, the energies of their interactions at a separation of 1 meter would amount to the energy in 10^10 megatons of TNT. So how do they still justify the use of these in their "calculations" of the "improbability" of evolution and abiogenesis occurring? In the 50 some odd years I have been watching ID/creationists, I have never found an ID/creationist who can do such high school level calculations; despite the pompous airs they put on pretending to know about advanced concepts in science. (There could have been a recent single exception with a certain Sal Cordova over at UD, but he bollixed the results by showing he couldn't get beyond plug-and-chug in his ability to understand what it all meant.) ID/creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations of science hit at primary and secondary school students; with Ken Ham directing most of his junk at elementary and middle school students. Even if there were no culture war motivations behind these efforts by ID/creationists, none of their crap belongs in ANY meaningful program of education; it's just plain DEAD WRONG.

While the mathematics is quite obvious to many of us, anything involving numbers is repulsive to a large proportion of people. I suggest that this can be handled by writing apps for smart phones. For example, can't there be a app which will demonstrate the physical inconsistencies of the Flood and the Ark?

Checking the web links, apparently the web server is automatically shunting www.tortucan.com/ to www.tortucan.wordpress.com/ which I'm Ok with so long as all the files at least stay put somewhere long enough for people to continue to draw on them. Still need way more of a crowd at www.GoFundMe.com/dseego though to keep the TIP project afloat, hopefully the more who inspect the "product" will support the production end.

ksplawn said: I would love to see the information in Mark Isaak's classic, comprehensive overview of the Flood problem done as an interactive app. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Mike Elzinga said:

ksplawn said: I would love to see the information in Mark Isaak's classic, comprehensive overview of the Flood problem done as an interactive app. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

I've done that one for MathCad, the HP Prime, the HP 50G, the TI-89, The high school level calculation is extremely easy; the non-linear differential equation and the curve of temperature rise is a little more involved, but still works easily on each of these platforms. I also have a nice Dawkins Weasel program for the HP Prime and the HP 50G. The program for the HP Prime addresses a number of other issues as well, and it graphs actual runs on top of the theoretical analysis I have also done of this process. The fits to theory are superb and extremely interesting. That little exercise by Dawkins has many more applications than just illustrating the effect of natural selection on random variation. Scaling up the electron and proton charge-to-mass ratios to kilogram-sized junkyard parts is another easy high school level calculation. It can be programmed onto a graphing calculator very easily, and then various mass sizes and separations can be explored quickly. One can even start studying the order-of-magnitude effects of "screening" of charge as matter assembles into more complex structures. I found that giving hints to ID/creationists about calculations almost always leads to the ID/creationist immediately jumping into a pretentious "expert mode" in which he puts on airs and pretends to be able to soar into the stratosphere and stymie real experts in extend "disagreements" over the results and the science. As a result of these observations, I have developed a policy of not giving out hints or trying to teach ID/creationists anything. My philosophy on ID/creationists is to allow their ignorance to shine while I study their misconceptions and "debating" tactics. The very few times I have violated my own "Prime Directive" on influencing ID/creationists, I have always ended up confirming my original assessments of their understanding and tactics. So I have generally shared these calculations with students and others without allowing any ID/creationist access to the lessons.

Am I in the lists of dangerous creationists? it would determine for me how thorough it is! Just kidding.
PRO-SCIENCE community! Oh brother. Creationists are pro science. Having different conclusions on certain subjects dealing with origin matters is not the proof of being anti science. Half the pop would be anti science by that standard.
Is the author a scientist? it seems like he is a historian. this comes up in critizing creationists who get heavily into these subjects. i'm not complaining but it thrown at us.
I welcome accurate documentation of these matters. Creationism has risen in these years because of how well we make our case and debunk the other side. The more info the more the truth prevails.
This can be a resource for the people and not just people in power.
In public opinion creationism does quite well.
By the way. Because a religious conclusion bumps into a conclusion about nature DOES NOT nullify , be definition, the accuracy of the religious conclusion.
Some folks imply religious conclusions are false roght out the gate. Says who?

I've tried a few times since yesterday to view some of the papers (PDFs) on this site from the TIP Modules and Other Stuff categories. Each time my security software gives me a message that "Harmful Web Site Blocked". I am using F-Secure that has been quite reliable in the years that I have used it. For further info, clicking leads me to www.twowordculture.com.

Anyone else having this problem?

ngcart2011 said: I've tried a few times since yesterday to view some of the papers (PDFs) on this site from the TIP Modules and Other Stuff categories. Each time my security software gives me a message that "Harmful Web Site Blocked". I am using F-Secure that has been quite reliable in the years that I have used it. For further info, clicking leads me to www.twowordculture.com. Anyone else having this problem?

Also the PDFs seem to be currently hosted at: http://www.twowordculture.com/

...this may have been a bandwidth issue as we seem to have crashed the site initially...they worked for me...

As has been the case for something like 50 years now the zombie second law argument never dies no matter how thoroughly it is thrashed repeatedly.

The ignorance just keeps being recycled with complete confidence that it is right. Nobody in the ID/creationist movement will even pick up a textbook and learn.

I think it is a bandwidth issue. I went over there several times and read several modules. But I was unable to open some of the same PDFs at other times.

Mike Elzinga said: I think it is a bandwidth issue. I went over there several times and read several modules. But I was unable to open some of the same PDFs at other times.

Nick Matzke said:

ngcart2011 said: I've tried a few times since yesterday to view some of the papers (PDFs) on this site from the TIP Modules and Other Stuff categories. Each time my security software gives me a message that "Harmful Web Site Blocked". I am using F-Secure that has been quite reliable in the years that I have used it. For further info, clicking leads me to www.twowordculture.com. Anyone else having this problem?

I just tried it: The WordPress version seems to work fine: https://tortucan.wordpress.com/ The basic www.tortucan.com link seems to redirect correctly to the above: http://www.tortucan.com Changing http to https seems to cause problems: https://www.tortucan.com

Alex Evart said:

Mike Elzinga said: I think it is a bandwidth issue. I went over there several times and read several modules. But I was unable to open some of the same PDFs at other times.

It was a bandwidth issue but everything is up and running again. Apparently addon domains on my server are only allowed 250 megs of bandwidth a day so I had to move everything to my main domain.

Alex Evart said:

Mike Elzinga said: I think it is a bandwidth issue. I went over there several times and read several modules. But I was unable to open some of the same PDFs at other times.

It was a bandwidth issue but everything is up and running again. Apparently addon domains on my server are only allowed 250 megs of bandwidth a day so I had to move everything to my main domain.

Mike Elzinga said: As has been the case for something like 50 years now the zombie second law argument never dies no matter how thoroughly it is thrashed repeatedly. The ignorance just keeps being recycled with complete confidence that it is right. Nobody in the ID/creationist movement will even pick up a textbook and learn.

Sure it will, if design=magic.

fnxtr said: Sure it will, if design=magic.

Just Bob said:

fnxtr said: Sure it will, if design=magic.

And that's really what it comes down to: when they say "design", they mean "magic". Always. Even if they don't always quite realize themselves that what they're postulating requires magic.

TomS said:

Just Bob said:

fnxtr said: Sure it will, if design=magic.

And that's really what it comes down to: when they say "design", they mean "magic". Always. Even if they don't always quite realize themselves that what they're postulating requires magic.

And if it needs magic to support life, one can hardly say that the laws of nature are friendly to life. The only way that God could create life was to resort to magic? When he could design the laws of nature to do what he wants?

Just Bob said:

fnxtr said: Sure it will, if design=magic.

And that's really what it comes down to: when they say "design", they mean "magic". Always. Even if they don't always quite realize themselves that what they're postulating requires magic.

Hope there is more feedback on the project, and especially more active support at the funding end. Those who have been looking at the work have been very supportive, but so far too few of those to keep ahead of the bills.

James Downard said:

Just Bob said:

fnxtr said: Sure it will, if design=magic.

And that's really what it comes down to: when they say "design", they mean "magic". Always. Even if they don't always quite realize themselves that what they're postulating requires magic.

One of the results of my study of antievolutionist arguments is that in a quite fundamental design advocates don't really have an idea of what they think happened, so its not even magic. There are no instances I have encountered so far where an antievolutionist describes what would be observed during some putative design event, so IDers roll around vaguely attributing design to genetics they do not explore in detail or in Deep Time, while YECers have at least the consistency of invoking ex nihilo zotting.

James Downard said:

ksplawn said: I'm really appreciating the approach of highlighting how flawed anti-evolutionist "research" is, to the point of failing even an understanding of how to cite literature. It's something I noticed about their style of argument a while back, along with their nigh-absolute inability to simply describe the science correctly. I think that also deserves to be highlighted and called out specifically: anti-evolutionists never even seem to grasp the thing they're flailing against, because they can't tell you how it's supposed to work without getting it wrong.

The methods approach to hitting antievolutionists in their rotten basement will, I hope, contribute to a game changer here. It's not that critics of antievolutionism haven't noticed their bad sourcing before, but I am shifting the focus to that being the primary avenue of attack, knocking the props from under them all so that one can slice up the higher level philosophical issues (like the necessary utility of the successful Methodological Naturalism paradigm) as their undermined edfice slides by on the way to the hole below.

Scott F said:

James Downard said:

ksplawn said: I'm really appreciating the approach of highlighting how flawed anti-evolutionist "research" is, to the point of failing even an understanding of how to cite literature. It's something I noticed about their style of argument a while back, along with their nigh-absolute inability to simply describe the science correctly. I think that also deserves to be highlighted and called out specifically: anti-evolutionists never even seem to grasp the thing they're flailing against, because they can't tell you how it's supposed to work without getting it wrong.

The methods approach to hitting antievolutionists in their rotten basement will, I hope, contribute to a game changer here. It's not that critics of antievolutionism haven't noticed their bad sourcing before, but I am shifting the focus to that being the primary avenue of attack, knocking the props from under them all so that one can slice up the higher level philosophical issues (like the necessary utility of the successful Methodological Naturalism paradigm) as their undermined edfice slides by on the way to the hole below.

Hi James, I don't want the throw a wet blanket on your parade. What you are doing is important, and should be done. But I hope you can keep a perspective. I recently read several excellent articles on Salon, such as this, and this. The political "Right" in America today has a "facts be damned" mentality. Facts are something to be scorned and ridiculed in favor of ideological purity. While it is important to be able to show that their facts are wrong, that they intentionally lie, in the end it will have no effect on their "base". Their "base" wants the lies, prefers the comfortable lies to the uncomfortable facts. The important things to them are tribalism and authoritarianism. They scorn and reject the very foundational concept of the Enlightenment, of a world that is "knowable" and "rational". Scientists, rationalists, embrace change, seek out the new and the unexpected. That's what makes life interesting and challenging. The antievolutionists prefer a world that is scary, unknowable, irrational, and yet static and unchanging. They prefer ignorance. It makes their tribe, their "group" that much more comfortable and safe.

Just Bob said:

fnxtr said: Sure it will, if design=magic.

And that's really what it comes down to: when they say "design", they mean "magic". Always. Even if they don't always quite realize themselves that what they're postulating requires magic.

Scott F said:

James Downard said:

ksplawn said: I'm really appreciating the approach of highlighting how flawed anti-evolutionist "research" is, to the point of failing even an understanding of how to cite literature. It's something I noticed about their style of argument a while back, along with their nigh-absolute inability to simply describe the science correctly. I think that also deserves to be highlighted and called out specifically: anti-evolutionists never even seem to grasp the thing they're flailing against, because they can't tell you how it's supposed to work without getting it wrong.

The methods approach to hitting antievolutionists in their rotten basement will, I hope, contribute to a game changer here. It's not that critics of antievolutionism haven't noticed their bad sourcing before, but I am shifting the focus to that being the primary avenue of attack, knocking the props from under them all so that one can slice up the higher level philosophical issues (like the necessary utility of the successful Methodological Naturalism paradigm) as their undermined edfice slides by on the way to the hole below.

Hi James, I don't want the throw a wet blanket on your parade. What you are doing is important, and should be done. But I hope you can keep a perspective. I recently read several excellent articles on Salon, such as this, and this. The political "Right" in America today has a "facts be damned" mentality. Facts are something to be scorned and ridiculed in favor of ideological purity. While it is important to be able to show that their facts are wrong, that they intentionally lie, in the end it will have no effect on their "base". Their "base" wants the lies, prefers the comfortable lies to the uncomfortable facts. The important things to them are tribalism and authoritarianism. They scorn and reject the very foundational concept of the Enlightenment, of a world that is "knowable" and "rational". Scientists, rationalists, embrace change, seek out the new and the unexpected. That's what makes life interesting and challenging. The antievolutionists prefer a world that is scary, unknowable, irrational, and yet static and unchanging. They prefer ignorance. It makes their tribe, their "group" that much more comfortable and safe.

harold said:

Just Bob said:

fnxtr said: Sure it will, if design=magic.

And that's really what it comes down to: when they say "design", they mean "magic". Always. Even if they don't always quite realize themselves that what they're postulating requires magic.

It's exceptionally important for anyone who wants to understand ID/creationism to understand this. Here's how it works. "Creation science" used lies, distortions, and propaganda tricks to denigrate actual science, but was honest about its own claims. "Creation science" almost succeeded in destroying public school science education, got all the way to the supreme court, but lost because of its honesty about its own claims. ID is just creation science, but with dogwhistle code and weasel tricks where the honest discussion of its own overt claims used to be. All of ID is just wrong arguments claiming that evolution is impossible, followed by a smug insinuation that "design" is therefore the default. And everybody knows what they mean by "design". They mean the serpent in the garden, Noah's ark, and stoning homosexuals and back-talking women. I use blunt language for emphasis, but I do NOT exaggerate. Those are among the cherry-picked things that people who give money for ID blather typically choose to insist are "literal" truths from the Bible. Understand this, understand it now, and understand it forever - if an ideology claims that the sky is green, anyone who says that the sky "could" be blue, or that he "personally" accepts a blue sky but that he also "proves" with some fake equation or weasel worded illogical argument that the science that shows how it is blue "must be false", is pandering to the ideology that says the sky is green. The sky is not green. Period. Giving the idea that the sky is green an undeserved veneer of respectability by ostensibly accepting non-green sky, but in a weasely weak "concern troll" manner, is pandering to sky-is-green. How does this sound - "I 'personally accept' that there 'could be' a link between cigarettes and lung cancer, but the science is weak - no direct mechanism has been shown. By the way, I have another speaking engagement tomorrow, at the American Association of Cigarette Merchants convention. You're not invited to that one and what I say probably won't be recorded". Please, in the name of whatever you hold sacred, do not be fooled when ID types "accept" something like an "old earth" in this language. They themselves may not have a coherent idea of what they really "accept", but operationally, they are pandering to the politically and financially powerful religious right. Someone will now mention Hugh Ross, the Canadian crackpot Old Earth Creationist. He isn't ID, he's an isolated crackpot with virtually no following, who has been around, and been irrelevant, for decades. He is both allied with ID against science, yet a rival, just as those tobacco merchants are allied in favor of censoring the science but competitors in the tobacco market. And Hugh Ross is, in that analogy, less than 1% of the market share and shrinking. Unless an ID/creationist goes into a fundamentalist church and argues openly that the Earth is unequivocally billions of years old or that there is common descent, inconsistent weasel words that change according to venue mean nothing.

Since the Pandas Thumb post went up six people have come to support the TIP project, all of whom are very much appreciated by me but also highlights the dynamic of our team and how quickly we are marshalling resources and cooperation. If more do not step up and help, to make genuine crowdsourcing work, TIP will be a short journey. That's the reality of it from my end.

I actually do not attribute dishonesty or dissembling to the vast majority of antievolutionists, the issue instead is the cognitive architecture in their head (see Tortucan issue) that allows them to do what is the core problem in antievolutionism: selective over-reliance on secondary sourcing that they do not check out.

I am so bold as to summarize the situation concerning evolutionary biology and its discontents:

A. The science of evolutionary biology is exceedingly well defined, backed up by multiple lines of evidence and theory, important for the understanding of life, and productive for ongoing research. This is the consensus of essentially all people who have studied the field for the last several decades. Life is, and always has been, for billions of years, and, as far as we know, always will be, evolving; and all forms of life (both extant and extinct) are descended from a few primordial forms.

B. There is no known alternative account for the variety of life on Earth. That is, with or without evidence, with or without any scientific, philosophical or theological presuppositions. There is no "anti-evolutionary theory". To the scant degree of substance that there is (for example, that life has only existed for less than a million years) that allows to one to examine them scientifically, they are easily seen to be contrary to well-established science and without the amount or kind of evidence called for.

C. All of the known evidence supposing to cast doubt on the grand picture of evolutionary biology is without scientific merit.

D. Taking the non-scientific basis, as scant as it is, it is of questionable philosophical value (for example, being self-contradictory) and seems to be outside of the mainstream of monotheistic (belief in a Creator) theology, including going beyond Biblical warrant.

E. The importance of anti-evolution is almost solely as a political and social movement, not for any substance to it.

The importance of anti-evolution is almost solely as a political and social movement, not for any substance to it.

harold said: James Downward said -

I actually do not attribute dishonesty or dissembling to the vast majority of antievolutionists, the issue instead is the cognitive architecture in their head (see Tortucan issue) that allows them to do what is the core problem in antievolutionism: selective over-reliance on secondary sourcing that they do not check out.

Yes, I very strongly agree with this, and have made the same point thousands of times. I probably should have been more clear. I do not at all think that they experience a conscious sensation of lying or tricking others, at least not in the vast majority of cases. I do, however, use terms like "dissembling" and "lying" when describing their output, because operationally those terms are correct. A straw man mischaracterization of science is a lie. The obvious deliberate strategy of coding overt religious claims, clearly in response to court defeats, is operationally "dissembling". What you call "Tortucan" I often simply call "authoritarian thinking". What is missing is persuasion. They cannot be persuaded. No amount of evidence and logic can persuade them. And likewise, they actually do not, or cannot, even attempt to persuade rational skeptics. They are very good at reinforcing the already biased. When confronted with a skeptical person, they at best evade obvious relevant questions, repeat arguments already shown to be false, constantly change the subject back and forth while claiming not to (from a specific case of evolution to evolution in general to abiogenesis to "materialism", attempting to claim that a broad - and not necessarily very good - argument against crude Hobbesian materialism refutes an observed instance of evolution, when they can't argue against the observed instance of evolution, for example). And that's at best. More typical responses are rage, false accusations, and implied or explicit threats. It's a question of logic penetrating self-serving biases. For them, it simply cannot penetrate those particular biases. But it should be noted that from some part of their brain, they draw the exact same strategies for defending what cannot be defended, that conscious liars do. And this is why the do so badly in court. Court exposes liars quite well, not perfectly, but often quite well. I can't read their minds but am sure you are correct - it isn't that they consciously lie. But they do use the same verbal strategies that conscious liars do. I should note that even obviously financially motivated con men sometimes convince themselves. When self-serving bias enters the game, there is a vast spectrum between deliberate honesty and conscious, cackling treachery. Creationists are on the extreme "unaware" end of the spectrum. At least consciously.

James Downard said:

harold said:

Just Bob said:

fnxtr said: Sure it will, if design=magic.

And that's really what it comes down to: when they say "design", they mean "magic". Always. Even if they don't always quite realize themselves that what they're postulating requires magic.

It's exceptionally important for anyone who wants to understand ID/creationism to understand this. Here's how it works. "Creation science" used lies, distortions, and propaganda tricks to denigrate actual science, but was honest about its own claims. "Creation science" almost succeeded in destroying public school science education, got all the way to the supreme court, but lost because of its honesty about its own claims. ID is just creation science, but with dogwhistle code and weasel tricks where the honest discussion of its own overt claims used to be. All of ID is just wrong arguments claiming that evolution is impossible, followed by a smug insinuation that "design" is therefore the default. And everybody knows what they mean by "design". They mean the serpent in the garden, Noah's ark, and stoning homosexuals and back-talking women. I use blunt language for emphasis, but I do NOT exaggerate. Those are among the cherry-picked things that people who give money for ID blather typically choose to insist are "literal" truths from the Bible. Understand this, understand it now, and understand it forever - if an ideology claims that the sky is green, anyone who says that the sky "could" be blue, or that he "personally" accepts a blue sky but that he also "proves" with some fake equation or weasel worded illogical argument that the science that shows how it is blue "must be false", is pandering to the ideology that says the sky is green. The sky is not green. Period. Giving the idea that the sky is green an undeserved veneer of respectability by ostensibly accepting non-green sky, but in a weasely weak "concern troll" manner, is pandering to sky-is-green. How does this sound - "I 'personally accept' that there 'could be' a link between cigarettes and lung cancer, but the science is weak - no direct mechanism has been shown. By the way, I have another speaking engagement tomorrow, at the American Association of Cigarette Merchants convention. You're not invited to that one and what I say probably won't be recorded". Please, in the name of whatever you hold sacred, do not be fooled when ID types "accept" something like an "old earth" in this language. They themselves may not have a coherent idea of what they really "accept", but operationally, they are pandering to the politically and financially powerful religious right. Someone will now mention Hugh Ross, the Canadian crackpot Old Earth Creationist. He isn't ID, he's an isolated crackpot with virtually no following, who has been around, and been irrelevant, for decades. He is both allied with ID against science, yet a rival, just as those tobacco merchants are allied in favor of censoring the science but competitors in the tobacco market. And Hugh Ross is, in that analogy, less than 1% of the market share and shrinking. Unless an ID/creationist goes into a fundamentalist church and argues openly that the Earth is unequivocally billions of years old or that there is common descent, inconsistent weasel words that change according to venue mean nothing.

I actually do not attribute dishonesty or dissembling to the vast majority of antievolutionists, the issue instead is the cognitive architecture in their head (see Tortucan issue) that allows them to do what is the core problem in antievolutionism: selective over-reliance on secondary sourcing that they do not check out. The scholarly trail of 150 years of antievolutionism is monotously clear, as antievolutionists also simply do not (and I contend literally cannot) conceptualize basic notions about what branching speciation would look like in a fossil or genetic context, which translates into their parallel inability to imagine what manner of evidence they would ever accept. The 100% lack of counterexamples here I take as rather meaningful. From their frame (a mind that cannot conceptualize counter-evidence and simply will not examine whatever new evidence is tossed their way) the outcome we see is hardly unexpected. This is how their brain works.

callahanpb said: I agree, but I think it bears some emphasis that Biblical literalism creates more problems than it solves. If it were as simple as saying God created the diversity of life as we know it, that would be not be a very enlightening explanation, but you could at least stop at that point (i.e., a sufficiently incurious child might be willing to stop asking questions). As David MacMillan pointed out in his series last summer, the situation with YEC is far worse, because they need to account for an event (the Flood) that would be a huge bottleneck in species diversity. The only way to fix this (apart from ignoring it entirely--always an option) is to propose faster evolution than anything supported by science.

The importance of anti-evolution is almost solely as a political and social movement, not for any substance to it.

It's hard to get away from this. The importance is not to explain (or even "explain away") anything because of the enormous effort required to reconcile the claims with any observable evidence.

Robert Byers said: In short dumbish!!!

Gods you're dumb, Byers.

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: In short dumbish!!!

Dumbish? There's nothing -ish about it, Robert. Even if certain practitioners aren't low-IQ-dumb, the dumbity of the whole enterprise forces them to engage in astounding mental gymnastics to keep from facing the utter dumbulation.

Beyond the philosophy, I am inviting comment on the www.tortucan.wordpress.com/ website itself, content and format both, which I acknowledge is a rudimentary work in progress. If I can keep at it the goal is to make things like the index easier to navigate to find specific information, but at the moment I have to sit tight with the pdfs output so far.

There's also that kids who grow-up with the self-image of "I'm the smart one" also assume that they're always right, not realizing that even smart kids can be wrong if they don't have all the information.

fnxtr said: There's also that kids who grow-up with the self-image of "I'm the smart one" also assume that they're always right, not realizing that even smart kids can be wrong if they don't have all the information.

I think Mr Downard is right to describe what he calls tortucanism - which I take to mean the incapacity to perceive demonstrated contrary evidence as fatal to a position.

I also think that this is a symptom or perhaps a special case of a more general syndrome, which I call 'authoritarianism', following Professor Robert Altemeyer's brilliant clinical description of their traits and behaviour. One of the authoritarian traits is that sensory input is qualified by authority. Authoritarians qualify what they perceive by reference to the rules they obey. If the perceived data is contrary to those rules, it simply doesn't exist.

We have an exquisite example of this effect in Byers, above. "There is no such thing as CA!" (cognitive architecture), says Byers. He simply cannot recognise the evidence that grossly distorted methods of treating perceptions arise from distorted cognitive structures and distorted models of reality, and that these structures and models can be described as "architecture" in only a slightly metaphorical way. This is because his own cognitive architecture is distorted.

I'm going to appropriate that term, "cognitive architecture", because I think it's a better explanation than simple lack of intelligence (Byers is dumb) or mental pathology (Byers is crazy). Byers is a tortucan because he can't perceive evidence contrary to his suppositions. He is an authoritarian because his perceptions are mediated by authority. Byers is also dumb, in the colloquial sense - he's barely literate - but this trait, as Mr Downard notes, is not general to all creationists.

See the current BW. Joe isn't dumb, but he does possess a tortucan mind, and in his case his authoritarianism extends to overt aggression, including fantasies of violence. FL, who appears to have given up, is also tortucan, but he also strongly displays another authoritarian disability in regard to evidence - not only can't he recognise evidence that exists, he also invokes what he calls evidence that doesn't - that is, either it isn't evidence, or, more radically, it doesn't exist at all. And like all authoritarians, FL and Joe would both impose their authority by force, if they could. FL's on his blog right now, advocating that very thing, in regard to same-sex marriage. Joe fantasizes about hurling the "Darwinists" from their positions, seeing them ruined and destroyed, installing himself as czar of biology, and even blowing them all up.

Imperviousness to evidence, then, defines the tortucan mind. But that's only one side of it - the defence, if you like. The offence is found in the other characteristics of the authoritarian mind - a paradigm that compulsion and prohibition is to be enforced by aggressive means.

All of it appears to be culturally installed. Well, mostly. The ancient nature-nurture argument raises its hoary head. But anything so subversive of reality would appear to need some such installation.

James Downward -

By parallel we have come to essentially the same conclusion about creationists.

You apply the terminology "Tortucan", whereas I apply the concept "authoritarian", but we're basically saying the same thing.

You call this analysis a "heuristic", whereas I have been prone to call it "the model that predicts their behavior". Both descriptions are accurate.

The model works like this -

1) We are talking about people who could understand the evidence but choose to reject it. We are not talking about children still repeating what they hear from their parents - children depend on their parents and have intense emotional loyalty, and empirically, there is a strong chance that children raised as right wing contemporary fundamentalists will reject those claims as young adults. (As a side observation, the characteristically desperate 14 year old commenter obsessively repeating creationist talking points, often seen on the internet although not often here any more, may actually be someone about to abandon those beliefs as a young adult.) We aren't talking about educationally deprived people who simply accept traditional religious dogma, endorsed by their community, as a default. In those cases the creationism is not definitively voluntary. We are talking about people who are autonomous adults and have had adequate opportunity to examine their beliefs, but have chosen to double down on an ideology.

2) Therefore lack of academic ability, as usually tested, is not the issue. This is basically a repetition of my first point, but this needs to be emphasized. Again, there are probably people who can't evaluate the evidence for a 6000 year old Earth versus the evidence for the scientific model, because that task is beyond their academic ability. Those people are busy dealing with life, and to the extent that it matters to them, almost certainly passively endorse whatever explanation of the universe comes from those who make up their support system. That doesn't count.

3) A common internet explanation is the "religion as a vampire bite" idea - the idea that a person is walking down the street, decides to "become religious", and then begins asserting idiotic ideas about science. But religion is not specific for creationism. Many people are religious without denying science. (Their religious ideas are unscientific in the sense that they can't be tested and aren't needed to explain the universe, but they don't directly contradict known science.) Also, even if this "explanation" did work, it would leave us wondering why this happens to some intelligent people but not to some less intelligent people, what the mechanism of this radical and instantaneous cognitive change is, and so on.

4) Another explanation that doesn't work is "cackling Shakespearian villain engaged in a consciously deceptive plot". Superficially they resemble this, but they are never caught making asides to the audience. They may be caught with prostitutes or drugs or embezzling schemes, but never seem to be caught saying "I really accept evolution and am just making up this evolution denial".

5) Political and social views, on the other hand, correlate massively with creationist science denial. That's just a fact. Almost all "anti-evolution" bills come from Republicans. I think this is very important.

6) What we see are people who, on this, and probably many other topics, simply do not operate by evaluating evidence. Instead, although they may have considerable academic ability, they operate by choosing a presupposed emotional preference, and then advocating for that, using any possible tactic to evade evidence to the contrary and "hurt" the "other side". There is a reason why they love the sport of debate. This is roughly how that sport works. Although they advocate for their position, creationists do not function like defense attorneys. A good defense attorney cares massively about the evidence, and varies their strategy according to how an objective third party would respond to the evidence. If the evidence is clearly too much to overcome with a "not guilty strategy", a defense attorney will seek a deal, ask for clemency, etc. Creationists behave like over-eager teenagers in debating match - except that even the teenagers can let go of the defended position once the match is over.

7) I can't say why some people are authoritarian, but I can say what authoritarian people act like. They choose arbitrary authority over evidence, they favor forced conversion over persuasion, they use slogans rather than reasoned arguments, and they project authoritarian beliefs onto all others. They perceive reasoned arguments as a tactic and perceive those who offer them as rival authoritarians, and thus reject them out of hand. Thus, creationists fit the model of authoritarians. This model predicts that reasoned arguments won't affect them and that they won't "play fair", and that they are likely to be allied with other authoritarians on other issues. Those predictions are correct.

8) I choose to say that, although creationists are not consciously lying about creationism, they have a non-honest mentality. Yes, they convince themselves first, but, abandoning persuasion, evidence and logic, they resort to evasion, selective attention, quote-mining, cherry-picking, straw man construction, repeating arguments that have been discredited, changing the subject, saying different things in different venues, and also to attacking critics with intense emotional insults, false accusations, and threats. These are also the tactics of totalitarians and, I might note, the tactics of those who are consciously lying. They aren't conscious deceivers and misinterpreting them as that leads to false predictions, but they do end up using the cognitive tool box of deception.

Now, how about the "evolutionists"?

We need not discuss what the reasons are that we accept something as obviously correct as evolutionary biology.

But why are we "activists" in promoting its acceptance?

For example, it is an interesting exercise, something like one of those pictures with mistakes (a person wearing a roller skate and an ice skate, etc.). Creationism depends on mistakes in all sorts of fields, whether it's Egyptology or probability theory.

Or it provides a subject for humor. (Including insult humor.)

TomS said: Now, how about the "evolutionists"? But why are we "activists" in promoting its acceptance?

harold said: [ underlining added ] 1) We are talking about people who could understand the evidence but choose to reject it. We are not talking about children still repeating what they hear from their parents - children depend on their parents and have intense emotional loyalty, and empirically, there is a strong chance that children raised as right wing contemporary fundamentalists will reject those claims as young adults. (As a side observation, the characteristically desperate 14 year old commenter obsessively repeating creationist talking points, often seen on the internet although not often here any more, may actually be someone about to abandon those beliefs as a young adult.) We aren't talking about educationally deprived people who simply accept traditional religious dogma, endorsed by their community, as a default. In those cases the creationism is not definitively voluntary. We are talking about people who are autonomous adults and have had adequate opportunity to examine their beliefs, but have chosen to double down on an ideology.

Dave Luckett said: [ emphasis added ] I’m going to appropriate that term, “cognitive architecture”, because I think it’s a better explanation than simple lack of intelligence (Byers is dumb) or mental pathology (Byers is crazy). Byers is a tortucan because he can’t perceive evidence contrary to his suppositions. He is an authoritarian because his perceptions are mediated by authority. Byers is also dumb, in the colloquial sense - he’s barely literate - but this trait, as Mr Downard notes, is not general to all creationists.

Scott F said: Dave comments that perceptions are mediated by authority. Actually, if I understand correctly (and I'm no expert), perceptions are mediated by emotions. How strongly we feel about something, how emotionally charged a situation is, has a great deal to do with how we perceive that thing, those facts, that event. ... For instance, imagine if you will an intellectual argument. In a college or academic setting (and I'm stereotyping here, of course), we learn to emotionally distance ourselves from the facts at hand, to tune down the emotions. We are literally trying to understand the opposing view point, even though the other person is attacking our cherished ideas. The only way we can do that is to drop our initial emotional rejection of the other person's "attacks". In the college setting (among other settings of course), we learn to separate our emotional responses from our intellectual inquiries.

Dave Luckett said: See the current BW. Joe isn't dumb, but he does possess a tortucan mind...

stevaroni said: The fact that many creationists get a lot of joy out of "fighting the good fight" and putting the pesky heathens in their place should not be overlooked.

A big reason why I am trying to put my TIP project into the debate as a resource is to not only characterize the who and what and when and where of things but also to suggest ways to move beyond mere characterization to see how understanding the mechanics of antievolutionist arguments can impove how science defenders respond to their challenges. The primary battleground currently are textbook boards around the country, and the same methods issues seen in the antievolution example spill over into the Common Core debate if only because the demographics remain pretty much the same in both cases. Forcing historical revisionists and antievolutionists to defend what they cannot, their own reluctance, if not inability, to examine the provenance of their own sources and research, can be a fresh tactic to counter their moves.

I think it comes down to, not intellectual maturity, but emotional maturity.

stevaroni said:

Dave Luckett said: See the current BW. Joe isn't dumb, but he does possess a tortucan mind...

he also likes being a troll. The fact that many creationists get a lot of joy out of "fighting the good fight" and putting the pesky heathens in their place should not be overlooked. Not only is their world resistant to change, but they're consequently happy being the "get off my lawn" guy.

harold said: Scott F. said -

I think it comes down to, not intellectual maturity, but emotional maturity.

Yes, that's correct indeed and a very good insight. It's an emotional problem. That's for sure. And the behavior is immature. However, I do want to point out that it is VERY immature. The behavior of most children is much less immature than the behavior of many prominent creationists.

harold said: Scott F. said -

I think it comes down to, not intellectual maturity, but emotional maturity.

Yes, that's correct indeed and a very good insight. It's an emotional problem. That's for sure. And the behavior is immature. However, I do want to point out that it is VERY immature. The behavior of most children is much less immature than the behavior of many prominent creationists.

TomS said: Some preachers teach their flock that they are smarter than the smartest non-believers. That they have access to the truth, which even though seems to be foolishness to the worldly wise, is in reality is greater wisdom.

Augustine Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

callahanpb said:

TomS said: Some preachers teach their flock that they are smarter than the smartest non-believers. That they have access to the truth, which even though seems to be foolishness to the worldly wise, is in reality is greater wisdom.

That's when I would quote St. Augustine. I'm sure this has already been on Panda's Thumb because that's where I probably saw it first, but after reading the above, I felt the need to look it up:

Augustine Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The idea that a believer is by definition smarter than a non-believer is not only obviously wrong, it leads to an uncorrectable obstacle to learning, since any mistaken thought can be justified as actually being right in a way that others don't understand.

James Downard said: Heartily concur with Mike on Sewell, who is beating that dead 2nd Law horse even as it is less commonly used in current YEC set. Organisms objectively reproduce and do so with inevitable natural mutations whose effects we can describe and even experiment with (paleogenomics another new field all but invisible on the antievolution scope, but not on mine at TIP project), so all theoretical attempts to defuse that process' implications by glib assumption doesn't cut much mustard among the scientists doing the work.

To my above post; I remember thinking while watching the documentary that it was yet another reason to see how stupid Robert Byers' claim that a thylacine is just another version of the wolf - totally rejecting DNA as evidence for anything, not even his relationship with his own grand-grand...-grandparents...

Rolf said: To my above post; I remember thinking while watching the documentary that it was yet another reason to see how stupid Robert Byers' claim that a thylacine is just another version of the wolf - totally rejecting DNA as evidence for anything, not even his relationship with his own grand-grand...-grandparents...

Rolf said: To my above post; I remember thinking while watching the documentary that it was yet another reason to see how stupid Robert Byers' claim that a thylacine is just another version of the wolf - totally rejecting DNA as evidence for anything, not even his relationship with his own grand-grand...-grandparents...

harold said: James Downward - First of all, congratulations and thanks for being here. I'm strongly in favor of fairness, but I do think we must be careful to avoid false equivalence in the name of fairness.

I’ll concur with Mike also on the Kulturkampf conservative politics of antievolutionism (see TIP 1.6 and 1.7 for scads on that) but with the following methodological caveat: the deep core of how antievolutionists gum up so thoroughly is more about their individual Tortucan abilities to bypass relevant data. Tortucans come in all political and cultural contexts, it just happens we’re seeing a particular demographic sampling of them in the antievolution subculture. Other areas (anti-vaccination or 9/11 conspiracy followers for instance) show identical methodology but with different political and cultural demographic veneer

Anti-vaccination activism is actually increasingly associated with the same demographic as evolution denial, as was demonstrated recently when Chris Christie spoke out in favor of vaccine "choice". 9/11 conspiracy followers are small group with no coherent political agenda. They may use similar illogical cognitive tricks, but do not compare to a movement that has actively inserted dogma into public school curricula on a number of occasions, won school board elections on a number of occasions, and has taken its cause to the supreme court, where a they lost, but found favor with a dissenting justice, the only justice from that period still sitting. Evolution denial follows the same demographic as climate change denial, cigarette/health denial, most HIV denial, and American history censorship/denial, right off the top of my head. It is also incredibly important not to conflate pre-scientific beliefs, anachronistically, with denial of known science. The seventeenth century equivalent of creationism would be denial of facts known in the seventeenth century. Rarely in the history of the world has any mainstream socio-political group been as invested in denial of known scientific facts, and the latter day Fox/Limbaugh/Republican ideology/subculture. This large scale post-rational denial of known science is a new reaction to science.

Robert Byers said: Am I in the lists of dangerous creationists? it would determine for me how thorough it is! Just kidding. PRO-SCIENCE community! Oh brother. Creationists are pro science. Having different conclusions on certain subjects dealing with origin matters is not the proof of being anti science. Half the pop would be anti science by that standard. Is the author a scientist? it seems like he is a historian. this comes up in critizing creationists who get heavily into these subjects. i'm not complaining but it thrown at us. I welcome accurate documentation of these matters. Creationism has risen in these years because of how well we make our case and debunk the other side. The more info the more the truth prevails. This can be a resource for the people and not just people in power. In public opinion creationism does quite well. By the way. Because a religious conclusion bumps into a conclusion about nature DOES NOT nullify , be definition, the accuracy of the religious conclusion. Some folks imply religious conclusions are false roght out the gate. Says who?

James Downard said:

Robert Byers said: Am I in the lists of dangerous creationists? it would determine for me how thorough it is! Just kidding. PRO-SCIENCE community!

Gawd I wish I had either time or money to help support Downard's well-begun and greatly-needed project.

But I don't.

Jim D, please accept whatever encouragement you can extract from my sincere but otherwise inconsequential applause back here in the peanut gallery...

Pierce R. Butler said: Gawd I wish I had either time or money to help support Downard's well-begun and greatly-needed project. But I don't. Jim D, please accept whatever encouragement you can extract from my sincere but otherwise inconsequential applause back here in the peanut gallery...

I do hope Pandas readers are checking out the www.tortucan.wordpress.com/ files, can start anywhere as they are all (I hope) informative reads and in turn that this will motivate more people to move beyond just gliding in and out of www.GoFundMe.cpom/dseego but actively helping. This is a critical moment for me to get this support to work, and so much work still needs to be done.

Just checked the TIP website, looks like Alex had added updated notations to the recent revisions, very mice. Still a work in progress, we're all learning as we go.

James Downard said: Just checked the TIP website, looks like Alex had added updated notations to the recent revisions, very mice. Still a work in progress, we're all learning as we go.

The tail-off of comments and more critically, the low support for www.GoFundMe.com/dseego is very discouraging. It is consistent with the fate of Talk Origins and other sites set up to fight the good fight, but does say something disenheartening about the secular community's ability to do the stick-to-it game that Kulturkampf antievolutionists (from ICR to AiG to Discovery Institute) appear to manage better than we. What's wrong with this picture? And can it ever change.