The conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, apparently not wanting to allow Commentary to have all the fun, has waded into the anti-evolution biz by publishing this miserable article by Paul McHugh. It is the usual melange of literary arrogance coupled with scientific ignorance. It does, however, provide a useful opportunity to review the various litmus tests you can apply to distinguish between serious commentators on the one hand, and dishonest hacks on the other.
If the author of the article you are reading uses any of the following devices in making his case:
- Make a reference to thought control.
- Bring up Inherit the Wind.
- Imply that evolution is about ideology and not science.
- Pretend that evolution has made no progress since Darwin.
- Use quotations from scientists misleadingly and without indicating their source.
- Bring up Piltdown Man.
- Use the term “Darwinian fundamentalist.”
- Pretend that the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium refutes core tenets of neo-Darwinism.
- Put words into the mouths of scientists without providing citations.
- Accuse scientists of being dishonest.
113 Comments
Evolving Apeman · 27 March 2005
Idealogue:
"Anyone who questions my idealogy is a dishonest hack"
Your anger is humorous. How dare we question your pseudoscience that relies on rhetoric instead of scientific method to promote itself.
You guys are going to have to do better than this if you want to prevent the greatest hoax in history from being exposed.
Russell · 27 March 2005
Rupert Goodwins · 27 March 2005
Steve Reuland · 27 March 2005
One could add a few more to the list:
11. Pretend as if Dawkins and Gould are the final authority in evolution.
12. The use of the term "Darwinist" as a blanket description of everyone who accepts modern evolutionary theory.
13. Invoke the essentialist fallacy by claiming that "a fruit fly is still just a fruit fly!"
14. Assert that any and all critics of "Darwinism" are invariably "shouted down".
I could go on. It's a silly article, pretty much the standard nonsense that could have been written by any DI lacky, without so much as a hint of originality.
BTW Jason, excellent take-down.
Les Lane · 27 March 2005
McHugh employs what I call "sophomoric reasoning'. While such reasoning may suffice for public rhetoric, students who do not rise above it will not succeed in science.
Gary Hurd · 27 March 2005
Sean Foley · 27 March 2005
Stan Gosnell · 28 March 2005
If facility with English is going to be a test, then I sadly must point out that many who regularly post here will fail.
Ben · 28 March 2005
"You guys are going to have to do better than this if you want to prevent the greatest hoax in history from being exposed."
Nuh-uh. What about the moon landing?
EmmaPeel · 28 March 2005
Hmmm... how about:
15. Fret that teaching our children that their very distant ancestors were a different species than our own will cause them to want to act as if they were members of that ancient species instead of the humans that they are.
16. Quote Dostoyevsky: "If God is dead, then everything is permitted."
Jim Harrison · 28 March 2005
Everytime somebody quotes the "If God is dead, then everything is permitted" bit, I'm moved to point out that if there really isn't any God, nothing is permitted because there isn't anybody authorized to do the permitting. This is not just a quibble. Religion motivates people, sometimes for good, sometimes for evil, while those who lose their faith are more likely to become passive than murderous.
ts · 28 March 2005
David Heddle · 28 March 2005
Yes, anyone who rants on the "seperation" clause should refrain from casting stones at another's misuse of English.
Evolving Apeman · 28 March 2005
Unlike the "dishonest hack" who criticizes evolution, you guys are far superior because:
1. You never miss the opportunity to point out a spelling or grammer error to discredit someone
2. Your keen eyes can recognize a troll (i.e. anyone who makes any criticism of evolution on this forum)
3. Your "science"-based worldview is above religion. (Keep telling yourself that and maybe you will never have to ask an honest question about your life)
4. You have mastered the art of circular reasoning: "This finding in nature doesn't fit with our current model of evolution, let's make some minor adjustments. Hey, evolution is the unifying theory in biology"
5. (My favorite) You are far superior than the ignorant masses who suffer from the "god" gene that promotes reproduction in protected but oppresive environment.
- Correllary A: Your critics have protective mechanisms (due to evolution) that protect them from accepting the greater knowledge you hold. Thus there is really no point in arguing with them, its like trying to convince an ape.
Russell · 28 March 2005
Evolving Apeman · 28 March 2005
Thanks for pointed my speling error out :>
You guys have closed the door to any open dialogue. Based on the "post in question", nothing I or any critic has to say will ever have any substance. You have essentially have said that if you criticize us, you are a dishonest hack. After all you get to define the rules of criticism.
However, I agree with the president (elected by us ignorant masses), the book isn't closed on all the claims of evolution. So whether you consider your critics worthy of dialogue and debate doesn't really matter. If we do not get our way in publich education, we will home school our children (where they where they outperform the public schools despite an inferior evolution education). We will also vote in more politicians that support school vouchers so we can put them in private schools where they will be not be indoctrinated with garbage.
You guys need a system like socialism or communism to have your way. This whole democracy thing really gets in the way.
Monty Zoom · 28 March 2005
Ben · 28 March 2005
"You guys need a system like socialism or communism to have your way. This whole democracy thing really gets in the way."
Well, it's a moot point anyway since science isn't a democratic process. It's more of an "objective reality totalitarianism". But I'm glad you appear to realise, based upon your silly threats regarding public education and sympathetic bureaucrats, that creationism is a POLITICAL issue, with no actual grounding in science as you lot so often claim.
Evolving Apeman · 28 March 2005
Gee Monty,
Sounds like we need a lesson in science 101.
Let's start with common descent of all life. No experimental data to show this. So we use observational data which boils down to comparitive anatomy, similar DNA, finding old bones which can always be made into an "intermediate species". But you made a fatal flaw. You presumed a naturalistic explaination for events you did not observe and cannot experimentally reproduce. Thus your conclusion was inevitable with your presumptions and no other alternative can ever be possible. If you had insight, you might realize that your field is philosophical and not science. But circular reasoning never held an evolutionary biologist back. I'm sure Dr. McHugh knows something about lack of insight among people in his line of work. Perhaps you should make an appointment with him, he may be help you?
Michael Finley · 28 March 2005
David Heddle · 28 March 2005
Yeah, Jim, take a look at the passivity of this faithless movement.
Evolving Apeman · 28 March 2005
Ooooo 3 in a row, I think we are due for a don't feed the trolls post.
Yeah that will teach us!
Bayesian Bouffant · 28 March 2005
17) Mentions that development of life would decrease entropy and violate the second law of thermodynamics.
GCT · 28 March 2005
frank schmidt · 28 March 2005
Double bonus points if they invent a Fourth Law of Thermodynamics.
Evolving Apeman · 28 March 2005
18. They fail to see how a computer simulation is an "instance of evolution"
Joe McFaul · 28 March 2005
19. Use the term "worldview."
Monty Zoom · 28 March 2005
Jim Harrison · 28 March 2005
Communists, as umpteen people have rightly pointed out, were not people for whom God is dead. That's why the famous book against 'em is called the God that Failed. People ascribe the fall of the soviet system to a lot of things, oil prices, Ronald Reagan, overcentralization, resurgent nationalisms---but a Stalin or a Lenin would certainly have been able to keep the lid on if the Party hadn't lost its faith.
Somebody also mentioned Louis XIV as a counter example, a strange reference since the Sun King was exceedinly Catholic, indeed a famously bigoted one.
David Heddle · 28 March 2005
Jim,
The fall of communism is not the issue at hand, but rather its irrefutable history of mass murder.
Emanuele Oriano · 28 March 2005
Re Louis XIV.
Michael Finley was probably using him as an example of someone killed by people "without faith".
Of course, that should have been Louis XVI, but what the heck. Neither him, nor Stalin's citizens, nor Chinese students were killed because of their faith or lack thereof... but try to explain that to zealots!
Russell · 28 March 2005
Focus, David! The point is that Communism was religion; just another religion that induces horrific acts as well as noble ones. Your Black Book just reinforces the point you seem to be contesting.
Evolving Apeman · 28 March 2005
Monty,
You can presume whatever you like. But at least recognize your philosophical presumptions in a debate over origins. If you believe everything in life has a naturalistic explaination and all things are based on matter and energy so be it. But, some of us believe in transcendence and aren't in agreement with that philosophical presumtion. Neither of us are "scientifically correct", because science despite all it can do, can't answer the most important questions of life: why am I here?, what is the purpose of life? where am I going? Tell me Monty when you tell your partner you love them is it real? Or is it just a biochemical reaction that evolved to preserve your reproductive capacity. If you accept that there more to this world than matter and energy, you do not enter the debate about origins prejudiced against non-evolutionary explainations.
So when you recognize the real issue is philosophical naturalism, the debate can begin.
Savagemutt · 28 March 2005
I see the origin of a great new drinking game from this topic.
DavidF · 28 March 2005
Great White Wonder · 28 March 2005
neo-anti-luddite · 28 March 2005
Quoth the Apeman:
"Tell me Monty when you tell your partner you love them is it real? Or is it just a biochemical reaction that evolved to preserve your reproductive capacity."
Tell me, Apeman, how is someone's capacity to feel love a product of anything but their own emotions? Whatever you, or I, or anyone else may consider their source to be is irrelevant to the actual emotion. How does "biochemical" love differ from "Christian" love, and how is that different from "Islamic" love, "Jewish" love, "Hindu" love, "Bhuddist" love, or any other "brand" of love?
Or are you claiming that "real love" isn't an emotion?
Or perhaps you're claiming that people who don't believe what you do are incapable of feeling the emotion of love?
What's your point?
Jim Harrison · 28 March 2005
I guess I've accidentally tripped Mr. Heddle's political correctness switch. He's like the folks who hyperventilated about Larry Summers, but with even less reason in this case. I guess he's upset that somebody failed to ritually denounce 70-year old political atrocities. He writes "the fall of communism is not the issue at hand, but rather its irrefutable history of mass murder." But why is the issue is communism's irrefutable history of mass murder? Because Mr. Heddle has an obsession, apparently. Why? Does he think Pol Pot is fixing to set up shop in the foothills of the Sierras?
There must be somebody someplace who's still defending Stalin, though even unrepentant lefties like Hobsbawm generally draw the line at Lenin. Nevertheless, the old guard is notably thin on the ground and one has to wonder why it remains such an issue in the year 2005. Does Mr. Heddle also retain hard feelings for those on the losing side of the Investiture controversy? I'm an old timer and actually knew real, we ain't foolin', true believer Reds who did defend Stalin. Indeed, I once stayed up till dawn with the president of Boston chapter of the American Communist Party trying to convince the man that facts are facts, no matter how dialectical you try to be. But that was 1967. Why Stalinism is such an issue in 2005 is more of a mystery. At a guess---and it is only a guess---what Mr. Heddle is following McCarthy's lead by attacking garden-variety secular liberalism as if it has something to do with Marxist Lenininsm. Maybe he's one of those guys for whom Social Security is just as bad as the extermination of the Kulaks.
From my unenchanted perspective, the Eventual Triumph of the Classless Society is much of a muchness with the Rapture and other millenial fantasies; and for me "God is Dead" has to be understood from a subjective point of view because it is the faith in some absolute value and not the reality of the object of the faith which is in question. From this perspective, millitant Communism is a lot like millitant Christianity or jihadist Islam, and all these fanatical movements contrast with secular attitudes and calmed-down versions of tradition religions.
Henry J · 28 March 2005
How about:
20) Imply that scientists have as a group managed to avoid noticing critical evidence that would change their basic assumptions if only they'd pay attention.
Henry
Monty Zoom · 28 March 2005
Frank J · 28 March 2005
Evolving Apeman · 28 March 2005
Monty,
Presuppositions regarding philosophical naturalism or a belief in transendence are not irrelevent to the topic of origins. I fully agree that if you presume naturalism, evolution is a unifying theory for biology. But when you say there are no reasonable alternative views on the topic of origin, recognize the constraints you have placed to draw that conclusion.
If you are willing to allow the presupposition of transcendence instead of just naturalism, how come intelligent design cannot an alternative explaination to the diversity of life to that of evolution.
As far as teaching things that cannot be observed, how about morality? Is it ever wrong to be dishonest? to hurt others? If so I'd like some scientific data to back that up. If the only presupposition you accept is naturalism, then tell me what was wrong with the utopia Hitler wanted to create? (other than the fact that he didn't succeed) Isn't it all about survival of the fittest?
Enough · 28 March 2005
21) Uses the phrase "survival of the fittest" without having any idea what it means.
Apeman, you need to do more reading and less writing.
Enough · 28 March 2005
21) Uses the phrase "survival of the fittest" without having any idea what it means.
Apeman, you need to do more reading and less writing.
Russell · 28 March 2005
It seems to me the basic problem is that Apeman, and more eloquently Phil Johnson, doesn't believe in transcendence. They insist their deity can be demonstrated to be physically interacting with material stuff - not a very transcendental thing to do. Moreover, they insist that the act of creation isn't really beyond human comprehension - we can quantify it, experimentally probe it. And if, Designer forbid, it should be proved that there is no way to do quantitative theology, faith collapses like a house of cards.
Evolving Apeman · 28 March 2005
22) Fails to have read enough to show even a basic understanding of evolution
There now I've contributed two!
Micahel Finley · 28 March 2005
David Heddle · 28 March 2005
Michael Rathbun · 28 March 2005
Russell · 28 March 2005
Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg
Michael Rathbun · 28 March 2005
Monty Zoom · 28 March 2005
Apeman,
I am willing to explore other alternatives to origins. I have heard many "naturalist" theories. Some seem more plausible than others. But none require an external hand.
The problem with ID is you must have certain presuppositions that are inherant to a particular religion(s). These are personal beliefs should be taught by parents not teachers. (The same goes for morality)
For example, say a teacher believes that the creator was the sole spark for the creation of the first life on earth. That is it, after the first spark life evolved as observed. This is certainly a valid ID "theory." However, it still implies that Humans evolved from lesser creatures. This "personal" belief is taught despite perhaps the student's parent's personal belief being different.
How can we determine what type of presuppositions are required? The most logical one is to trust what is observed and observable. Make conclusions and hypotheses based upon observable data. It is logical. But to claim that what is observed is not valid without giving an explanation, is just as invalid. We may live in Plato's cave, but we still see what we see.
As for morality, there isn't a universally accepted moral code. Even religions that have some sort of moral codes pack them full of loop holes. Thou shalt not kill (unless they are non-believers or infidels.) If you want observable evidence that it is wrong to be deceitful, just watch an episode of "I Love Lucy." (Or just about any other sit-com.)
Morality is a difficulty for some. Generally speaking there are few rewards for a moral life. "Go to Heaven for climate, Hell for the company." - Mark Twain.
Michael Finley · 28 March 2005
Well, in my original post I included Stalin and Red China as murderous, atheist regimes. That expands the "data set" somewhat.
If your point is that more atrocities have been committed by theists than atheists, who can argue with that? That fact, however, does not indicate an essential relation between theism and atrocity. Rather, atrocity is a human affliction, and most humans are and have been theists, i.e., it is an accidental relationship - a point illustrated by the counter-example.
Michael Rathbun · 28 March 2005
David Heddle · 28 March 2005
Ten litmus tests signaling a Panda's Thumb commenter is attacking your position:
1) You are called a "dissembler"
2) You are declared as having committed a random logical fallacy
3) You are called a child abuser for raising you children as Christians
4) You are called a fundamentalist
5) You are called a right-wing nut-job and Bill O'Reilly is assumed to be your guru
6) You are called stupid, idiot, moron, liar and/or troll
7) You are called a quote-miner
8) You are called a Nazi or a Fascist
9) You are called a holocaust denier or a racist
10) You are called an AIDS denier or a homophobe
Michael Finley · 28 March 2005
Great White Wonder · 28 March 2005
23) Complains that comparing anti-science creationist rhetoric/propoganda to the rhetoric and propoganda used by AIDS deniers, homophobes, holocaust deniers, and racists is unfair
24) References the "persecution of Christians" in the United States
Michael Rathbun · 28 March 2005
Michael Rathbun · 28 March 2005
Frank J · 28 March 2005
Russell · 28 March 2005
In the absence of other information, if I'm called a Nazi or a Fascist, accused of committing a logical fallacy, get called a fundamentalist, or a moron... , how do I know whether I'm being attacked for being a "Darwinist" or a "Heddlist"?
Now, I know that much invective has been aimed your way, David; some richly deserved, some over the top. But are you saying that most of the "attacks on your positions" at PT would be characterized by one or more of the items on your list? Gosh. If I felt that way, I might just stay away.
Jim Harrison · 28 March 2005
You have to be fairly pinheaded to think that good vs evil lines up with theism vs atheism or the reverse. I certainly don't.
One more time: When Nietzsche and Dostoevsky spoke about the death of God, they weren't referring exclusively or even primarily to traditional religious faith but to adherence to absolute values and the actual existence or nonexistence of a God had little to do with the issue.
Meanwhile, from a sociological point of view, rabid atheistical systems like Leninism or Maoism really do have a lot of similarities to the fanatical phases of the historical religions. To make that point is not to polemicize against religion in general and it certainly isn't some sort of apology for the Soviets.
Evolving Apeman · 28 March 2005
Monty,
Unlike 7-day creationism, there are no specific religious presuppositions with ID. Presenting the possibility that their was an intelligent designer side-by-side with evolution should be done in schools. Teaching common descent evolution alone to children is essentially prostylatizing a worldview of "philosophical naturalism" or more honestly "atheism".
Teach observable data only. I like that option the best. Let's do away with teaching Big Bang, abiogenesis, and common descent. Let's teach kids about antimicrobial resistence to new drugs. Leave the unobservable untestable theories to fanatics.
25. Mix up big bang and abiogenesis with evolution
26. Equate evolution wiht atheism
27. Refer to scientists as fanatics
(Did I miss any new ones?)
Jody · 28 March 2005
Let's do away with teaching Big Bang, abiogenesis, and common descent....
As soon as you are willing to put forth another proposition that accounts for all the observable, supportable data for the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and common descent, the floor is yours. Saying (or implying) that
Martin Wagner · 28 March 2005
Evolving Apeman wrote: "Unlike 7-day creationism, there are no specific religious presuppositions with ID."
Then who or what exactly is this designer you propose, and where would he/she/it have come from? After all, unless Christians are willing to entertain the notion that this Intelligent Designer of theirs ISN'T their God, I don't see how one can claim with a straight face that ID isn't rooted in religious presuppositions. And it would be a rather unusual Christian, to say the least, who was willing to believe that there was some *other* Intelligence around at the dawn of time creating universes.
And of course, there's the little problem ID supporters have of "who designed the designer?" Unless Apeman is willing to explain why he's okay with the idea of a non-designed universe-designer but not okay with the idea of a non-designed universe. IDers have to deal with the infinite regress problem somehow.
"Presenting the possibility that their [sic] was an intelligent designer side-by-side with evolution should be done in schools."
But that would be God, thus violating separation of church and state, wouldn't it? Unless the Christians supporting ID are actually willing to say, "No, God didn't create the universe, something else did, and that is what we seek to prove with ID." And I don't think too many Christians will be willing to do that.
Evolving Apeman wrote: "Teaching common descent evolution alone to children is essentially prostylatizing [sic] a worldview of 'philosophical naturalism' or more honestly 'atheism'."
Simply teaching natural explanations for things does not rule out a person's ability, much less right, to choose to be theistic, as there are a number of scientists who accept the accuracy of evolution and are yet theists. But naturalism is the only honest approach to looking at observable data. It's quite possible you don't understand why science ignores your God, so I'll give you an example.
One thing that makes a scientific theory valid is that it has predictive power. Now, don't waste your breath saying evolution doesn't have any, because plenty of actual scientists here will be willing to demonstrate to you exactly how it does. But I digress. So let's say you want to do an experiment involving mixing colored liquids. You mix together a yellow liquid with a blue liquid, and after 19 tries, you get a green liquid as a result each and every time.
Based on your experimentation, you can thus predict with high confidence that, on your 20th try, if you mix the blue and yellow liquids together, you'll get a green liquid.
Now...let's say you suddenly thrust into your experimental parameters the concept of an invisible, all powerful magic being who can do literally anything, including violating well understood universal laws, at will. (If God is omnipotent as his believers claim, then such things as, you know, physics and stuff mean nothing to him.)
Now you can no longer make the above prediction with the same degree of confidence. How do you know that, on the 20th try, your invisible God won't, just on a whim, decide to meddle with the experiment and give you a bright purple liquid? Or one that, in violation of known laws, comes out polka-dotted in 26 colors? You might say, why would God do something so inane? But then your experimental results would have to include detailed speculation on why you think this invisible magic being didn't interfere, and what the odds might be he'd interfere in the future, etc., etc.
So essentially, this is why science ignores God. Your ability to do science meaningfully AT ALL goes out the window. Certainly introducing a God violates Occam's Razor, or the Law of Parsimony. Bringing in a God means you have no choice BUT to multiply entities beyond what is necessary. In the case of ID, you now no longer have the responsibility of coming up with an explanation for biodiversity (which is all evolutionary biology does), you must now explain what this Designer is, where it came from, where it currently exists (if not in this universe), how it designs universes, why it designs universes, why it designed this universe they way it did and not some other way, and on and on and on... Now, if you think you can do this, great, go to it! The scientific community awaits. I can only wish you luck.
Compared to the grandiose nature of ID claims, Darwinian evolution is really quite a modest proposal. IDers complain that evolution doesn't work because it has too many "gaps". But what ID proposes as an alternative is simply ONE BIG GAP that is LARGER than the universe and EVERYTHING IN IT. It hardly seems sensible, much less useful, from a scientific basis.
Evolving Apeman wrote: "Teach observable data only. I like that option the best. ... Let's teach kids about antimicrobial resistence [sic] to new drugs. Leave the unobservable untestable theories to fanatics."
Well, that pretty much rules out ID, you know. In any event, there is plenty of observable data to back up common descent and the Big Bang. Study the relevant fields before presuming to make authoritative statements.
Dave Cerutti · 28 March 2005
Everyone have a look over at the AIG homepage, at their article on T-Rex soft tissue found inside partially fossilized bones. What's the deal with that, anyone know? I don't have the expertise to evaluate the paleontology literature, but I'm interested in what's really going on. I would have posted to the bathroom wall, but it's blocked at the moment, so I posted here to a thread about smelling creationist lies.
Henry J · 28 March 2005
Re "Based on your experimentation, you can thus predict with high confidence that, on your 20th try, if you mix the blue and yellow liquids together, you'll get a green liquid."
Unless there's a chemical reaction, in which case the color of the product isn't so easily predicted. :)
Henry
DaveScot · 28 March 2005
Brutal!
McHugh's piece is extraordinarily good. Thanks for the link. I'm emailing it to all my friends.
Darwin's exclusivity in evolution narratives is going down. I think by now many of you must be aware of this inevitability.
The three pillars of western modernism: Freud, Marx, and Darwin.
Two down, one to go.
DaveScot · 28 March 2005
DaveScot · 29 March 2005
DaveScot · 29 March 2005
DaveScot · 29 March 2005
DaveScot · 29 March 2005
evilgeniusabroad · 29 March 2005
The ApeMan wrote:
"why am I here?"
A very good question. I think you are a result of the universe attempting to gain equilibrium by creating complex system that are efficent in turning high energy photons into lower energy photons.
"But at least recognize your philosophical presumptions in a debate over origins."
Please stop mistaking theistic mindsets with scientific ones. Science studies natural causes, not supernatural ones. Science has advanced knowledge of physical processes, that is why we are no longer think lightning bolts are sent by Zeus, and droughts by Shin-a-gog-go-og.
You simply apply your theistic mindset because you cannot think in any terms except superstitionist drivel.
"science despite all it can do, can't answer the most important questions of life"
1) What should I wear today
2) Silent Hill 4 or Driver 3
3) Frosted pink....or ox blood red?
"If the only presupposition you accept is naturalism"
Well thats the point, isnt it? The spook-worshipping atavistic superstionists are in the middle of a crisis. Because these people cannot understand the world outside of their infantile requirements for an ultra-parent figure, they insist in interpreting all contrary evidence being of the same type as their own beliefs (a categorisation error), and react as if someone was insulting their Dad.
evilgeniusabroad · 29 March 2005
"Teach observable data only."
Great you can start by telling us when you observed the designer? Was he Prada or Hugo Boss type? Or did he just wear a long white dress? Sorry, robe.
Then describe the observed design mechanism.
Then describe animals, plants and morons you have seen designed, with details of whether the Designer used pencil and paper, a laptop or a recipe book..
John A. Davison · 29 March 2005
Since no one pays any attention to me anyway, let me present my views with the words of those with more acceptable credentials. I'm just a senile physiologist.
"Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores of the Western World."
William Golding
"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."
Bertrand Russell
"If you tell the truth, you are certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source...They are creatures that can't hear the music of the spheres."
Albert Einstein
On a more personal note let me add the following.
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls.
It tolls for neo-Darwinism."
John A. Davison
"First make yourself unpopular, then people will take you seriously."
Konrad Adenauer
"Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!"
Gregor Mendel
Thank you very much. You have no idea what this means to me. Neither do I.
John A. Davison
evilgeniusabroad · 29 March 2005
As if quotes make up a scientic case.
Savagemutt · 29 March 2005
Russell · 29 March 2005
Steve Reuland · 29 March 2005
Evolving Apeman · 29 March 2005
Martin,
"IDers have to deal with the infinite regress problem somehow"
Can you give me a naturalistic explaination to what started the universe (or what created the big bang). If not, I don't think the infinite regression is only a problem for theists.
"But naturalism is the only honest approach to looking at observable data."
No disagreement, but you better provide some better data than blue + yellow = orange to support common descent.
See Marty the problem is this. You recognize the validity of scientific method for answering questions regarding how the universe works. But inferences can only be made to the extent you have data to answere a specific question. However, often we lack the data to make inferences regarding events in the past. So as DaveScot so beautifully put, we write a narrative as to what we think happened. When you write your narrative at least be honest. The GAP problem you have with ID exists because you will only believe a universe driven by naturalistic explainations. I'm willing to allow for the possibility of transcendence and the supernatural to also have a role.
Regarding theists who believe in common descent as the reason humans differ from apes. Most just take the easy way out by saying, "I believe in both, now everyone can be happy". They need to read some Francis Schaffer to help them with their schizophrenic view of the world.
I have more respect for people like evilgeniousabroud who answers the question 'Why am I here?' with:
"I believe you are a result of the universe attempting to gain equilibrium by creating complex system that are efficent in turning high energy photons into lower energy photons."
At least he is intellectually honest about his nihilistic worldview, the logical conclusion to his blind faith in naturalism.
I wonder if frequent visits from evolutionists in existential crises from their meaningless existence prompted Dr. McHugh to write his essay?
James Wynne · 29 March 2005
Steve Reuland · 29 March 2005
Savagemutt · 29 March 2005
Russell · 29 March 2005
Apeman: Let's be clear about what's "known" and what's "unknown".
Some things that are not in dispute by any serious scientist:
1. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old
2. The genomes of organisms are shaped over time by natural selection.
3. The genomes of organisms are shaped over time by other factors as well (sexual selection, neutral drift...).
4. Humans share a relatively recent common ancestry with the other great apes (on the order of 10^7 years).
5. Humans share progressively more ancient common ancestry with: other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals...
Some things that are unknown, or at least on which there is no consensus:
1. How the universe originated
2. How life originated
3. The chemical nature of the ancestral genome - the original "replicator(s)"
4. The complete, generation by generation, geneology of humans, or any other species, going back more than an infinitesimal fraction of its recent history.
Note: the fact that there is no scientific consensus on these things does not mean that any discussion of them is non-scientific. Nor does it legitimize any and all non-scientific speculations on these issues.
bad joke · 29 March 2005
Davison, the cranky quote miner strikes again...
Michael Finley · 29 March 2005
Evolving Apeman · 29 March 2005
Russell -
First of all serious scientists don't go into evolutionary biology.
"Some things that are not in dispute by any serious scientist:
1. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old"
Again, serious scientists don't go into fields that ask silly questions. There is no observable or testable way to dispute that statement. I can plug a different set of assumptions into a model and come up with a different time frame. But I like to deal with real data not imputed data.
"2. The genomes of organisms are shaped over time by natural selection."
No disagreement there.
"3. The genomes of organisms are shaped over time by other factors as well (sexual selection, neutral drift . . . )."
No disagreement there.
"4. Humans share a relatively recent common ancestry with the other great apes (on the order of 10^7 years)."
Why? Similar DNA and estimated mutation rates led to 10^7 years? - Entirely an extrapolation from #2. Countless examples available where extrapolations fall apart.
"5. Humans share progressively more ancient common ancestry with: other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals . . . "
No we're being redundant. See #4.
All your circular reasoning boils down to this:
1. Naturalism is the basis for science.
2. Science requires the ability to make legitimate observations for the question under study.
3. But things we cannot measure or observe must have occured via a natural process.
4. Because, naturalism is the basis for science...
I love it!
bad joke · 29 March 2005
And devolved apeman's preposterous claims boil down to
1. apeman's 'science' embraces unfalsifiable claims
2. apeman & co lack any ability perceive anything about the past ( Error S30076 : hippocamus not found )
3. apeman & co think the rest of the mankind lacks this ability too
Ed Darrell · 29 March 2005
A fellow who accurately describes himself as a member of the clan of apes complains about what we know about science.
First, there is no rational way to dispute that the Earth is about 4.5e billion years old. That figure is reached by dating the radioactive isotopes in old rocks. No set of realistic assumptions can contradict the age of the rocks, other than an assumption that the universe is operated by a deceitful creator. Radioactive decay is the most steady set of clocks in the universe. There are several isotopes that all point to the age of 4.5 billion years for our planet. Moreover, that is the same age we get from rocks from the Moon, and it is the same age we get from rocks which probably originated on Mars. That date corresponds nicely with the age of Sol, our local star, which is determined again by nuclear physics, measuring the current mass and current chemical makeup and projecting how that got to be considering what we know of star formation. These numbers can only be questioned if there were experimental data to show atomic theory wholly in error.
Are these "silly" questions? The answers to the questions affect how we treat cancers, whether we can grow enough food, whether our communications satellites will work, whether we have enough oil, gas and coal to operate our factories and homes, etc. Creationists, to our amazement, tend to regard all such science as "silly," thinking, I can only guess, that milk comes out of cardboard cartons (as do eggs), gasoline comes from a well under the gasoline station, farming to be a relic industry, and medicine still as Voltaire described it -- keeping the patient comfortable until nature cures the disease.
All sets of real data lead to an ancient age for the Earth, near 4.5 billion years. If our fellow primate seriously wishes to deal with real data, let him demonstrate it, and not bluff so much.
Second, again one may not have one's own set of facts: There is no assumption under which DNA shows a differing age for the divergence of the modern human line from our cousins' lines. The claim of any extrapolation of the real data which "falls apart" is both fatuous and specious.
Third, the dates of our relationships with all other mammals, and all other forms of life, as determined by DNA, corresponds almost exactly with the data revealed by fossils. Geology is a completely separate science, of course -- so the fact that geology agrees with paleontology is very powerful confirmation of the paleontology. Now that we know DNA also agrees, we have an intersection of three different science branches coming from differing sets of data, all of which agree on the conclusions that humans are related to all other mammals, how closely humans are related to all other mammals, and all other relations of life.
Again, there is no set of assumptions which any rational human could make which would negate these data sets. The only way all differing branches of science could get the differing data sets to agree on one exactly wrong answer is if there is indeed a supernatural creator who is also a great practical joker, and who has created all of the universe with deception built in.
As a Christian, I reject the notion of a deceitful creator as quite blasphemous. As a rationalist, I reject the notion of a deceitful creator because there simply is no piece of data to suggest that such a deceitful creator exists.[/] (Nota bene, this is not the same as saying there are no data for an honest creator.)
All of which adds up to Apeman's critiques are not really religious, and not based in science, either.
Methodological naturalism is, indeed, the basis for science. It's the traditional basis that the Christian church worked to build up in order to assure the accuracy of the placing of moveable feasts on the calendar, and the method proved so useful to discerning the truth that we have expanded it to other areas.
Philosophical naturalism is interesting, but not the basis of science.
Criticism of evolution is most often based on false claims that we cannot measure or observe what has been carefully measured and observed for at least 200 years.
Honesty is the basis for methodological naturalism. If creationism rejects methodological naturalism, it also rejects honesty. And that is a rejection of one of the key tenets and teachings of Christianity.
In the end, Darwin is closer to God by almost any construct than most creationist claptrap. Certainly the science creationists do not like is more honest than what they propose to replace it with.
Russell · 29 March 2005
Evolving Apeman · 29 March 2005
Tell me Ed,
You really believe no assumptions are used to 'date' events that occured millions of years ago? No assumptions regarding the initial ratio of isotopes? If you took an honest look at the data as I have, you would realize that all these different methods calibrate themselves against each other. SO NO WONDER THEY ALL MATCH! But as I have said before, circular reason
never stopped an evolutionary biologist.
Biology as a field of study has absolutely no need of macroevolution. Keep your teliologic explainations to yourself and I'll keep my "Goddidit" to myself. Of course if we biologists dare question common descent, our careers could be ruined. Its much easier to take Ed's cowardly road and accept the paradox so you we live at peace with your Darwinian Fundamentalist colleagues. No point in getting blacklisted, might prevent a favorable review of your papers, no matter how unrealated they are to evolution.
So Russell, You are technically correct that all of us biologists are to one extent or another evolutionary biologist and you wouldn't have it any other way or else there may be consequences to dissenters.
Henry J · 29 March 2005
Some info on radioisotope dating:
Talkorigins Index to Creationist claims: CD: Geology
Henry
steve · 29 March 2005
There was a good article somewhere I saw a few years ago. A geologist, who was a christian, was tired of hearing his fellow christians say obviously dumb things about radioisotopes and dating. He wrote a long article to explain to them that they really shouldn't make that claim, and that they just make christians look ignorant. I'm sure you can still find it online.
evilgeniusabroad · 30 March 2005
Apeman:
"the logical conclusion to his blind faith in naturalism"
Methodological naturalism. I have no objection to alternative cosmologies, including Gods, but I am not going to deny observed facts or warp evidence to suit an infantile emotional need for an invisible Daddy figure to make sense of it all.
Pastor Bentonit · 30 March 2005
Evol. Apem. intoned:
*BEEP!*Strawman fallacy! Teleology, my dear Watson, is of course the credo of supertroll J.A. Davison, and of no importance (sic!) to the theory of origin of species through natural selection and common descent...
furhthermore, super-simian divined:
Well, there´s an idea...off you go then, what´s keeping you?!
jonas · 30 March 2005
Very nice summary of the 'deceitful creator' angle here, Ed.
If our resident Paranthropus insists on the artificiallity of DNA dating, maybe he can give us a link or a cite to somebody who actually has run the numbers under different assumptions - preferably ones not more complicated or removed from the data then the ones used by mainstream science - and has got different results, which still stand up when new data is added. Would be nice to read, although I somehow doubt such an analysis exists.
My other brain is a 486 · 30 March 2005
Is Apeman actually serious? I find it hard to believe that a person living in a wealthy part of the modern western civilisation (which I assume he does) could be so utterly uneducated when it comes to science. There is elementary school, high school, college, university, and then we have libraries, scientific magazines, books, websites and documentaries, and somehow, some people still manage to avoid coming across real science. Amazing.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 30 March 2005
joli · 30 March 2005
Or could he be thinking of Glen Morton?
Evolved Apeman · 30 March 2005
Speaking of strawmen I never argued for an early earth.
I'm arguing that dating methods make multiple assumptions and are calibrated against each other.
Exihibit from 1st website:
" C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993)"
Go ahead an revel in your arrogant ignorance. I choose to recognize limitations in my research to avoid overstating conclusions. But then again I'm more interested in analyzing real data than writing narratives based on unfalsifiable assumptions.
P.S. You guys are so good at correcting my grammar and spelling erros I think I will post my next paper here before I submit it to Nature for some free editing.
Russell · 30 March 2005
Russell · 30 March 2005
Evolving Apeman · 30 March 2005
Gee Russell,your deductive reasoning skills are truly amazing. Of course the irony is that your conclusion that I am DonkeyDong should be of no surprise. After all a brilliant scientist such as yourself doesn't need data to draw his conclusions about an event occuring billions of years ago. Scientists are probably about as good in predicting the past as they have been in predicting the future. To equate the science of pre-recorded past(by evolved apemen that is) with science dealing with the present is utter and complete arrogance.
Just for your wisecracks Russy boy I'm moving you from 4th author to the acknowledgement section for our landmark paper in Nature on the topic of common descent.
Russell · 30 March 2005
Bummer
Russell · 30 March 2005
Incidentally, I have to conclude that Apeman is, in fact, not DonkeyDong, as the latter proved him(?)self devoid of even a vestigial a sense of humor.
Jon Fleming · 30 March 2005
Wayne Francis · 30 March 2005
Sagan · 30 March 2005
Apeman:
"...the most important questions in life: why am I here..." Well, of course,science does not answer such a question. It is one of those questions science is not interested in finding an answer. Possibly the reason for this lack of interest is due to all the fun there is in finding "how" things are what they are. "Why" questions are not very good science questions. "Why is there something rather than nothing?",is a great question but not one on which you will find scientists spending much time. There is just not alot of fun in thinking about "nothing". As to the purpose of life and where you are going, I believe you will have great fun providing your (not someone else) answers.
BTW Thanks Ed and Russell for your thoughtful post.
Sagan
Evolving Apeman · 31 March 2005
Y'all need an analogy. (or is everything a homology on this site )
I've got a collection of films ranging from 5 minutes to 3 hours. I'll send you a freezeframe from the last scene. You can all use your deductive reasoning skills to tell me the length of the film. You may be right, but wouldn't you know a lot more if you watched the entire film?
To claim our knowledge of natural processes that occur over thousands or millions of years is on equal footing with processes that we can directly observe is preposterous.
Russell · 31 March 2005
Ed Darrell · 1 April 2005
sir_toejam · 10 April 2005
a little late, but I'm convinced that the apeman is just a pseudonym for Davison.
In his first post, EA said this:
"You guys are going to have to do better than this if you want to prevent the greatest hoax in history from being exposed"
that is almost verbatim the stuff that JAD spouts.
are there any real trolls here, or just JAD?