April Fools?... or not?

Posted 1 April 2005 by Nick Matzke

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/04/april-fools-or.html

I’ve decided that this April 1 Dembski post on the new DI/ID/ARN/ISCID superblog (“ The Truth about How I Got into ID”), and this April 1 op-ed by David Berlinski in the Daily Californian (“Academic Extinction,” hat-tip to Talk.Origins), must be April Fools jokes.

But it’s so hard to tell with these guys. Give your opinions in this thread.

56 Comments

William Dembski · 1 April 2005

At least 65 percent of my April 1 post is true.

Rilke's Grand-daughter · 1 April 2005

Well, I think Dembski's clearly is (and actually it shows more of a sense of humor than I thought he had) - the crack about 'right-wing' fanatics is so blatant that if it's NOT an April Fools joke, the DI is going to be a trifle miffed.

Berlinski's is a trifle more complex. My feeling is that he will claim it as an April Fool's joke, but that he is really trying to make a point about the lunacy of Darwinism.

Rilke's Grand-daughter · 1 April 2005

At least 65 percent of my April 1 post is true.

Ah, but since we know that only 87.3% of statistics are reliable, and 79.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot, this leaves us with only a 26.005877% confidence factor that your 65% isn't actually 64.8%. Adjusted for inflation and the temperature is Saskatchawan, of course....

Mark Perakh · 1 April 2005

Berlinski's assertion about misspelling Dembski's name as Dumbski is not true, at least as regards TalkReason. There is no such misspelling anywhere on TalkReason. We do not resort to such cheap tricks, which hardly can be said about some of ID advocates including Dembski (recall his anonymous post to Amazon where he praised his own book, disgusing as an unbiased reviewer). Btw, TalkReason has posted over a dozen of Berlinski's letters without changing a single word in them, so he is pretty well familiar with that site and hence is distorting the actual situation deliberately. Perhaps he means it as a fool day's joke?

Steve Reuland · 1 April 2005

Dembski's a certainly a joke.

Berlinski's is also a joke, but it's not clear if he intended it as one.

guthrie · 1 April 2005

As an avid reader of Pandas thumb for a couple of months, and a (very) occaissional poster, I would like to think that the Berlinski article is a joke. It makes no substantive arguments, such that even non biologically educated people as myself can see that it is merely a piece of inflated rhetoric, that can be summed up by the phrase - "Life is too complex to have evolved and darwinism is a pile of smelly pants."
There is no mention of the lack of papers published by Dembski, only his "popular" work. And how exactly are biologists supposed to

"For the first time, they are being asked to defend the thesis that biological design is more apparent rather than real."

DC · 1 April 2005

Whats funny is that keep saying things like 'more and more' Darwins theory unwinds when they never, ever provide:

A. any evidence at all for anything

B. Have a legitimate theory of their own

C. Are creating the entire controversy while ignoring all evidence supporting evolution.

I did find Dembski's sense of humor funny, although one could argue he actually parodied the truth about himself.

Reed A. Cartwright · 1 April 2005

Earlier Jason Spaceman posted Berlinski's comment to the BW. I did a search of our entries and found no instance of "Dumbski." A google search only turned up three instances in our comments.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 1 April 2005

At Internet web sites such as The Panda's Thumb or Talk Reason, where various eminences repair to assure one another that all is well, it is considered clever beyond measure to attack critics of Darwin's theory such as William Dembski by misspelling his name as William Dumbski.
— DAVID BERLINSKI

There is an easy way to settle this: Googlefight! Results

"William Dembski" 30,800 results "William Dumbski" 24 results

A look at Google points to two results, one at Panda's Thumb and one at IIDB(occurence apparently deleted).

In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 2 already displayed.

Richard · 1 April 2005

Actually, this is about as close to "coming clean" as Dembski's ever likely to get, though it'd be funnier had he concocted his scheme at International House of Pancakes.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 1 April 2005

By abandoning the quotation marks I was able to locate some more usage of Dumbski, including this one at Miskatonic University, which also refers to Michael Hehe.

Steve Reuland · 1 April 2005

Berlinski's assertion about misspelling Dembski's name as Dumbski is not true, at least as regards TalkReason.
— Mark P

I don't think it's true about PT either. While it's possible that someone may have done that in the comments, I can't recall any contributors having done it, and I for one would strongly discourage it.

Steve Reuland · 1 April 2005

A look at Google points to two results, one at Panda's Thumb and one at IIDB(occurence apparently deleted).
— Bayesian Bouffant

Yep, it was in comments. Berlinski, if he's being serious, is a liar.

Asa Thoth · 1 April 2005

Hey, #22847:
Love the reference to Miskatonic U! Got my BA in Paranormal Cosmology there!

Great White Wonder · 1 April 2005

it is considered clever beyond measure to attack critics of Darwin's theory such as William Dembski by misspelling his name as William Dumbski

Folks, get over it. The lie is that referring to Big Bill as "Dumbksi" is not "considered clever beyond measure" here on the Pandas Thumb. Never was, never will be. That said, there is nothing wrong with mocking a notorious public figure like Big Bill by misspelling his name. NOTHING. This is particularly true where the notorious public figure in question is notorious for habitual dissembling and creating bogus algorithms for proving the existence of awesomely powerfuly mysterious alien beings. Personally, I prefer "Big Bill Dembski". But Dumbski works too.

Fraser · 1 April 2005

And this would differ from a serious piece on ID how?

The argument that what biologists think is irrelevant while citing the opinions of non-biologists as Proof Positive is pretty typical of ID.

JSB · 1 April 2005

Just discussing it has probably tripled the occurance of "Dumbski" [ding] on the internet.

DavidF · 1 April 2005

Dembski's "two PhDs" reminds me of the Fawlty Towers episode in which Basil ends up saying to two people at the desk "So, you're three doctors."

Like most Creationists Berlinski loves the resort to authority and two PhDs in the same person only doubles his fun. As for Dembski's piece - I suspect that it's a case of "many a true word is spoken in jest." Unable to make a name for himself by doing something positive Dembski has, indeed, resorted to trying to garner fame by pulling something down.

Russell · 1 April 2005

The truest words in Dembski's piece, presumably spoken in jest, are the ones about cashing in on ID - how ID has been "very very good to" him.

Think about it. Suppose a Perakh or an Elsberry, or a Wein or a Wilkins... points out an absolutely undeniable error in Dembski's work. His reputation, his job, his career all depend on his ability to deny or obfuscate it.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 1 April 2005

His reputation, his job, his career all depend on his ability to deny or obfuscate it
— Russell

Russell, you missed two strategies. First, there's the option of ignoring criticism. ID cheerleaders can console themselves that the ID advocate is not responding to taunts of critics with this one. Second, there's finessing, where some slight change is made to the material to avoid a particular criticism, without ever making mention of how it was originally incorrect or who helped make it better. See Dembski's "Backlash" article from last year to see the second unscholarly strategy lauded as just the ticket. It's harder to note the first, because you have to track some argument over at least a couple of iterations and be familiar with the work of the unmentioned critic.

Steve Reuland · 1 April 2005

Like most Creationists Berlinski loves the resort to authority and two PhDs in the same person only doubles his fun.
— DavidF

For what it's worth, I don't think that Berlinkski is a creationist. (I really don't know what he is -- like most of them, he just throws bombs without ever trying to come up with meaningful ideas.) But citing authorities is a beloved tactic of crackpots of all stripes. So too is dismissing the vast majority of authorities as too biased to be trustworthy.

Steve Reuland · 1 April 2005

Like most Creationists Berlinski loves the resort to authority and two PhDs in the same person only doubles his fun.
— DavidF

DavidF · 1 April 2005

Steve, That's interesting; I admit that I was only going off the by-line at the end of his article which reads;

David Berlinski is a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

DavidF · 1 April 2005

Steve, Thanks. That's interesting; I admit that I was only going off the by-line at the end of his article which reads;

David Berlinski is a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

So I assume that he's an ID-er - it's hard to recognize that some of these folks actually see some of line between creationism and ID but I stand corrected!

Bill · 1 April 2005

Although I can't imagine that my comment here at PT under "Dembski's Continuing Contradictions", where I ungraciously refered to him as Dumbski, is the source of Berlinski's comment, it still strikes me as a grasped straw.

I confess that I didn't plan to call old Bill "Dumbski", it just sort of came out. More or less random, but directed towards Target Bill. I guess you could call it an example of unintelligent design where I substituted {u} for {e} in the set of [dmskieb].

Furthermore I promise not to call Dumbski Dembski ever again.
I swear on the tail of my ancestor.

Best regards,
Bill Farrell, PhD, Chemistry (a Real Science)

Traffic Demon · 1 April 2005

Dumbski Dumbski Dumbski!

EmmaPeel · 1 April 2005

it is considered clever beyond measure to attack critics of Darwin's theory such as William Dembski by misspelling his name as William Dumbski

As anyone who's ever read David Berlinski's work knows, he alone is the world's expert on what should be considered clever beyond measure...

My poor baffled booby.

snicker

EmmaPeel · 1 April 2005

Credit where due: In this piece Berlinski has doubtless contributed to the creationists' "Big Pile o' Quotes By Evolutionist" with his unsourced claim of a damning admission by some unnamed dean on some unspecified date:

After alluding to Intelligent Design at a faculty cocktail party---Je m'imagine cela---the dean of undergraduate education at the University of Calfornia at Berkeley was amazed and remarked "that colleagues indicated a great deal of sympathy for this alternative to 'Darwinism.'" His amazement notwithstanding, the dean's defense was a model of evasive circumspection. "Although I told them that few, if any, reputable biologists in the country subscribe to intelligent design, I could tell that they were not persuaded. Somewhat dismayed, I turned to other, more congenial issues." Now these are remarkable words, if only because they reveal that a prominent academic regards it as quite natural to be dismayed on those occasions when his views are disputed. They are remarkable as well because they indicate that the dean is persuaded that dissent might in the case of Darwin's theory be ended by an appeal to what "reputable biologists believe."

Getting added to the creationist quote mine is the only known method of ensuring that one's writings live on forever.

David Heddle · 1 April 2005

But citing authorities is a beloved tactic of crackpots of all stripes. So too is dismissing the vast majority of authorities as too biased to be trustworthy

Gotta love it--cite authorities or dismiss 'em. It's your pleasure. Either way you're a crackpot.

Jason Rosenhouse · 1 April 2005

I must admit, I thought Berlinski's piece was pretty clearly not a joke. It was far too similar to unambiguosly serious things he has written in the past.

Great White Wonder · 1 April 2005

cite authorities or dismiss 'em. It's your pleasure. Either way you're a crackpot.

David's having reading comprehension problems again. As for Berlinski

They are remarkable as well because they indicate that the dean is persuaded that dissent might in the case of Darwin's theory be ended by an appeal to what "reputable biologists believe."

With the exception of cranks, fanatics, and a certain subpopulation of script-reciting religious extremists, dissent (or more accurately, "confusion") among adults is most often ended by exactly the sort of information the Dean was attempting to share with his fellow swillers (many of whom have been led to believe that there is a raging "controversy" about evolution among scientsts). Of course, this approach was effective back in the old days before two-bit psychic hustlers were brought onto national TV to recite pleasing scripts on behalf of religious extremists who are losing a meritless legal battle (I wonder if John Edward will be brought on Fox when the Dover Case heats up to testify that he was "unable" to contact a single departed missing link between apes and humans). Perhaps Berlinski subscribes to the Brave New "Worldview" that it's not a question of how many experts agree on a subject, but rather whether any evangelical Christian experts disagree. I have yet to see the Disclaimery Institute citing Charlie Wagner or David Springer's ID musings, although they are no less ridden with cannonball holes than the garbage the D.I. does cite.

bill · 1 April 2005

Here's the "party" reference from 3/14/2005. I don't know why Burlinski is so coy. (OK, yeah, I do know.) http://ls.berkeley.edu/new/deanscorner/0503bh.html

In this contribution, Undergraduate Division Dean Robert Holub discusses 'intelligent design' and the responsibility of educators to promote scientific literacy. At a recent academic cocktail party I had the occasion to speak with two colleagues, both fellow humanists, about various topics in higher education. At one point the conversation turned to the notion of intelligent design, and much to my amazement both colleagues indicated a great deal of sympathy for this alternative to "Darwinism." I was shocked, and although I told them that few, if any, reputable biologists in the country subscribe to intelligent design, I could tell that they were not persuaded. Somewhat dismayed, I turned to other, more congenial issues.

Regards, Bill

Steve Reuland · 1 April 2005

Gotta love it---cite authorities or dismiss 'em. It's your pleasure. Either way you're a crackpot.
— David Heddle

Um, no David, you seem to have missed the rather glaring subtlety. People who cite authorities to make their case ( Dembski holds two PhD's!!!) and then go on to suggest that the vast majority of authorities are too biased to be trusted (they're not about to surrender their ideological allegiances!!!) at the same time are crackpots. You know, there's a slight inconsistency there that I thought you would have picked out.

Andrew · 1 April 2005

Miss a subtle point? Heavens, no! I'm sure that Heddle was just cracking another one of his hilariously unfunny jokes.

Matt Inlay · 1 April 2005

Berlinski: At Internet web sites such as The Panda's Thumb or Talk Reason, where various eminences repair to assure one another that all is well, it is considered clever beyond measure to attack critics of Darwin's theory such as William Dembski by misspelling his name as William Dumbski.

Mark Perakh: Berlinski's assertion about misspelling Dembski's name as Dumbski is not true, at least as regards TalkReason. There is no such misspelling anywhere on TalkReason.

Reed: Earlier Jason Spaceman posted Berlinski's comment to the BW. I did a search of our entries and found no instance of "Dumbski." A google search only turned up three instances in our comments.

So we've established that Berlinski is a liar. Interesting.

Russell · 1 April 2005

Perhaps ... it's not a question of how many experts agree on a subject, but rather whether any evangelical Christian experts disagree. I have yet to see the Disclaimery Institute citing Charlie Wagner or David Springer's ID musings, although they are no less ridden with cannonball holes than the garbage the D.I. does cite.

The tent might be a little roomier than you give it credit for, GWW. Berlinski himself is Jewish and/or agnostic, and ... I was about to point to Jewish/Buddhist Jeffrey Schwartz, who was a prominent DI point man just a few months ago, but I find no mention of him at all on the DI website today. That's strange... I wonder if there's a story there?

John Wilkins · 2 April 2005

Sarkar denies ever making the comment. But then, he would say that, wouldn't he? Personally I think Dembski owes Sarkar 15% of the royalties of all his books.

I confess the fact of humour surprised me, too. It shocked me out of my conversion to ID, and back into sense. Thanks, Bill...

Jason Spaceman · 2 April 2005

From Berlinski's article:

Dumbski indeed. Elsewhere, rhetoric is more measured, even if it conveys arguments no more compelling. After alluding to Intelligent Design at a faculty cocktail party---Je m'imagine cela---the dean of undergraduate education at the University of Calfornia at Berkeley was amazed and remarked "that colleagues indicated a great deal of sympathy for this alternative to 'Darwinism.'"

Berlinski is probably referring to this article: Unintelligent Designs and the Responsibility of Educators. Which was written by Bezerkley undergraduate division dean Robert Holub.

Matt Inlay · 2 April 2005

Look at the title of Berlinski's letter:

Academic Extinction More and More, Evolutionary Theory is Becoming Nothing More than Darwinian Mantra

Is there anything in his letter that supports that title? His letter reads like a series of random anti-Darwinian statements clumped together. I don't even get what the point was, except to pretend like he knows more about science than scientists.

Chip Poirot · 2 April 2005

Both these pieces are clearly jokes (of a sort). That is not to say they are not trying to make a few serious points through the use of humor-but they are intended as humorous. If we are rating humor, Dembski's self parody is actually quite funny, and in a rhetorical sense, quite effective. Berlinski's pieces is an effort at humor, but falls flat.

After reading the comments by the Dean at Berkeley, it struck me that there was no reason to be surprised whatsoever. The Dean is talking about scientific reasoning and yet failing to acknowledge that scientific reasoning is considered passe by large swathes of the humanities and even by some in the social sciences.

Add to that, the fact that many agnostics and liberal christians, or non-fundamentalist advocates of other religions may be loosely sympathetic to a form of what I like to call "weak ID" or what some others call "generic creationism". In my view, one can however believe in weak ID or generic creationism and still be very much a Darwinist.

Few people however have seriously investigated what has come to be called ID (The strong version) and thus don't understand that it is not just an argument for generic creationism. And then there is, not only hostility to any privileged claim to knowledge for science in large swathes of the humanities and some corners of the social sciences, but overt hostility to Neo-Darwinism. It should come as no surprise that many humanists would express skepticism about Darwinism. After all, it's "just a paradigm" and "just a different mode of discourse" don't you know.

Arne Langsetmo · 2 April 2005

But citing authorities is a beloved tactic of crackpots of all stripes. So too is dismissing the vast majority of authorities as too biased to be trustworthy

Gotta love it---cite authorities or dismiss 'em. It's your pleasure. Either way you're a crackpot.
—

Your logic is wrong, here, David: IF crackpot THEN (cite AND ignore) authorities Not:

IF (cite AND ignore) authorities THEN crackput

Certainly not:

IF cite authorities THEN crackput OR IF ignore authorities THEN crackput

... although the last one may have a grain of truth. HTH. Cheers,

Engineer-Poet · 2 April 2005

It should come as no surprise that many humanists would express skepticism about Darwinism. After all, it's "just a paradigm" and "just a different mode of discourse" don't you know.
— Chip Poirot

You meant to write "post-modernists" or "social constructionists" rather than "humanists". Didn't you? (Engineering is a profoundly human endeavor, based on science... and has no room for "different ways of knowing" or other know-nothing academic twaddle.)

Chip Poirot · 2 April 2005

I was using the term "humanist" in its more general sense-one who studies the humanities. Thus many humanists are post-modernists.

shiva · 3 April 2005

Arthur Koestler the communist-turned-socialist-turned-humanist criticised "Darwin" and Skinner and made a case for intelligent design (he didn't of course call it that). Berlinski seems to have done a quick review of Koestler's final book, "Janus a Summing Up" before penning this 'paper'. The clubbing of Darwin with Skinner could be more that n coincidence. Maybe some atheists and agnostics end up making room for an "all pervading power" or some such thing, in their late years.

Garrett · 4 April 2005

You people make me laugh.

Mark Perakh · 4 April 2005

Since the thread about DI's new blog has been closed for further comments, I am posting my comment here.

The famous 19th century Russian writer Saltykov-Schedrin wrote a satirical novel deriding the Russian bureaucracy. One of his "heroes," a high-ranking bureaucrat came across some publications about the USA. He did not like it, so he wrote a resolution across the page: "Close down America!"

Mr. Paul Nelson's order to the Panda's Thumb team to reinstate Davison's rants and to apologize to Davison reminds the order by the Russian bureaucrat of Saltykov's novel. That bureaucrat, though, had enough sense to realize that he had no means to close down America, so, having a second thought, he added, "However, this seems to be not up to us." Unlike the Russian bureaucrat, Paul Nelson seems to have not realized that it is not up to him to decide how the PT team should handle this blog.

To start with, it is amusing that Mr. Nelson feels authorized to express indignation regarding disemvoweling Davison's comments given Nelson's recent unconvincing attempt to justify the complete prohibition of comments on the new weblog maintained by Mr. Nelson and his friends at DI. Unlike that new blog, the policy of PT is highly tolerant regarding comments. Unfortunately some people who are hostile to PT have been abusing this blog's tolerance and systematically tried to disrupt the normal discussions on this blog. One of the worst offenders has been Davison.

Mr. Nelson, before expressing his sympathy for Davison, should have familiarized himself with the history of Davison's behavior on PT. Davison has been extremely rude, ceaselessly trying to insult the PT team and those commenters whose opinions differ from Davison's. Lately he started resorting to posting the same comments three times in a raw, thus cluttering the threads with his diatribes. He routinely resorts to name calling; he has endlessly and shamelessly been acclaiming his own theories as great breakthroughs in biology, and constantly posting ruminations beyond the topics of the threads.

So far the PT team has displayed a good measure of tolerance as most of Davison's comments have been allowed to stay despite their often offending and destructive character.

Everything must have limits, though, so finally some members of the PT team were forced to do something to curtail Davison's escapades. Since Davison has consistently ignored warnings and appeals to modify his behavior, one of the PT contributors felt it necessary to apply such a relatively mild method of defense against Davison's shenanigans as disemvoweling some of his comments and dumping some others to the Bathroom Wall. Although I have not myself resorted to such measures, there is no doubt these measures have been fully justified by Davison's behavior.

While the PT team knows well what kind of a person Davison is, the image of Mr. Nelson until now was as of a nice person, with whom a reasonable exchange of views could be conducted even if his views are mostly contrary to those of the PT team. However, Mr. Nelson's sudden outburst of sympathy for such an offender as Davison while issuing orders to the PT team in a rather amusingly categorical manner makes one wonder whether he indeed is such a nice person as we were led to believe.

Great White Wonder · 4 April 2005

Russell

The tent might be a little roomier than you give it credit for, GWW. Berlinski himself is Jewish and/or agnostic, and . . .

Poor Berlinski. Maybe his anti-science piffpaffery is the first symptom of an impending switchover. More likely he suffers simply from an excessive lust for the spotlight like his fellow travellers at the Discovery Institute. Where talent fails, controversy beckons ...

Russell · 4 April 2005

Mr. Nelson's sudden outburst of sympathy for such an offender as Davison while issuing orders to the PT team in a rather amusingly categorical manner makes one wonder whether he indeed is such a nice person as we were led to believe.

I have to say, I was surprised. Davison wrote:

I have been banned for life from [EvC, "brainstorms," Fringe Sciences] tolerated at Talk Origins and ignored at ARN.

We're too nice.

John A. Davison · 4 April 2005

There is neither any need nor any rationale for being nice when confronted with the kind of mindless ideological bigotry that has always characterized Panda's Thumb, EvC and ISCID's "brainstorms." We are dealing with the age old conflict of how man is to regard his position in the universe. Is he a monumental accident as the Darwinians so arrogantly presume or is he the terminal product of a planned process as I and others happen to believe.

"To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."
Pierre Grasse, page 107

John A. Davison

John A. Davison · 4 April 2005

The reason that I have had to post three times in a row is simply due to the fact that I have been repeatedly blocked from posting and for no other reason. There is obviously more than one way to skin the cat named Davison.

Just tonight after composing a long post on PvM's thread I discovered that nothing happened when I poked the post button. Isn't that precious? I am also now unable to scroll all the way down and then respond on the Bathroom Wall. Is that just one more manifestation of the shabby tactics that have come to characterize Panda's Thumb? Those already include disemvoweling, summary deletion and disposal into your latreen known appropriately as the Bathroom Wall. What other tactics does Panda's Thumb have at its disposal to deal with someone who has challenged their sacred cow? Surely you have others or is lifetime bannishment your only last ditch alternative as it was both at EvC and "brainstorms." Use your imagination. I don't have to use mine. Your methods and motives are as clear as glass.

John A. Davison

Great White Wonder · 4 April 2005

John, I've always wondered how you managed to snag the "Incredible Sunday" gig with Tracey Gold while Cathy Lee and Fran were left to scrounge around in the dumpsters of ABC's back lot. Exactly how did you swing that deal -- and how did you manage to blow that sweet 7 pm Sunday spot so quickly? That must have been a rough time for you.

Rusty Catheter · 7 April 2005

Re JAD in 23317,

The design is not that good. The results are not much more than present genetic manipulations can achieve. JAD's Intelligent Designers are no more skillful than I expect to be capable of in my lifetime. They may have been visiting aliens, or a previous human civilisation that hid its middens. Or they may in fact be so poor as to be replaceable by a stochastic process. If he is proposing such Designers then the question all too rapidly turns to how they in turn evolved. Until one of their middens turns up its not worth worrying about.

JAD is very concerned about our godlessnes, but who would we have for such a role? Not the almost competant designers. No, in the persistent absence of a deity, godless is as telling a strike as accusing us of bipedalism.

Az.
.

Gil Gaudia, Ph.D. · 12 April 2005

Re: "Berlinski's Lament" As the old farmer used to say, "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

Michael · 21 April 2005

I am just a lay person in the field of science, with only advance biology, a chemistry class in high school and college chemistry. Plus 3rd year calculus, differential equations. I opted for computer science.

One of the things that always stood out to me during college was the arrogance of professors and of computer programmers. I myself was not that accomplished as the top in the class. Therefore I was naturally more humble about my skills.

Having browsed PT now from a poor simpleton's perspective such as many on here might see me. I see its still in high fashion to not only be arrogant, but its even better yet to cut down with sarcasm anyone who might offer alternatives against the all knowing, all fearful, all mighty Man-God of Evolution "THEORY".

Frankly, it is the exact type of conversations on here that overlook the
need for serious scholarly debate. You may view certain people of Creationism and ID as fools. It is certainly your right to opinion and free speech.

But what most of you on this site continue to be blind to is the stifling of any reasonable debate in professional journals and in our schools. The fate of one man's life at the Smithsonian is all one needs to see that science is not at all open to free discusions of scientific ideas. The truth brought to light by sites like this with arrogant comments and the treatment of professionals within your fields who do not share your view show that you indeed represent the 21st century equivalent of Spanish Inquisition without the burning at the stake.

But dare anyone let an article be put in a scholarly magazine and everyone shuns the person, he loses his office and his future is in question.

I always thought men of science were reasonable and not political. It seems even scientist are human. Maybe there is some truth to the lowly ape that most on here believe our ancestors to be. If that is the case, then you've proven your point by being the brunt of the masses who refuse to listen to the minority without hitting them over the head with a club.

Maybe all it takes is just one tooth? That of Nebraska man? Does anyone care to explain that bit of evolutionary history to me? Just think of me as your normal every day Joe with no Chemistry Phd - da "real science" and explain to me this evo fundamentalist claim.

The truth is there is bias everywhere I look. Whether it is on the evolution side, the ID side, etc., very few men use objective criteria fairly all the time.

What I see here as on most sites is not clear evidence of a scientific theory, but just a bunch of bravado. In my search all over the internet what I find is a lack of clear fundamental information and science for the proof of evolution by transition fossils. I've looked at Talk.origins. Much of the talk on the site is like most books on evolution. It is simply guess-timates of whatmightbes.
What once was true of a particular branch on the tree 10 years ago is not true today. What once was considered a transitional fossil 5 years ago is not not part of that phyla.

Frankly, if I wrote programming code the way evolutionist go about their work, I'd be fired.

Math is a real science, its the most purest in my simple estimation. And while Newton's theories may have had some slight changes over the years. The basics still hold true for most calculations in our 'real world'.

I see comments about Dembski's Phd's as being rather trivial and that his work is just on pulling down evolution. And that he must rely on his assertions or his career is over. This is simple fodder of such noble minds. Dembski has been and is a man of science just as anyone else commenting here. From what I can see, he points to many areas of discussion on the subject and not all are in his favor. In fact, its how I found this site. So, he doesn't seem like some holy zealot out to throw the scientist back in the forest with Merlin the Magician. Instead, he's stating, look at the evidence, here are my supporters, my detractors, lets debate it openly and with good measure.

You know what 'fellow real scientist'. The real truth is that the whole of evolutionary science is the one that can surely tumble and fall. Talk about the MEGA-MILLIONS involved in the tidy evolutionary industry, thats where humpty dumpty will fall, not Dembski. He's looking for real answers and his future is secure.

Whether you disagree with him or not the kind of rhetorical blather thats taking place on here certainly does not bode well for the future of evolutionist if all they can do is knock down people from jobs, keep them from publishing in journals and then flippantly catergorize them as 'not real scientist'. It shows as true a bias as any I've seen.

I hope that what we see in the future is good discussion and debates and scientific journals that allow learned men of science to voice their opinions and ideas in a 'free' country. The science will stand and fall on its merits as to scientific method, not ridicule and deragatory comments.

For all the blustering about on here of Phd's and "real science", no one, not one person on here can state unequivocally with scientific proof how intelligent life formed here on this 3rd rock from the sun, without a doubt as to 100% accuracy through scientific methods.

You all can only theorize at best possible scenarios. As for aliens, creators, etc., it seems that I've seen just as many evolutionist posit such ideas as 'alien' seedings.

The truth, whether it be by a Creator, by a meteor rock, or by spontaneous generation in a swirling pool of muck and grime is right now all complete speculation on the scientific communties part.

For any of you on here to say anything differently is a bold face lie.

With that final statement, I leave you with this. If it took billions of years to create an intelligent human being, how long will it take us in this world today to create more intelligent beings such as ourselves?

In a scant recorded 6000 year known history of written mens accomplishments, we are at the frontier of cloning ourselves and much more in the future. To think that another intellient being outside the limits of our known universe could not have created intelligence is to deny plausible scenarios and to limit creative thinking to questions that everyone ask themselves every day. Thankfully Einstein did not listen to his critics and stop his work. I'm hoping that Dembski will listen to the good critiques put forth by sincere scientist and then utilize them to solidfy his work. Just as evolutionist should see the challenge of ID as good grist for the mill to sharpen their science.

Science I thought was about open-minded discovery. To discover all that we are and can be. If it leads to unexpected answers and paths, or if good men with good motives are raising unexpected questions which cannot be easily answered. Then it should all the well more give us reason to come together in good science to debate the issues upon merits of said science, not historical patterns of bigotry on either side of theism or atheism. Objective scientist should be able to put aside those issues and fairly look at all fair-minded questions and theories brought forth by qualified scientific individuals who endeavor to find the truth.

Stop pointing fingers on both sides and instead look at each others merits and weakness with objectivity.

Certainly I have shown my bias. But I hope some of what I say strikes a chord with some of you on here. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing pictures of artist drawings. I have kept an open mind all my life. But frankly, the artist drawings of what 'might' have been just does not provide me with good proof of the theory.
I need more and deserve more considering the millions being spent for such endeavors by our universities and schools.

Math gives me 2 + 2 = 4. Chemisty gives me H2O, Astronomy gives me galaxies and supernovas, Biology gives me virus vaccinations, medicine gives me heart transplants, geology gives me oil deposits, architecture... etc., but as far as I can see evolution does not give me anything of significant value. It does not show me that a HIV turns into a real bug. Biology, Chemistry and medicine research all show me to look for virus transformations - but that it will still be a virus, nothing more.

If you can show me the benefits of evolution - the actual financial benefits of what the theory has done for men, then I might be more impressed. But as far as I can see, all discoveries made have been research done on all scientific levels that can be and are done on a daily basis without any contribution of evolution theory. I don't have to believe I came from an ape to research a better technique to stop heart attacks. I do not even need evolution to tell me that I might try transplanting animal organs into humans.

Maybe I'm missing the big piture here, but it sure seems very small to me.

Wayne Francis · 29 April 2005

My blog reader missed this comment because it was made over 7 days after the last comment but it got picked up on my end of month run so I decided to address it. I'll assume you where not trolling with your post on Panda's Thumb Comment # 26088 Let me address things in the order they are in your post

I am just a lay person in the field of science, with only advance biology, a chemistry class in high school and college chemistry. Plus 3rd year calculus, differential equations. I opted for computer science.
— Michael

Good luck. I hope you enjoy your career.

One of the things that always stood out to me during college was the arrogance of professors and of computer programmers. I myself was not that accomplished as the top in the class. Therefore I was naturally more humble about my skills.
— Michael

Yes, I agree. Being in computers for most of the last 17 years now I see the same thing. I also see arrogance in almost every other profession out there. Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Office managers, etc. IT isn't just limited to white collar either. You'll find in your career in IT that there are many arrogant people out there. If you are going to try to be a BA or programmer you'll probably find yourself in communication with the client a lot. It will be your job to absorb all they know about their job. You'll be in a interesting position because you will probably end up knowing at least a portion of their job better then they do. You'll find when you question some of the methods they will get defensive. It is human nature. Learn to let them blow steam or even better learn to challenge their beliefs without making them defensive. Something you didn't do very well here in this post.

Having browsed PT now from a poor simpleton's perspective such as many on here might see me. I see its still in high fashion to not only be arrogant, but its even better yet to cut down with sarcasm anyone who might offer alternatives against the all knowing, all fearful, all mighty Man-God of Evolution "THEORY".
— Michael

Yes you do. Depending on how long you have been watching you'll notice that a lot of that is directed as intelligent, not I don't equate intelligent with not having crazy ideas, people that ask questions or make statements. Then to be shown that said statements are false or why the question doesn't give the result that they think it would or desire it would.

Frankly, it is the exact type of conversations on here that overlook the need for serious scholarly debate. You may view certain people of Creationism and ID as fools. It is certainly your right to opinion and free speech.
— Michael

Yes, just as this post against most of us is your right.

But what most of you on this site continue to be blind to is the stifling of any reasonable debate in professional journals and in our schools.
— Michael

Most scientists do not want to stifle real research. Most journals have no problem publishing controversial papers. Actually they love them as long as the science is sound.

The fate of one man's life at the Smithsonian is all one needs to see that science is not at all open to free discusions of scientific ideas. The truth brought to light by sites like this with arrogant comments and the treatment of professionals within your fields who do not share your view show that you indeed represent the 21st century equivalent of Spanish Inquisition without the burning at the stake. But dare anyone let an article be put in a scholarly magazine and everyone shuns the person, he loses his office and his future is in question.
— Michael

I think you need to look at the fact because what you posted above is not accurate of the situation. I refer you to http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000786.html 1. Sternberg did not loose his position as editor because of publishing Meyer's paper He bypassed the normal review processes upon his last opportunity to do so. 2. Sternberg did not loose anything at the Smithsonian. He was asked, before the publishing of Meyer's paper, to move offices with 16 other people because of a reorganization of space that was going on. He was offered Sternberg new accommodation that was identical to the one before, a standard research associate workspace, and Sternberg declined and asked to be move to a completely different part of the museum. This request by Sternberg was approved and he still has that workspace he requested. 3. Dr Sternbergs is still a Research Associate at the Museum of Natural History including his workspace, keys, rights, and 24/7 access. 4. He has never been an employee at the museum. This is standard of the Research Associates and he's hasn't lost anything in that regards either. I'm assuming you are going off of what Kilnghoffer has said. If you read the post I have referred you to you'll see that what he states is completely inaccurate of the real situation. Any "shuns" Sternberg is getting is his from his abuse of power in bypassing the normal procedures to publish a paper that wouldn't have made it into said journal even if it was based on sound science. The fact that the article is totally off topic is 1 problem. The fact that Sternberg knowingly bypassed the procedures of said journal to get the paper published, on his way out the door, is another. The fact that the paper was full of problems is a third. I might have had a little different reaction if Sternberg did this at a different point in his role as editor but he did it just before he was leaving knowing it would not effect his position as editor.

I always thought men of science were reasonable and not political. It seems even scientist are human. Maybe there is some truth to the lowly ape that most on here believe our ancestors to be. If that is the case, then you've proven your point by being the brunt of the masses who refuse to listen to the minority without hitting them over the head with a club.
— Michael

Actually Meyer has been listened to a lot. Even if he doesn't publish ID material in journals he's listened to. He is listen to, provided with rebuttals, etc. The problem is the "minority" in this case is consistently shown to be making false statements and errors in logic over and over.

Maybe all it takes is just one tooth? That of Nebraska man? Does anyone care to explain that bit of evolutionary history to me?
— Michael

I'll refer you to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html note the last paragraph

Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not incompetent or dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach).
— Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

Just think of me as your normal every day Joe with no Chemistry Phd - da "real science" and explain to me this evo fundamentalist claim. The truth is there is bias everywhere I look. Whether it is on the evolution side, the ID side, etc., very few men use objective criteria fairly all the time.
— Michael

True but the evidence does point to evolution. ID is so broad of a concept that you can say all data points to it. Thus it is not a good scientific until ID can produce some testable hypothesis.

What I see here as on most sites is not clear evidence of a scientific theory, but just a bunch of bravado. In my search all over the internet what I find is a lack of clear fundamental information and science for the proof of evolution by transition fossils. I've looked at Talk.origins. Much of the talk on the site is like most books on evolution. It is simply guess-timates of whatmightbes.
— Michael

So you can look at all the transitional fossils we have of Equids from when they where about the size of a dog to present day species and say that it is all "guess-timates" or "whatmightbes"? We have transitional fossils for every change of feature from that dog like creature that hunted in the woods to present day horses. For a summary I refer you to http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage03.html for some good cyber shots of the equids fossil record http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm for indepth discussion of equid evolution I refer you to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html Every day we see more and more data supporting these "transitions". There will always be gaps. Its like me saying to you that you can't prove to me that 1 transitions to 2 because you can't provide any transitional numbers. When you show me 1.5 I could then say "HA! now you have to prove to me that there are transitions between 1 and 1.5 AND 1.5 and 2. You have twice as much to prove now. BTW this is escentially what many creationist say when they state there is no transition fossils and one is found. Another interesting transitional fossil that was predicted before it was found is the Ambulocetus natans. A whale caught in the act of having hind limbs that would not be of much use for they would not be able to perform duties of terestrial walking. I refer you to http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_leviathan.html

What once was true of a particular branch on the tree 10 years ago is not true today. What once was considered a transitional fossil 5 years ago is not not part of that phyla.
— Michael

Exactly, this is science not sticking to "dogma" but revising its understanding based on new information. You can't complain that scientist hold on to ideas even in light of new ideas and information then make this complaint.

Frankly, if I wrote programming code the way evolutionist go about their work, I'd be fired.
— Michael

Really? So if 2 years down the track you find a bug in your code you'll leave it in because if you fixed it you'd be fired? If your understanding of some business rules changed because of new scenarios that have been exposed and you changed your code to reflect the new business rules then you would be fired? Man I wouldn't like to work for your boss. Most IT systems change do to new information that wasn't realised during the initial design stages. Those IT systems that don't change the design might do what they where asked to do but not what the customer really wants and thus are a failure.

Math is a real science, its the most purest in my simple estimation. And while Newton's theories may have had some slight changes over the years. The basics still hold true for most calculations in our 'real world'.
— Michael

Yup and much of what Darwin said still holds true for evolution. Math has proofs, science has theories. Most people accept this and don't try to compare apples to oranges.

I see comments about Dembski's Phd's as being rather trivial and that his work is just on pulling down evolution. And that he must rely on his assertions or his career is over. This is simple fodder of such noble minds. Dembski has been and is a man of science just as anyone else commenting here. From what I can see, he points to many areas of discussion on the subject and not all are in his favor. In fact, its how I found this site. So, he doesn't seem like some holy zealot out to throw the scientist back in the forest with Merlin the Magician. Instead, he's stating, look at the evidence, here are my supporters, my detractors, lets debate it openly and with good measure.
— Michael

Actually Dembski is arrogant like you are blaming others to be. He doesn't take hardly and of the feedback that is given to him and modify his hypotheses. If he keeps making bold assertions that are so easily shown to be logically false then do you really expect people to hold him in such high regard?

You know what 'fellow real scientist'. The real truth is that the whole of evolutionary science is the one that can surely tumble and fall. Talk about the MEGA-MILLIONS involved in the tidy evolutionary industry, thats where humpty dumpty will fall, not Dembski.
— Michael

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

He's looking for real answers and his future is secure.
— Michael

Really? I thought he's taking a philosophical view point and trying to build up some fancy concepts of formulas that he hopes will fly over most people head and they'll take it on his word that it implies what he says it will. To date I haven't seen his work be applied to anything really. I have seen him make some bold assertions then when asked about the details him just say that he expected others to have flushed out the details. I don't see him doing any real science. I don't know what you mean by "his future is secure". His future is secure with those that hold the same phylosophical view points and want his hypothesis to be right and will argue that it is without having one idea about the hypothesis he's presenting.

Whether you disagree with him or not the kind of rhetorical blather thats taking place on here certainly does not bode well for the future of evolutionist if all they can do is knock down people from jobs
— Michael

I'm assuming you are again talking about Sternberg and we have already gone over your misunderstanding of this situation.

keep them from publishing in journals and then flippantly catergorize them as 'not real scientist'.
— Michael

Only thing that is kept from being published in reputable journals is papers that should not be published because they, when exposed to peer review, are shown to be faulty. Except for when people like Sternberg bypass the review process to have papers published. Bypassing the review process hurt that paper because now its out there for everyone to see with all it errors. If it went through the review process and really did have some science behind it then it would have been flushed out and had the errors removed and become a more solid paper. Well...in the case of this paper I'm not sure what would have been left if all the errors where removed and if they where corrected the paper probably would not have come to the same conclusion.

It shows as true a bias as any I've seen.
— Michael

Yup, bias to trueth and knowledge shouldn't be a bad thing.

I hope that what we see in the future is good discussion and debates and scientific journals that allow learned men of science to voice their opinions and ideas in a 'free' country.
— Michael

Journals are not for opinions unless said opinions are backed up by data and better explanations for the data can not be found. If you want opinions like that goto the dear Abby column.

The science will stand and fall on its merits as to scientific method, not ridicule and deragatory comments.
— Michael

Exactly, and the "science" in the ID papers so far has no real basis in the "scientific method". The "riducle and deregatory comments" stems from the fact that the scientific community is getting sick of showing the same hypotheses, that are not well thought out, are riddled with huge errors in logic and often are just a source of disinformation. It is the same as if I walked into your church every Sunday and yelled at the top of my lungs "God does not really exist" and the people in church say "do you have any proof" and I start going on vaguely referencing things that just don't logically make sense. After a few Sundays, if not just the first Sunday, I would no longer be welcome in that church. In this regard science is much more tolerant then the average "creationist".

For all the blustering about on here of Phd's and "real science", no one, not one person on here can state unequivocally with scientific proof how intelligent life formed here on this 3rd rock from the sun, without a doubt as to 100% accuracy through scientific methods.
— Michael

This is just the type of statement that sets all scientists off. You are asking for absolute truth and even in mathematics there is none. For you can not prove that our existence is real thus 1+1=2 could just be some artefact that you perceive to be true but since reality doesn't exists then 1+1!=2.

You all can only theorize at best possible scenarios.
— Michael

This is what science is about.

As for aliens, creators, etc., it seems that I've seen just as many evolutionist posit such ideas as 'alien' seedings.
— Michael

Different definitions for "alien". ID will say "alien" as in an intelligence. When scientist talk about "alien seeding" they are not referring to an intelligence but the fact that the causal factor of the origin of life on Earth may not be of terrestrial origins. IE that it occurred else where in the universe but that it probably still has a natural explanation. This of coarse still does not prove/disprove "God" because that is not the goal here. The goal is to answer the question of "HOW" it occurred via natural mechanisms. Its creationist that think "God" can not/would not work through the laws that "God" gave the universe. Another way to put it is do you think it is 1 smarter to write a program to do what you want by itself. 2 smarter to write a program to do most of what you want but you need to occasionally mess with the data and code to do what you want. I personally try to build into my systems all the business logic they need to do the job. If I'm back doing things and tinkering with data in the database then that means I didn't think things through enough to begin with. Are you ready to make that statement about your "God" that "God" wasn't smart enough to plan things to work without "God" having to constantly intervene with "God" creation?

The truth, whether it be by a Creator, by a meteor rock, or by spontaneous generation in a swirling pool of muck and grime is right now all complete speculation on the scientific communties part.
— Michael

Actually there are lots of research going on in terms of abiogenesis. Major advancements are being made. I predict that within 50 years we'll understand the language of DNA to be able to build very unique new forms of life, of course with the help of computers. I predict that bio-chemistry will be able to produce spontaneously generated life. We know a lot now. Their is much more to learn but to say "complete speculation" is to just ignore the mountain of research that is being and has been done in this existing area.

For any of you on here to say anything differently is a bold face lie.
— Michael

One must look in the mirror at this point.

With that final statement, I leave you with this. If it took billions of years to create an intelligent human being, how long will it take us in this world today to create more intelligent beings such as ourselves?
— Michael

Interesting question. But depends on what you mean. Do you mean a totally new life form? I rather expect that we'll start controlling our own evolution. I don't doubt that it will happen. I'm sure many scientist agree with me too. As for an exact date I would need a tighter definition of what you are looking for.

In a scant recorded 6000 year known history of written mens accomplishments
— Michael

I, and many anthropologists would agree, that the history of men extends back way beyond 6,000 years. Depending on what you consider "written" we can cut it off at various points but men's accomplishments are reviled by more then just mere writings. Might be hard for biblical literalists to comprehend as they take the "written word" as the authority, yet they often disregard the actual historical evidence how their "written word" has changed over the last 4,000 years or so.

we are at the frontier of cloning ourselves and much more in the future.
— Michael

Yes, an exciting time we live in with lots of decision to make on where we want to go. For example should we knowingly create a life like Lucy. Not Human but a fair bit advanced from the other great apes. Is that ethical. If not is there any point from Lucy to present day humans that would be acceptable? Just because science can doesn't mean it should. I think we'll need to reflect on things like is it bad for humans to clone a chimp for research any more then it is for us to clone a human for research. Is there a point we say it is or is not valid and why.

To think that another intellient being outside the limits of our known universe could not have created intelligence is to deny plausible scenarios and to limit creative thinking to questions that everyone ask themselves every day.
— Michael

Science isn't saying this. Its biblical creationists that say even their "intelligent being outside the limits of our universe" aka "God" could not have created intelligence without constantly fiddling with the development of life.

Thankfully Einstein did not listen to his critics and stop his work.
— Michael

Can you refer to what you think Einstein did that would equate to one of what the IDers is doing?

I'm hoping that Dembski will listen to the good critiques put forth by sincere scientist and then utilize them to solidfy his work. Just as evolutionist should see the challenge of ID as good grist for the mill to sharpen their science.
— Michael

I think we are getting to the point that the Dembskis and Meyers are not helping sharpen others science but just causing them to have to say the same things over and over. If anything its dulling their science just as wastefully cutting cardboard with your kitchen knife dulls the blade. It takes scientists time to go over their work and that time probably could be better spent doing something else. Problem is if it isn't done then the misinformation spreads as the whole Sternberg incident and most of the clasic creationist claims like "no transitional fossils" shows.

Science I thought was about open-minded discovery.
— Michael

It is. Do you think Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, Behe or any of the others are really open to anything? How many of the leading figures in ID have signed statements that include articles like this

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
— Statement on biblical Inerrancy

Then ask yourself how "open-minded" these individuals must be.

To discover all that we are and can be. If it leads to unexpected answers and paths, or if good men with good motives are raising unexpected questions which cannot be easily answered. Then it should all the well more give us reason to come together in good science to debate the issues upon merits of said science, not historical patterns of bigotry on either side of theism or atheism.
— Michael

Ok as soon as IDers have more then "At some point in time, some where, some being did some thing we don't know anything about to create life as we se it" then we'll have a good debate started.

Objective scientist should be able to put aside those issues and fairly look at all fair-minded questions and theories brought forth by qualified scientific individuals who endeavor to find the truth.
— Michael

Don't you mean "find the Truth?

Stop pointing fingers on both sides and instead look at each others merits and weakness with objectivity.
— Michael

Thought that is what most scientist are doing. Its just ID science has almost no merits scientifically and lots of weaknesses. The fact that IDers don't like to hear that is not a problem. If you want to say scientist are finger pointing when showing this then I'm sorry but that is the way it is.

Certainly I have shown my bias. But I hope some of what I say strikes a chord with some of you on here. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing pictures of artist drawings. I have kept an open mind all my life. But frankly, the artist drawings of what 'might' have been just does not provide me with good proof of the theory.
— Michael

Maybe you should stop reading popular science mags and reading actual journals and go to see actual fossil collections etc.

I need more and deserve more considering the millions being spent for such endeavors by our universities and schools.
— Michael

Agreed, but since even the CSC say there is nothing to teach about ID at this point don't you think scientists are justified saying that it should not be taught as science?

Math gives me 2 + 2 = 4. Chemisty gives me H2O, Astronomy gives me galaxies and supernovas, Biology gives me virus vaccinations, medicine gives me heart transplants, geology gives me oil deposits, architecture . . . etc., but as far as I can see evolution does not give me anything of significant value.
— Michael

Watch out that vaccination you got from biology is based on evolutionary biology!

It does not show me that a HIV turns into a real bug.
— Michael

Thank "God" because no one thinks HIV will ever turn directly into a "real bug". It may change form so as to not kill off its host. It may then actually form a symbiotic relationship with said host. Said host may acquire and accumulate mutations and eventually change into a new species. Hmmm We've seen new species form in our life time....so I guess that is already proven. How long you want to wait for HIV to turn into something else will dictate the form the new species will take. The longer you wait the more different the new species will probably be.

Biology, Chemistry and medicine research all show me to look for virus transformations - but that it will still be a virus, nothing more.
— Michael

Ok, how about when a virus forms a symbiotic relationship with a host. Is still a virus? Bacteria evolving may still be bacteria but there can a larger difference between 2 bacteria's then there are between Humans and Chimps. So really we are still primates right. Heck lets move the line....we are still mammals so no real difference between us and dogs. Again we can see bacteria that are more different then humans and dogs.

If you can show me the benefits of evolution - the actual financial benefits of what the theory has done for men, then I might be more impressed. But as far as I can see, all discoveries made have been research done on all scientific levels that can be and are done on a daily basis without any contribution of evolution theory.
— Michael

There are to many to list but. New species of plants, disease resistant organisms, plants that produce their own pesticides, plants that produce drugs that where normally produced synthetically, the search for cures of cancer, the search for cures of genetic defects, etc. The list is VERY long.

I don't have to believe I came from an ape to research a better technique to stop heart attacks.
— Michael

No you do not. But if the scientists reject this idea then most of the assumptions they make in their research has to be thrown out. Then they are left with Scientist A "Well what if we try this" Scientist B "Why do you think that will work" Scientist A "I don't know but we have to try something" Scientist B "Sounds like a good of a reason as any. Lets do it!"

I do not even need evolution to tell me that I might try transplanting animal organs into humans.
— Michael

Yup you don't. But again do you want a doctor to roll a dice to decide what animal he/she will get the heart from to transplant into you. The decision on what species we can use for what is decided on by evolutionary science. They don't just say Doctor A "Hey Bob what animal should we use for this patient" Doctor B "I don't know....try the Equus caballus heart. We haven't tried that one before" Doctor A "Thanks Bob, maybe this patient will end up as strong as a horse!" Doctor B "HAHAHAHAHA that's a funny one"

Maybe I'm missing the big piture here, but it sure seems very small to me.
— Michael

Nope you seem to be missing not only the big picture but just most of the relevant picture.

Timothy Scriven · 16 May 2005

Wayne, if you are willing to write out all of the above on a blog which will not, in the long run matter ( swept onto the same pile as all the crackpot fighters of all time, those unsung heroes) , you have no life.

By the way, someone said that mathematicians have proofs. I disagree, I believe mathematical ideas are just theories like any other, because they are only tentative and can be rejected at a later date. In a prefect world they might not be theories, but then, we do not live in such a world.