IDists are from Mars...

Posted 4 November 2008 by Nick Matzke

Over on UD Denyse O'Leary is complimenting Alfred Russel Wallace for his 1907 critique of Percival Lowell's claims that Mars was inhabited by intelligent, canal-building Martians. She says:

What made Wallace so unpopular compared to Darwin is that he insisted that in science, evidence matters. Carl Sagan-style proclamations like "They're out there! How could we be so arrogant as to think we are all alone!" do not become science just because they are proclaimed by scientists.

First, the idea that Wallace was ever wildly unpopular is ridiculous, he was a grand old man of evolution and British science when he died. Second, if Wallace insisted that evidence matters and O'Leary likes this, then I guess she considers this a strong vote for common ancestry and natural selection, both of which Wallace defended as vigorously as anyone. We evolutionists win I guess. Third, let's have a look at what Wallace actually said about Lowell's hypothesis that intelligent designers were the best explanations for the patterns he thought he saw on Mars:

The one great feature of Mars which led Mr. Lowell to adopt the view of its being inhabited by a race of highly intelligent beings, and, with ever-increasing discovery to uphold this theory to the present time, is undoubtedly that of the so-called 'canals'--their straightness, their enormous length, their great abundance, and their extension over the planet's whole surface from one polar snow-cap to the other. The very immensity of this system, and its constant growth and extension during fifteen [[p. 103]] years of persistent observation, have so completely taken possession of his mind, that, after a very hasty glance at analogous facts and possibilities, he has declared them to be 'non-natural'--therefore to be works of art--therefore to necessitate the presence of highly intelligent beings who have designed and constructed them. This idea has coloured or governed all his writings on the subject. The innumerable difficulties which it raises have been either ignored, or brushed aside on the flimsiest evidence. As examples, he never even discusses the totally inadequate water-supply for such world-wide irrigation, or the extreme irrationality of constructing so vast a canal-system the waste from which, by evaporation, when exposed to such desert conditions as he himself describes, would use up ten times the probable supply. Again, he urges the 'purpose' displayed in these 'canals.' Their being all so straight, all describing great circles of the 'sphere,' all being so evidently arranged (as he thinks) either to carry water to some 'oasis' 2000 miles away, or to reach some arid region far over the equator in the opposite hemisphere! But he never considers the difficulties this implies. Everywhere these canals run for thousands of miles across waterless deserts, forming a system and indicating a purpose, the wonderful perfection of which he is never tired of dwelling upon (but which I myself can nowhere perceive). [[p. 104]] Yet he never even attempts to explain how the Martians could have lived before this great system was planned and executed, or why they did not first utilise and render fertile the belt of land adjacent to the limits of the polar snows--why the method of irrigation did not, as with all human arts, begin gradually, at home, with terraces and channels to irrigate the land close to the source of the water. How, with such a desert as he describes three-fourths of Mars to be, did the inhabitants ever get to know anything of the equatorial regions and its needs, so as to start right away to supply those needs? All this, to my mind, is quite opposed to the idea of their being works of art, and altogether in favour of their being natural features of a globe as peculiar in origin and internal structure as it is in its surface-features. The explanation I have given, though of course hypothetical, is founded on known cosmical and terrestrial facts, and is, I suggest, far more scientific as well as more satisfactory than Mr. Lowell's wholly unsupported speculation. This view I have explained in some detail in the preceding chapter. Mr. Lowell never even refers to the important question of loss by evaporation in these enormous open canals, or considers the undoubted fact that the only intelligent and practical way to convey a limited quantity of water such great distances would be by a system of water-tight and air-tight [[p. 105]] tubes laid under the ground. The mere attempt to use open canals for such a purpose shows complete ignorance and stupidity in these alleged very superior beings; while it is certain that, long before half of them were completed their failure to be of any use would have led any rational beings to cease constructing them. He also fails to consider the difficulty, that, if these canals are necessary for existence in Mars, how did the inhabitants ever reach a sufficiently large population with surplus food and leisure enabling them to rise from the low condition of savages to one of civilisation, and ultimately to scientific knowledge? Here again is a dilemma which is hard to overcome. Only a dense population with ample means of subsistence could possibly have constructed such gigantic works; but, given these two conditions, no adequate motive existed for the conception and execution of them--even if they were likely to be of any use, which I have shown they could not be.

Whoops! And now that I'm thinking of it, we've seen IDists shooting themselves in the foot with Lowell's Martians before. P.S.: Go vote!!

91 Comments

Henry J · 4 November 2008

Mars Attacks!!!111!!one!!

eric · 4 November 2008

Hmm, so independent parallel lines of evidence are good? Who'd a thunk it? Maybe Denyse would like to describe all the parallel independent lines of evidence for a desginer...

Nothing to do with Mars, but Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood talks a bit about Wallace and his popularity/unpopularity compared to Darwin. And IMO its a good read.

Dave Wisker · 4 November 2008

Darwin didn't think evidence mattered? O'Leary is such a tiresome maroon.

Brian · 4 November 2008

Even if O'Leary's argument turned out to be sound and valid, which per usual it was not, congratulating yourselves on being part of the tradition that told us...that there's no life on Mars....

I still wouldn't have been impressed.

Brian

Glen Davidson · 4 November 2008

Wow, Wallace argues real evidence against the flim-flam of Percival Lowell. Hardly an icon of ID. Then too, Wallace allows that the simplicity and rationality of the purported canals would be evidence for them, but he doesn't see that there is this evidence. Behe had the gall to bring up "rational agents" in EoE and failed, for the 10462nd time to show that there is any rational design in any organisms (not engineered by us). Also, Wallace argues rather commonsensically about what would be reasonable (rational) for Martians to do, and notes that the sensible thing is not done. We do this countless times with ID and organisms, and all we get out of them is the bleat that design leaves neither evidence of purpose or of design principles (except when they do claim purpose--always nebulously, and with no final purpose for, say, Plasmodium spp.) All is forgiven Wallace, and, naturally, badly confused, probably both via O'Leary's great ignorance of science, and her apparent disregard for truth. After all, Wallace believed mystical claptrap about the "soul." Nevertheless, it was Wallace who never wavered from crediting natural selection as the means of evolution, while Darwin was willing to go along with the bogus "evidence" that acquired characteristics could be inherited. Regardless of the merits or demerits of their relative positions (Darwin might have been more open-minded? Or perhaps less careful in adducing causes?), it's Wallace who wasn't at all pleased with magical nonsense invading the place where good causation had been inferred, at least with respect to physical origins. Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

JGB · 4 November 2008

How about we not let O'Leary distort Carl Sagan's feelings about evidence. He may have sincerely and passionately believed in other life, but he also was the person who said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

iml8 · 4 November 2008

No need to pick on Percival Lowell, he was no crank -- he
just let his imagination carry him off. It sure would have
been fun if he'd been right.

Of course there is the thudding irony of a ID advocate
praising Wallace for debunking an "intelligent design
inference." This is not the first time they've tried to
use the Martian canals to bolster their case.
I suspect they recognize that the bogus Martian
canals make life difficult for, say, irreducible
complexity and the explanatory filter, and so they try to
stake a claim as a preemptive measure.

Sigh: "C'mon, people, if you had half a case to make you
wouldn't waste your time with games like this."

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Dale Husband · 4 November 2008

I sometimes wish the ID promoters would just shut up and go away......because every time they talk, they look even more ridiculous than before!

Dale Husband · 4 November 2008

It looks like the software for Uncommon Descent is messed up. When you try to follow the link to http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/alfred-russel-wallace-on-why-mars-is-not-habitable/ you do not see the entry. But if you go here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/ You see this:

4 November 2008 Alfred Russel Wallace on why Mars is not habitable O'Leary Friend Malcolm Chisholm, who has a wonderful approach to information (= he reads a lot) writes to tell me of a book written by Alfred Russel Wallace (Darwin’s co-theorist) on the question of the habitability of Mars: It is called “Is Mars Habitable?” It was written in 1907 when Wallace was living in Broadstone, Dorset (where I went to school). Wallace takes on Percival Lowell, a supreme icon of American astronomy. Lowell thought there were Martians and they used canals etc. Wallace blows up this theory, ending the book with the statement: “Mars, therefore, is not only uninhabited by intelligent beings such as Mr. Lowell postulates, but is absolutely UNINHABITABLE.” Remember that Wallace has been derided for his beliefs in ID and spiritualism. Yet he was obviously not afraid to go against the scientific speculative spirit of the age. Indeed. The introduction to the 1907 edition, scanned online, editor Charles H. Smith notes, For many years one of Wallace’s least remembered books, Is Mars Habitable? is increasingly being recognized as one of the first examples of the proper application of the scientific method to the study of extraterrestrial atmospheres and geography–that is, as one of the pioneer works in the field of exobiology. Here is Wallace’s conclusion: Read More »

And there's nothing more to read! EPIC FAIL!!!

Dale Husband · 4 November 2008

Indeed, further investigation reveals that the ENTIRE Uncommon Descent blog is malfunctioning!

Maybe it should just be ignored from now on. They are not doing anything productive or useful at all, and have not been doing so since 2005, when they got defeated by the Dover decision.

Dale Husband · 4 November 2008

Oh, this is hilarious! http://www.uncommondescent.com/ Scroll down to here:

1 November 2008 [Administrative:] Need Webmaster William Dembski [UPDATE: I think we've got our man. Thanks to all of you who responded. --Bill] Dear UD Community: We need webmaster with the following skill set: (1) Can move UD to new server. (2) Can transfer the domain name. (3) Can reconfigure some of the pages and layout. (4) Can restore full WordPress functionality. (5) Can remove old ads and install new ones. For someone who knows what s/he is doing, it shouldn’t take more than a day and subsequent maintenance should be absolutely minimal. We need this free of charge or at cut-rate prices. Please contact me (I’m easily tracked down on the web). –WmAD

And then their blog crashes! What incompetence their new webmaster must have had!

Peter Henderson · 4 November 2008

Third, let’s have a look at what Wallace actually said about Lowell’s hypothesis that intelligent designers were the best explanations for the patterns he thought he saw on Mars:

You've lost me on the link Nick. All I can see is an episode of the BBC Northern Ireland production "William Crawley meets" were he interviews Richard Dawkins. Still, lets not forget that quite a lot of respected scientists at the time accepted Lowell's canals explanation at the time. It was only when telescopes became sufficiently more powerful that the truth was revealed. Similarly, Venus is also a planet where it was thought the surface was quite habitable with a sub tropical climate and liquid water at one stage. The Magellan missions, along with the Russian probe that landed on the planet have shown us otherwise. Also, in a recent Sky at night programme, Sir Patrick Moore admitted that he made seven Predictions about Venus in the 1970's. Not one of them were correct. Sir Patrick's no fool either.

John Vanko · 4 November 2008

Lowell saw lines on Mars he interpretted as canals. But there are neither canals nor lines on Mars! (Somewhere I have an old National Geographic from the 1950's with an article on Mars that defers to Lowell 'superior' eyesight!)

He imagined them, just like a child sees animals and man-made objects in clouds, just like ID 'cdesign proponentists' (search on Panda's Thumb if you don't know what this means) imagine the unnamed designer throughout Nature. (Hey, what about outer space aliens as the 'designer'? Are they not part of Nature? Can they not be investigated with the scientific method? All the more reason to continue SETI.)

The 'cdesign proponentists' have been inventing design in Nature since the 19th century.

Thank you Prof. Lowell.

Dave Luckett · 4 November 2008

More powerful telescopes and even digitised "photograps" of the Martian landscape don't prevent human beings from seeing patterns that aren't there. The human mind appears to be set up to see patterns, and it has a high "false-positive" tendency, probably a legacy of a heritage that makes it a survival trait to discern the faintest sign of a predator's pattern. If one is there, flight-fight enhances the chances of survival; if not, fight-flight is no more than a small waste of energy.

So Lowell saw canals on Mars, and others saw a human face on a Martian mesa, and still others see the Virgin Mary on walls and the face of Jesus in the clouds or the random clumpings of hillside rocks. Darwin's great insight was to see a pattern that is subtle, but actually exists, and to see only the pattern, not the face of God.

Joshua Zelinsky · 4 November 2008

There is a fair bit of evidence that Lowell was seeing something real: the patterns of light reflected off his retina. See this NYT summary http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05EED81F3EF933A2575AC0A9649C8B63 .

Wheels · 4 November 2008

Dale Husband said: Indeed, further investigation reveals that the ENTIRE Uncommon Descent blog is malfunctioning! Maybe it should just be ignored from now on. They are not doing anything productive or useful at all, and have not been doing so since 2005, when they got defeated by the Dover decision.

Maybe somebody removed a single piece of their blog, and its irreducible complexity caused it to grind to a halt.

fnxtr · 4 November 2008

Wheels for the win!! THAT was funny!!!

Novparl · 5 November 2008

According to the pro-evolution Wikipedia, Wallace was unpopular for his unconventional ideas, such as Spiritualism, and was forgotten after his death.

Transmitted from Mars.

Christophe Thill · 5 November 2008

Well, for a guy who believed in spirits, Wallace was a great materialist thinker: cf. the last paragraph. His remarks are spot-on concerning the needs for large numbers and resources in an advanced society. And he knew how to debunk ID claims, too. That's what science does to you, I guess!

DS · 5 November 2008

That's really funny. It seems that the most popular introductory biology textbook used in college courses in the United States describes Wallace as "the codiscoverer of the theory of evolution" and describes in detail his correspondance with Darwin and the role he played in prompting Darwin to publish. Man, I sure hope I'm forgotten half as much as Wallace. Obviously Wikipedia really isn't a reliable source of information.

Anyway, if he was so completely forgotten, why does this chick care so much about what he had to say about Lowell?

Stanton · 5 November 2008

Novparl said: According to the pro-evolution Wikipedia, Wallace was unpopular for his unconventional ideas, such as Spiritualism, and was forgotten after his death. Transmitted from Mars.

Can you please explain why you claim that Alfred Wallace has been "forgotten after his death," while there are numerous books which celebrate Mr Wallace's scientific contributions, especially the facts that he explored the rainforests of both Indonesia and the Amazon, and is celebrated as the first European to have ever seen live birds of Paradise? Oh, wait, you can't because you share the ironically named "notedscholar"'s habit of making snide and useless commentaries.

eric · 5 November 2008

Joshua Zelinsky said: There is a fair bit of evidence that Lowell was seeing something real: the patterns of light reflected off his retina. See this NYT summary http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05EED81F3EF933A2575AC0A9649C8B63 .

Hmm, I thought it was scratches in the telescope lens, but I could easily be wrong as my 'mars canal' history is fairly hazy. In any event IDers comparing ID to Wallace's treatment of Lowell just highlights their own failings. Lowell actually took measurements and published them for peer replication (making them available to Wallace). That's two steps up on the entire ID movement. That Lowell's were faulty measurements just goes to show how effective the scientific method is in weeding out errors...when someone actually performs experiments and publishes them for peer review, which IDers refuse to do. Fail again, ID. Comparing ID to Lowell just highlights the fact that you do no science.

Richard Simons · 5 November 2008

According to the pro-evolution Wikipedia, Wallace was unpopular for his unconventional ideas, such as Spiritualism, and was forgotten after his death.

I followed the rule 'never trust a creationist' (you are a creationist, are you not?) and was unable to find this on the page in question. Could you give us where exactly this quote came from? BTW any book that has a chapter on biogeography makes mention of Wallace's Line.

Les Lane · 5 November 2008

What made Wallace so unpopular compared to Darwin is that he insisted that in science, evidence matters.

Wallace was (and still is) notorious for promoting spirituality. So much for his regard for evidence. Darwin is given more credit for developing evolution than Wallace because he spent a great deal more time documenting and considering the evidence.

dr.d. · 5 November 2008

Sorry, but the Wikipedia aricle on Wallace says nothing of the sort that Novparl suggests. Perhaps you were reading conervaperdia?

novparl · 5 November 2008

@ Richard Simons. Yes, I'm an OEC.
SPIRITUALISM see the article's introduction, 3d para, 1st line, and part 3 :"Spiritualism". What part of that one word do you not understand? I just want to help.

Part 6 Legacy & Historical Perception.
line 5 "His fame faded quickly after his death."
@ STANTON & Dr D. What part of that do you not understand? I can write about 10 languages, which is your 1st language and I'll try to translate. "Faded" does not mean it can't revive later.

I realise that, to an Ayatollah of Evolution, every statement by a creationist must be said to be wrong. I'll now revisit Wikip to see what languages the article is also available in.

Hope you're enjoying your election day.

novparl · 5 November 2008

Hallo again.

It's in 30 languages, including Welsh and Korean.

The French gets a star, but appears to be a translation from English. (Apres sa mort, sa célébrité s'estompa rapidement.)
That won't interest you, because everything creationists say is wrong. A curiously black & white moral universe. Created by a random explosion some 13 billion years ago. (I accept the 13 b.y.a. explosion as quite possible. So it must be wrong, cuz I'm an EOC.)

Now flatten me! I love it!

novparl · 5 November 2008

Er - EOC = Evil old creationist.

Peter Henderson · 5 November 2008

He imagined them, just like a child sees animals and man-made objects in clouds

More recently of course, there has been much debate about the supposed face on Mars: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm surely a similar phenomenon !

Wheels · 5 November 2008

The idea that Darwin didn't insist on the weight of evidence is patently absurd. His books are packed to the brim with real-world examples and observations considered to support his conclusions. It really boggles my mind that somebody could honestly say Darwin didn't care for amassing evidence.

PvM · 5 November 2008

No need, you're doing a good job all by yourself.

novparl said: Hallo again. It's in 30 languages, including Welsh and Korean. The French gets a star, but appears to be a translation from English. (Apres sa mort, sa célébrité s'estompa rapidement.) That won't interest you, because everything creationists say is wrong. A curiously black & white moral universe. Created by a random explosion some 13 billion years ago. (I accept the 13 b.y.a. explosion as quite possible. So it must be wrong, cuz I'm an EOC.) Now flatten me! I love it!

Richard Simons · 5 November 2008

novparl said: @ Richard Simons. Yes, I'm an OEC. SPIRITUALISM see the article's introduction, 3d para, 1st line, and part 3 :"Spiritualism". What part of that one word do you not understand? I just want to help. Part 6 Legacy & Historical Perception. line 5 "His fame faded quickly after his death." @ STANTON & Dr D. What part of that do you not understand? I can write about 10 languages, which is your 1st language and I'll try to translate. "Faded" does not mean it can't revive later. I realise that, to an Ayatollah of Evolution, every statement by a creationist must be said to be wrong. I'll now revisit Wikip to see what languages the article is also available in. Hope you're enjoying your election day.

But that it not what you said. You claimed that he was forgotten after his death. That is untrue and not what the article says. It is true that his fame faded but you did not use that word. He certainly was never forgotten. Before you become condescending about another person's comprehension ability you should make absolutely certain it is not yourself that is at fault.

That won’t interest you, because everything creationists say is wrong. A curiously black & white moral universe.

Tut, tut. You are twisting words again. I did not say that everything creationists say is wrong. I said I never trust a creationist. I am surprised to hear a creationist complain that someone else sees morals in black and white. It has been my experience that it is creationists who see everything in such stark terms. Either the bible says something is OK or it says it isn't. End of discussion. BTW: the last election here was several weeks ago and the results were not to my liking. Were you making more hasty and invalid assumptions?

phantomreader42 · 5 November 2008

So, you said something that was false. You said that Wikipedia said Wallace was forgotten after his death. Wallace was not forgotten. Wiki did not say Wallace was forgotten. Your statement was false. When it was pointed out that your statement was false, you blamed it on some vast conspiracy against you, instead of defending your decision to post a knowingly false statement. In other words, you're a liar, desperately making idiotic accusations against others to avoid your lies being exposed. Isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?

novparl said: @ Richard Simons. Yes, I'm an OEC. SPIRITUALISM see the article's introduction, 3d para, 1st line, and part 3 :"Spiritualism". What part of that one word do you not understand? I just want to help. Part 6 Legacy & Historical Perception. line 5 "His fame faded quickly after his death." @ STANTON & Dr D. What part of that do you not understand? I can write about 10 languages, which is your 1st language and I'll try to translate. "Faded" does not mean it can't revive later. I realise that, to an Ayatollah of Evolution, every statement by a creationist must be said to be wrong. I'll now revisit Wikip to see what languages the article is also available in. Hope you're enjoying your election day.

Kevin B · 5 November 2008

What a lot of argument we're having again. :)

It is, perhaps, inevitable that scientists' reputations go into decline after (or even before) their deaths. Dead scientists aren't publishing new research, and the people who are publishing are blowing their own trumpets. It's only when the science ceases to be "leading edge" and the text books get written that it becomes clear who the important participants were.

And has been commented on here recently, when Wallace died in 1913, the whole concept of Evolution was very much in eclipse, and would continue to be until the work of Fisher, et al, in the 1930s.

Mike from Ottawa · 5 November 2008

It really boggles my mind that somebody could honestly say Darwin didn’t care for amassing evidence.

Well, there's yer problem.

RBH · 5 November 2008

Kevin B said: What a lot of argument we're having again. :) It is, perhaps, inevitable that scientists' reputations go into decline after (or even before) their deaths. Dead scientists aren't publishing new research, and the people who are publishing are blowing their own trumpets. It's only when the science ceases to be "leading edge" and the text books get written that it becomes clear who the important participants were. And has been commented on here recently, when Wallace died in 1913, the whole concept of Evolution was very much in eclipse, and would continue to be until the work of Fisher, et al, in the 1930s.

It was just the role of natural selection that was in eclipse, especially in the two or three decades following the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics, when "mutationism" -- largish mutations that induced significat morphological change -- was thought to be a more important determinant of change in the characteristics of populations through time. It wasn't apparent that tiny mutations could drive significant change in populations until the pop gen stats guys (Fisher, Haldane, Sewall Wright, et alia) worked in the 1930s and 1940s. Evolution in the sense of common descent wasn't in eclipse, only the main mechanism.

notedscholar · 5 November 2008

Wow! You guys even disagree with each other about Mars! That's crazy.

Anyway, I agree with you about Wallace.

I noticed that one can't leave comments on the Uncommon Descent Blog without being an Uncommon Descent member. This strikes me as fascist. Ironic!

Paul Burnett · 5 November 2008

notedscholar said: I noticed that one can't leave comments on the Uncommon Descent Blog without being an Uncommon Descent member.

No, you just have to sign up as with many other blogs. The problem is commenters get banned when they write something disagreeing with UD's pseudoscience and ignorance. You should fit right in.

Dave Luckett · 5 November 2008

Noted, of course scientists disagree with each other, until conclusive evidence is available. They argue from the evidence, they point out weaknesses in it, they differ as to its interpretation and explanation, they rigorously examine the conclusions to be drawn from it, they fiercely question and debate it. Your own mindset is demonstrated by your description of disagreement as 'crazy'. It's not. Rather, it is the epitome of rationality. What is crazy is that you would think otherwise.

This 'crazy' insistence on rigorous debate from demonstrable fact gives the lie to the idea that science could be engaged in some sort of conspiracy to misrepresent the evidence for evolution and common descent, or could suppress evidence for separate creation, if any existed. Science could not do so, even if individual scientists wanted to, and the evidence is that very few would want to. It's a totally different mindset from the insistence on faith, dogma and orthodoxy that characterises religion. I suppose this is why you find it strange. But crazy, it isn't.

Dale Husband · 5 November 2008

It looks like the loons at Uncommon Descent have repaired their blog. Of course, their stupidity remains for all to see. Including that nonsense about Wallace.

Dale Husband · 5 November 2008

Another amusing entry at Uncommon Descent: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/focusing-on-id-at-ud/

William Dembski The presidential election has loomed large here at UD over the past several weeks. After discussion with key UD administrators, we’ve agreed to set the election aside and put the focus here back on ID (and on topics directly pertinent to ID). Short of the presidential candidates raising ID, the election will no longer be a topic of discussion on this forum.

And at the bottem we read: Comments are closed. If Panda's Thumb did anything like that, I'd be outraged. William Dumbski should be ashamed of himself, the coward!

Stanton · 5 November 2008

novparl said:
Part 6 Legacy & Historical Perception.
line 5 "His fame faded quickly after his death."
@ STANTON & Dr D. What part of that do you not understand? I can write about 10 languages, which is your 1st language and I'll try to translate. "Faded" does not mean it can't revive later.

novparl the liar actually said: "According to the pro-evolution Wikipedia, Wallace was unpopular for his unconventional ideas, such as Spiritualism, and was forgotten after his death."

As was pointed out in quite a few other previous statements, you cause irreparable harm to your own case and credibility when you make false statements in order to defend yourself from accusations of making false statements. Having said this, please explain why you came to the conclusion that I (and Dr. D) don't understand that Wallace's "faded" fame was revivable when you specifically stated that the scientific community forgot about him due to his unpopular ideas concerning Spiritualism, with the unstated implication that the scientific community made Alfred Wallace persona non grata upon his demise, and that you did not use the word "faded" in your original statement.

I realise that, to an Ayatollah of Evolution, every statement by a creationist must be said to be wrong. I'll now revisit Wikip to see what languages the article is also available in. Hope you're enjoying your election day.

If you are going to grouse about how unfair it is for people like me to accuse you of being incapable of going for one sentence without intentionally lying, it would help if you did try to actually avoid making false statements. But, since you have demonstrated that you are incapable of doing so, you are nothing but a hypocrite with no substance beyond your snide and useless commentaries.

Ravilyn Sanders · 6 November 2008

Off topic. Admins, please spawn a thread to speculate/discuss the effect of GOP loss in the elections on the attack on science by the fundies.

GOP gets a drubbing in the election. Their base was as "energized" as it could be due to Sarah Palin. That is one good thing about her selection, proved beyond doubt that religious right alone could not win elections in America.

May be the disaster in financial sector would jolt the general public out of apathy like Sputnik did back in 1950s and bring a resurgence of support to science?

Richard Simons · 6 November 2008

notedscholar said: Wow! You guys even disagree with each other about Mars! That's crazy.

It is often said that getting scientists to agree is like herding cats, yet we agree about evolution. Why do you think that is?

Jeff Webber · 6 November 2008

Richard Simons said:
According to the pro-evolution Wikipedia, Wallace was unpopular for his unconventional ideas, such as Spiritualism, and was forgotten after his death.
I followed the rule 'never trust a creationist' (you are a creationist, are you not?) and was unable to find this on the page in question. Could you give us where exactly this quote came from? BTW any book that has a chapter on biogeography makes mention of Wallace's Line.

Wikopedia says (in part) "...He was undoubtedly one of the greatest natural history explorers. Despite this, his fame faded quickly after his death. For a long time, he was treated as a relatively-obscure figure in the history of science." I guess someone could interpret that as "forgotten" if they wanted to.

Joshua Zelinsky · 6 November 2008

The current draft of the article does say " His advocacy of Spiritualism and his belief in a non-material origin for the higher mental faculties of humans strained his relationship with the scientific establishment, especially with other early proponents of evolution." See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Russel_Wallace&oldid=248729648 . This seems to have been there at least since September (I haven't gone back farther to check). So Novpar seems to be correct to that limited extent. I can't however find anything in the article that claims he was forgotten after his death. There's a source about him cited called "The Forgotten Naturalist" but that's it. Nov, could you please point to a specific sentence that made you think that the Wikipedia article says he was forgotten after his death?

Mike · 6 November 2008

Ravilyn Sanders said: Off topic. Admins, please spawn a thread to speculate/discuss the effect of GOP loss in the elections on the attack on science by the fundies.

I keep hearing in the news that anti-science Gov. Jindal will be the rising star of the GOP. Pro-science Repubs should start applying pressure now. If Jindal was really as smart as advertised he'll do a 180. If not, then the Republicans haven't learned anything. Next election could see the need for good arguments against "teach the controversy", and no, attacking religion isn't going to work.

Ravilyn Sanders · 6 November 2008

Mike said: I keep hearing in the news that anti-science Gov. Jindal will be the rising star of the GOP.

I think the selection of Palin clearly has shown that energizing the base alone is not enough to win the election. Tactics that energize the base have low pay off ratios. These tactics energize the opposition as much as they do their "base". So the net gain in votes is low. It so happened int his election there was a net loss of votes. Jindal is smart. I don't think he is a real fundie himself. He is just pretending to be one to get their votes. I think he will drop them if they are a drag. Hope a wiser and much chastised Republican party emerge from the current wreckage.

iml8 · 6 November 2008

novparl said: I realise that .... every statement by a creationist must be said to be wrong.

Only because past experience suggests it's a bad bet to think otherwise. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Stanton · 6 November 2008

Richard Simons said:
notedscholar said: Wow! You guys even disagree with each other about Mars! That's crazy.
It is often said that getting scientists to agree is like herding cats, yet we agree about evolution. Why do you think that is?

Because of a Satanic conspiracy that spans both the globe and millenia all the way back to King Nimrod.

Henry J · 6 November 2008

Richard Simons said:
notedscholar said: Wow! You guys even disagree with each other about Mars! That's crazy.
It is often said that getting scientists to agree is like herding cats, yet we agree about evolution. Why do you think that is?

Because on that subject, the cats got their tongues.

notedscholar · 7 November 2008

Okay... who the hell is "novparl"???? And I thought *I* thought out of the box! This guy is just nuts and weird.

Stanton · 7 November 2008

notedscholar said: Okay... who the hell is "novparl"???? And I thought *I* thought out of the box! This guy is just nuts and weird.

Novparl is an Old Earth Creationist who constantly makes snide, yet useless commentaries, as well as false statements, most often with the intent to slander other people, yet also maintains a persecution complex where "evolutionist fundamentalists" constantly accuse him of lying constantly.

386sx · 7 November 2008

What made Wallace so unpopular compared to Darwin is that he insisted that in science, evidence matters.

What the hell kind of sense is that supposed to make? Good grief!

novparl · 7 November 2008

Hello again.

I notice that no-one is scientific enough to admit that, leaving aside the hair-splitting about "fade" 'n' forgotten, I was right about Wikip devoting a section to Wallace & spiritualism. Mr Gould must be turning in his grave.

@ Richard Simon. You jump to the conclusion that I'm a Christian. Shoulda asked. I don't believe the Bible any more than evolution.
I'm sorry you think it's unreasonable to assume you're a gringo. I think I have it - you're miffed at the Canadian Tories getting back in, or (less likely) that Mr Harper hasn't got a majority, (or, tres improbable)vous etes Stéphane Dion.

@ Stanton. How can I cause "irreparable harm" to an idea you reject anyway? Now back into the kitchen. Preferably barefoot.

Themes to flatten me on: Wallace & Spiritualism - gringo - irreparable harm - feminism - Gould & tolerance - Newspeak. (The last because you now have to argue that tolerance is intolerance & intolerance is tolerance.)

Looking forward to hearing from you.

phantomreader42 · 7 November 2008

Wow, you sure are desperate to hide from your own lies. Just pile more falsehoods on top until you're buried in them. Standard creationist tactic, dishonesty without remorse and without end. Who was it that you think said Wiki DIDN'T have a section about Wallace and spiritualism? Oh, yeah, it was one of the voices in your head. I hate to have to be the one to break it to you, but those voices aren't real people. See a psychiatrist, for your own good. Here's the bottom line: You said Wiki said something. People actually LOOKED at Wiki, and found that it DIDN'T say what you claimed. Your claim was false. You knew it to be false at the time you made it. Your obvious purpose in making a knowingly false claim was an attempt at deception. An attempt that failed, because people here know from past experience that lying is standard operating procedure for creationists. People didn't trust you from the start because you're a creationist, and past experience suggests creationists are liars. You confirmed this distrust, by BEING A LIAR. Rather than admitting to a mistake, you desperately tried to spin your own words into saying something other than what you said. That doesn't work when the text of your previous statements is right there for everyone to see. Pretending you didn't say what you said just makes it more obvious that you're a liar. If you have a problem with people calling you a liar, there's a simple solution: STOP LYING! But of course you can't do that. No creationist can survive without lying. Your belief system is a falsehood, and it demands further falsehoods to sustain it. The truth is your mortal enemy.

novparl said: Hello again. I notice that no-one is scientific enough to admit that, leaving aside the hair-splitting about "fade" 'n' forgotten, I was right about Wikip devoting a section to Wallace & spiritualism. Mr Gould must be turning in his grave.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 7 November 2008

Ravilyn Sanders said:
Mike said: I keep hearing in the news that anti-science Gov. Jindal will be the rising star of the GOP.
I think the selection of Palin clearly has shown that energizing the base alone is not enough to win the election. Tactics that energize the base have low pay off ratios. These tactics energize the opposition as much as they do their "base".

I had been waiting for a chance to vote for McCain ever since he withdrew from the primaries in 2000. Then he chose Palin. My actuary wife computed the chance of McCain dying in two terms (not even counting the stress of being president) at slightly over 30%. I decided I couldn't risk a President Palin, and voted for Obama.

Stanton · 7 November 2008

novparl said: @ Stanton. How can I cause "irreparable harm" to an idea you reject anyway? Now back into the kitchen. Preferably barefoot.

So, do you enjoy demonstrating to everyone that you are worthy of nothing but contempt and disgusted pity? You do realize that Creationists, like yourself, also style themselves as paragons of virtue, yet, demonstrate that they are pathological liars for Jesus. As such, all of the scorn and clumsy word-lawyering in the world will not change the fact that you claimed that Wikipedia said one thing about Alfred Wallace when it said something else entirely, and then you lied in order to cover it up. The fact that you also bemoan the fact that people, like myself, accuse Creationists, like yourself, of being liars makes you a hypocrite, as well. That you either can not see yourself as a pathological liar, or that you take pride in demonstrating that you are a liar and a hypocrite suggests that you are deeply disturbed. So, what do you want us to expect from you that you are a pathological liar who whines about being labeled a liar? A congratulatory bouquet of flowers? Do you want a hug and a kiss for demonstrating that you're also an unabashed bigot, too?

PvM · 7 November 2008

Translation: Other than being wrong, I was being right :-) No need to really address your claims, you are doing fine yourself debunking them...

novparl said: Hello again. I notice that no-one is scientific enough to admit that, leaving aside the hair-splitting about "fade" 'n' forgotten, I was right about Wikip devoting a section to Wallace & spiritualism. Mr Gould must be turning in his grave. ... Looking forward to hearing from you.

Peter · 7 November 2008

I concur with all of those who think there is something ironic about O'Leary laughing at what is essentially an ID argument. It's nice to know that sometimes she has the sense to respect evidence and reasoned arguments.

Scott · 7 November 2008

phantomreader42 said: Who was it that you think said Wiki DIDN'T have a section about Wallace and spiritualism?

It was Richard Simons at November 5, 2008 8:18 AM

Richard Simons said: I followed the rule 'never trust a creationist' (you are a creationist, are you not?) and was unable to find this on the page in question. Could you give us where exactly this quote came from?

I don't know any previous blog history for novparl, and I'm not impressed with someone willing admitting an OEC tendancy, but I think you guys (on both sides) are being a bit overly dramatic. Richard was a little snarky in his statement, but I was able to find the references without problem. A simple line position and quotation would have sufficed, but then novparl gets real snarky. Then everyone starts accusing everyone else of lying. Chill out. I used to enjoy Pandas Thumb. Lately it's been sounding like talk radio. Sheeze.

phantomreader42 · 7 November 2008

Actually, Richard Simons was referring to novparl's (knowingly false) claim that Wallace was forgotten his death. As was quite obvious, given that he quoted that very claim. Again, if novparl does not wish to be accused of lying, he should not make knowingly false statements for deceptive purposes.

Scott said:
phantomreader42 said: Who was it that you think said Wiki DIDN'T have a section about Wallace and spiritualism?
It was Richard Simons at November 5, 2008 8:18 AM
Richard Simons said: I followed the rule 'never trust a creationist' (you are a creationist, are you not?) and was unable to find this on the page in question. Could you give us where exactly this quote came from?
I don't know any previous blog history for novparl, and I'm not impressed with someone willing admitting an OEC tendancy, but I think you guys (on both sides) are being a bit overly dramatic. Richard was a little snarky in his statement, but I was able to find the references without problem. A simple line position and quotation would have sufficed, but then novparl gets real snarky. Then everyone starts accusing everyone else of lying. Chill out. I used to enjoy Pandas Thumb. Lately it's been sounding like talk radio. Sheeze.

Stanton · 7 November 2008

And if novparl actually read the section on Wallace's legacy and historical perception, he would have known there are actually several reasons and suggestions given concerning Wallace's being forgotten, including his modesty and willingness to champion unpopular causes heedless of the damage to his own reputation.

phantomreader42 said: Actually, Richard Simons was referring to novparl's (knowingly false) claim that Wallace was forgotten his death. As was quite obvious, given that he quoted that very claim. Again, if novparl does not wish to be accused of lying, he should not make knowingly false statements for deceptive purposes.

Richard Simons · 7 November 2008

Scott said:
phantomreader42 said: Who was it that you think said Wiki DIDN'T have a section about Wallace and spiritualism?
It was Richard Simons at November 5, 2008 8:18 AM

I was not questioning whether it had a section on Wallace and spiritualism, but whether it said that he had been forgotten. I'm sorry I came across as snarky but I can't think of a single example of a creationist making their case without either being dishonest or ignoring vast swathes of evidence.

Stuart Weinstein · 7 November 2008

"How about we not let O’Leary distort Carl Sagan’s feelings about evidence. He may have sincerely and passionately believed in other life, but he also was the person who said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Indeed. Seems she didn't know that Sagan was one of the foremost debunkers of UFOlogy.

Stuart Weinstein · 7 November 2008

"Lowell saw lines on Mars he interpretted as canals. But there are neither canals nor lines on Mars! (Somewhere I have an old National Geographic from the 1950's with an article on Mars that defers to Lowell 'superior' eyesight!)"

Wasn't Schiaparelli the first to think fo them as canals.. he called them
canali. Lowell simply took the ball and ran with it as fas as he could.. well off into the weeds.

Wheels · 8 November 2008

"Canali" in Italian simply meaning "channels," which doesn't necessarily imply artificial construction as in "canals."

novparl · 8 November 2008

@ Scott - thanks mate. You're a true disciple of Prof. Gould (assuming you wanna be). Loved the remark about talk radio. Rush Limbaugh & the other NRA-ers shout so loud we even hear them this side of the pond.

@ phantomreader42 - you call me a liar or like that 14 times. So it must be true. (Whoops - I refer to your 1st attack - with hair-splitters like you I'd better be ultra careful.)

@ Stanton - you call me a liar etc. 9 times. So it must be true.

I'm gonna really upset you and suggest that you discipline yourselves long enough to stand back and ask yourself - what happens if 1 person don't believe in evolution - WW3? Also screaming at someone "you're mad!" is such an old, childish routine it don't work no more.

eric · 8 November 2008

novparl said: what happens if 1 person don't believe in evolution - WW3?

The same thing that happens if 1 person doesn't believe the earth is round; nothing beyond how that person's ignorance affects their personal behavior. However you are completely missing or intentionally avoiding the real argument surrounding ID, which is what should be taught in public school science. Nobody cares what you believe or teach your kids in the privacy of your own home, but we care very deeply about what you try and foist on the general population under false pretense (the false pretense being that ID has nothing to do with religion). If you Novparl and the rest of the creationists are willing to leave public education alone, we will continue to disagree with you - as we would a flat-earther - but we will have no major public policy issue. Are you willing to do that? eric

SWT · 8 November 2008

Hmm ...

novparl said: @ Richard Simons. Yes, I'm an OEC.

novparl said: Hello again. ... @ Richard Simon. You jump to the conclusion that I'm a Christian. Shoulda asked. I don't believe the Bible any more than evolution.

If you're an Old Earth Creationist but you deny the authority of scripture, who do you believe did the creating?

novparl · 8 November 2008

No new comments?

novparl · 8 November 2008

What? It said no new comments.

Eric - you're over-dramatising. I have no influence over any educational system. I have never visited the US. What is banned from schools is a matter for local US citizens.

@ SWT - A good question. I believe in a vague creator or creators who don't send us any holy books. But the complexity of the 500 trillion connections in the brain, the circulation of the blood means it must have been designed. (Here y'all foam at the mouth.)

Stanton · 8 November 2008

We've said it before, and we're going to say it again, if you don't like that I and other commenters point out that that you are speaking lies, I strongly recommend that you try not lying so often. Or, are we to assume that you think you have earned the magical privilege of being able to lie and bullshit without suffering the consequence of people pointing out the fact that you are lying and bullshitting? Having said that, you can not complain of abuse given as how you intentionally pick fights with every single comment you post, whether from your malicious untruths and bullshit, or your whining about how the mean old "evolutionist jihad" {sic} is persecuting you for being intentionally stupid.

novparl said: But the complexity of the 500 trillion connections in the brain, the circulation of the blood means it must have been designed. (Here y'all foam at the mouth.)

Appeals to incredulity, and to your own inability, or rather, your own refusal to understand how such biological structures evolved do not count as evidence for a designer. Nor can your own refusal to comprehend how such biological structures evolved negate the fact that there are numerous scientists studying and understanding the evolution of these same biological structures even as I type.

Dale Husband · 8 November 2008

novparl following the Cult of Moronism: I believe in a vague creator or creators who don’t send us any holy books. But the complexity of the 500 trillion connections in the brain, the circulation of the blood means it must have been designed. (Here y’all foam at the mouth.)

Y'all? Are you a Texan? Gee, I'm glad I'm also a Texan so I can prove that not ALL people in my home state are idiots!

phantomreader42 · 8 November 2008

Once again, if you don't like being exposed as a liar, you could always stop lying. But then I know the truth means nothing to creationists.

novparl said: @ Scott - thanks mate. You're a true disciple of Prof. Gould (assuming you wanna be). Loved the remark about talk radio. Rush Limbaugh & the other NRA-ers shout so loud we even hear them this side of the pond. @ phantomreader42 - you call me a liar or like that 14 times. So it must be true. (Whoops - I refer to your 1st attack - with hair-splitters like you I'd better be ultra careful.) @ Stanton - you call me a liar etc. 9 times. So it must be true. I'm gonna really upset you and suggest that you discipline yourselves long enough to stand back and ask yourself - what happens if 1 person don't believe in evolution - WW3? Also screaming at someone "you're mad!" is such an old, childish routine it don't work no more.

novparl · 9 November 2008

Who said I mind you shouting at me that I'm a liar? I don't take you seriously enough. You might as well shout at me "You're bad you are!"

@ Stanton - ah, you're a Texan - that explains why you're angry all the time. I make it quite clear above that I'm NOT a US citizen. Who are these scientists working on evolution of brain connections? I've looked in dozens of books for discussion of brain evolution. The only one I've found is in "Unweaving the Rainbow" where Dawkins spends more time talking about the Beatles, for Cryssakes.

Wheels · 9 November 2008

novparl said:I've looked in dozens of books for discussion of brain evolution.

We bow to your superior research on the topic.

Dale Husband · 9 November 2008

novparl said: I make it quite clear above that I'm NOT a US citizen. Who are these scientists working on evolution of brain connections? I've looked in dozens of books for discussion of brain evolution. The only one I've found is in "Unweaving the Rainbow" where Dawkins spends more time talking about the Beatles, for Cryssakes.

Why should we take YOU seriously? Or beleive you at all?

Stanton · 9 November 2008

All of the comments about you being an idiot are not insults: they are extremely accurate descriptions, especially since if you actually knew how to read, you would have realized that it was Dale Husband who said that he was from Texas here. I have never said I was from Texas, as that would contradict the fact that I actually live in Los Angeles County, California. Furthermore, I am not responsible for you having abysmally subpar researching skills. Perhaps if you developed a genuine interest to learn, rather than waste everyone's time by flaunting your stupidity in order to pick fights, you would know that there are around one million, one hundred eighty thousand hits in scholar.google.com for "brain evolution," and one hundred six thousand hits for "brain connection evolution."

novparl said: @ Stanton - ah, you're a Texan - that explains why you're angry all the time. I make it quite clear above that I'm NOT a US citizen. Who are these scientists working on evolution of brain connections? I've looked in dozens of books for discussion of brain evolution. The only one I've found is in "Unweaving the Rainbow" where Dawkins spends more time talking about the Beatles, for Cryssakes.

PvM · 9 November 2008

I assume you are not familiar with scientific literature then? But even books exist beyond "Unweaving the rainbow" which discuss brain evolution. Let's not confuse your unfamiliarity with science and science literature with evidence of absence.

novparl said: Who said I mind you shouting at me that I'm a liar? I don't take you seriously enough. You might as well shout at me "You're bad you are!" @ Stanton - ah, you're a Texan - that explains why you're angry all the time. I make it quite clear above that I'm NOT a US citizen. Who are these scientists working on evolution of brain connections? I've looked in dozens of books for discussion of brain evolution. The only one I've found is in "Unweaving the Rainbow" where Dawkins spends more time talking about the Beatles, for Cryssakes.

Stanton · 9 November 2008

PvM said: Let's not confuse your unfamiliarity with science and science literature with evidence of absence.

You're too late, Pim, novparl already has confused his scientific unfamiliarity with evidence of absence, and it doesn't look like he intends to change his mind about it any time this century.

Paul Burnett · 9 November 2008

novparl said: I've looked in dozens of books for discussion of brain evolution.

That would be all 24 books in your library, some of which you haven't finished coloring yet?

SWT · 9 November 2008

novparl said: I've looked in dozens of books for discussion of brain evolution.

If you're really looking for cutting edge discussions on this topic, you might start at a university library with the appropriate journals. Just sayin' ...

novparl · 10 November 2008

Ok. Well thanks everyone for your contributions. It seems a bit strange to take over Panda's T. for our little wars, enjoy them tho' I do. I'll be commenting on another thread in a couple of days. Looking forward to hearing from y'all. Meanwhile I'm off to Oz Atheist (actually a fellow Limey!) for discussion on Brights, gays etc.

Also you cd look for the spelling mistake in the current topic (RNA).

London 10 Nov. 9.30 a.m.

minimalist · 10 November 2008

And there we have it, again. Evidence is to creationists what garlic is to vampires. "HISSSSS!!!! Flee!!!!"

Neil Lambert · 10 November 2008

Novparl is British? Oh shit, us Brits are not immune to these twats

Stanton · 10 November 2008

Neil Lambert said: Novparl is British? Oh shit, us Brits are not immune to these twats

I thought the British only got that way after eating bad beef.

Novparl · 11 November 2008

Ah, is that my problem!

Tr nsm tt d fr m M@rs

eric · 11 November 2008

Novparl said: Ah, is that my problem! Tr nsm tt d fr m M@rs

No, this is your problem: we point you to many research journals that have literally volumes of data refuting your belief that evolution can't explain the human brain, and your response to this data is to leave the thread. And, I'm willing to bet, when you DO put in an appearance on the next thread, you'll ask the same or similar question again, demonstrating that you did not read the literature pointed out to you in this thread, that you have no intention of reading the literature pointed out to you, and are here simply to spam the same already-answered questions over and over again.

Stanton · 11 November 2008

eric said:
Novparl said: Ah, is that my problem! Tr nsm tt d fr m M@rs
No, this is your problem: we point you to many research journals that have literally volumes of data refuting your belief that evolution can't explain the human brain, and your response to this data is to leave the thread. And, I'm willing to bet, when you DO put in an appearance on the next thread, you'll ask the same or similar question again, demonstrating that you did not read the literature pointed out to you in this thread, that you have no intention of reading the literature pointed out to you, and are here simply to spam the same already-answered questions over and over again.

And then there is the problem of Novparl trying to foist responsibility for his behaving like a snotty, smarmy idiot off on us, too.

Dave Luckett · 12 November 2008

Novpart says:

"Tr nsm tt d fr m M@rs" (sic)

It seems that Novparl is used to being disemvowelled, which says volumes about his usual discourse.