BioLogos' Falk on Disco's Meyer

IIRC, Darrel Falk was a Drosophila geneticist working at Syracuse. He did have some serious bona fides in genetics research at one time.

Signature in the Cell is just the latest piece of anti-science propaganda from the Dishonesty Institute. It was published by HarperOne, a well-known publisher of religious - not science - books.

Stephen Meyer has recently been named "Person of the Year" by World Magazine - see http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/stephen-c-meyer-world-magazines-person-of-the-year/. World Magazine is a “Christian news magazine,” with a declared perspective of conservative evangelical Protestantism. Its mission statement is “To report, interpret, and illustrate the news…from a perspective committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.”

This award illustrates once again that intelligent design creationism is all about religion, and has nothing to do with science - except a strong desire to destroy it.

What experiment or calculation has Stephen Meyer done to put himself in a position to tell Michael Lynch which of two possible scenarios is more likely? Yet he does this in a single sentence.

I must consider whether this philosopher, this Christian brother, this best-selling author, and this leading debater has been successful at analyzing the data of the world’s leading scientists—people who have given their careers full time for many years to asking (and answering) very sophisticated questions about whether material causes have created information. There is no question that large amounts information have been created by materialistic forces over the past several hundred million years. Meyer dismisses this without discussing it.

It seems all these “intellectual giants” of the ID/creationist community (Dembski, Wells, Behe, Abel, Meyer, and the rest) are hell-bent on twisting the public perception of what scientists actually do and know.

The Greeks (e.g., Democritus, Lucretius) already recognized that the many properties of matter seen in nature were probably due to the interactions of a few underlying constituents they dubbed atoms.

We now know they were on the right track, and modern physics and chemistry has elucidated many of the kinds of interactions among atoms and molecules that produce all the billions of emergent properties and behaviors of matter we easily observe around us.

Yet these “geniuses” of the ID/creationist community blatantly deny the existence of these interactions while asserting instead that matter cannot do these things. These assertions come in the form of pseudo-scientific and pseudo-philosophical terms like “spontaneous molecular chaos”, “genetic entropy”, “entropy barriers”, “gulfs between ‘micro-evolution’ and ‘macro-evolution’, “irreducible complexity”, “conservation of information”, “complex specified information”, and a host of other concepts that misrepresent everything we already know from science.

ID/creationists have everything backwards; they deny what anyone can observe about material interactions by just looking; and they attempt to replace this with a “philosophical perspective” that has nothing to do with how nature works and that has absolutely no traction in doing real research.

Then, by writing huge pseudo-philosophical tombs, they attempt to leave the impression that they have some deeper insights about science and nature than does the entire science community.

These people live inside their own heads and not in any real universe.

I am surprised that Falk finds anything praiseworthy about Meyer’s “philosophy.” Wrong conclusions from wrong premises is simply not good philosophy no matter how many words Meyer generates to make it look impressive.

When I read that review the first word that came to mind was "fawning."

My lack of respect for Meyer is swiftly coming to a middle.

RBH said: When I read that review the first word that came to mind was "fawning."

Alex H said: My lack of respect for Meyer is swiftly coming to a middle.

RBH said: When I read that review the first word that came to mind was "fawning."

The Greeks (e.g., Democritus, Lucretius) already recognized that the many properties of matter seen in nature were probably due to the interactions of a few underlying constituents they dubbed atoms.

Merry Christmas and happy new year to Good guys and bad guys in the origins troubles of thinking people.

I don't know this Falk guy but he's wrong that origin research is just science one step at a time.
NOPE.
Origin subjects make GREAT conclusions about great matters of reality. Biology, geology, etc.
In media, schoolbooks, and so on there are great conclusions loudly pronounced about everything .
Its not just adding fact upon fact.
There is a claim that old ideas of God and Genesis being accurate witnesses of creation are plain wrong.
Origin subjects are not just dealing with steps of science. They deal with religion and contention in substantial public opinion.

Origin subjects, creationists accuse, have always had a hostility to the historic framework of the universe that was inherited since the fall of the Roman empire.
There has been too much haste in conclusions and I notice in my areas that i study that there is much incompetence and nonsense paraded as thoughtful research or even as "science".
In fact origin subjects in their great or near great conclusions don't do science. Past and gone events that created results that today don't have evidence of the these processes are simply not open to the scientific method.
You can't test what ain't happening today, Evolution is just another one like this.

By the way. These I.D guys are the important agents of change/influence in origin subjects. Rightly they are famous and the talk of the time. They are making a difference. Those in disagreement with them may just be those characters in many stories who missed the progressive change in human thinking.

By the way. These I.D guys are the important agents of change/influence in origin subjects. Rightly they are famous and the talk of the time. They are making a difference.

— Robert Byers

I believe there is a Mind who was before all things and through whom all things are held together (Colossians 1:17): I believe that Mind is the intelligence behind all that exists in the universe. Hence, I believe in intelligent design.

IMO, design denial seems a philosophical hang-up.

— Steve P.

Calling Poe on Robert Byers. It seemed like a sure thing after the BC/BCE complaint--we didn't hear the rattle of religious sensibility being shaken, just a variety of vague claims about stealing history.

Frank J said: In any case, I have no interest in going off on that tangent, because we have a rare opportunity - a thread with an old-life-common-descent accepting evolution-denier (you) and a young-earther (Robert) participating. What better way to show that your "theories" are truly scientific, and that you don't merely have a philosophical objection to science, than to have a good old-fashioned debate among yourselves? Start with the basics of "what happened when, and omit any objections you have to "Darwinism," "naturalism," or how real scientists behave.

Maybe we could help with the scientific discussion about "what happened and when" if we didn't raise too many other issues. Let's give a forum to those who have "alternatives" to "darwinism" so they can clearly describe those alternatives.

Steve P. said: Are scientists today investigating the properties of force and energy that give atoms their properties? Etc, etc, etc.

Robert Byers said: You can’t test what ain’t happening today

Are scientists today investigating the properties of force and energy that give atoms their properties?

Steve wrote:

"Mike, so the ancients recognized the properties inherent in matter."

Sure, they even recognized that lions have competition. How about you Steve, have you read those papers about lions yet? Are you ready to admit that lions have competition? Are you ready to admit that competition is not teleological in any meaningful sense? Are you willing to admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?

How about those papers on endosymbiosis that you promised to read months ago? Have you read them yet? Are you willing to admit that you were completely wrong about that as well?

I will keep asking these questions every time you show up here to spout your nonsense. Why don't you make a New Year's resolution to keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about?

Robert wrote;

"By the way. These I.D guys are the important agents of change/influence in origin subjects. Rightly they are famous and the talk of the time. They are making a difference. Those in disagreement with them may just be those characters in many stories who missed the progressive change in human thinking."

And those who cling to an ancient mythology without ever doing any real science missed the progressive change in human thinking that occurred one hundred and fifty years ago. Get with the program dipstick, you are one hundred and fifty years behind the times.

Robert, why don't you make a New Year's resolution to learn how to write proper English sentences? Or maybe just keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about.

Robert Byers said: Merry Christmas and happy new year to Good guys and bad guys in the origins troubles of thinking people.

Darrel Falk has just made another post, apparently to address the heated reaction he got to the preceding one.

Robert Byers said: You can’t test what ain’t happening today

So much for Biblical archaeology. Maybe one day, the walls surrounding Robert's mind will come tumbling down.

Three letters for you Robert: CSI. Look it up, you might be surprised.

TomS said: Maybe we could help with the scientific discussion about "what happened and when" if we didn't raise too many other issues. Let's give a forum to those who have "alternatives" to "darwinism" so they can clearly describe those alternatives.

From BioLogos:

"Dr. Meyer says with near certainty that the science has now reached a dead end and since there is nothing else left, he says, the only other possibility is that there is a mind behind the code of life."

Great. I guess we can all throw up our hands and stop doing science now! Fine for Meyer, but the rest of us will be out of jobs.

Is this guy serious? There is nothing else left? Has he ever studied the history of science? People were sure that the was no way that we would ever understand inheritance and that was BEFORE Mendel! Way is it that know-nothing loud-mouths with bad cases of science envy always want to declare the limits of human understanding? Can't they learn from history if not from science?

Perhaps this guy should read some of the stuff coming out about the RNA World hypothesis. Then let him claim that there is nothing left to discover. Oh wait,that was in a scientific journal... never mind.

Robert Byers said: Origin subjects are not just dealing with steps of science. They deal with religion and contention in substantial public opinion. ...I notice in my areas that i study that there is much incompetence and nonsense paraded as thoughtful research or even as "science". ... By the way. These I.D guys are the important agents of change/influence in origin subjects. Rightly they are famous and the talk of the time. They are making a difference. Those in disagreement with them may just be those characters in many stories who missed the progressive change in human thinking.

Steve P. said:

The Greeks (e.g., Democritus, Lucretius) already recognized that the many properties of matter seen in nature were probably due to the interactions of a few underlying constituents they dubbed atoms.

But seriously now. Mike, so the ancients recognized the properties inherent in matter. Did they investigate where those properties came from? Are scientists today investigating the properties of force and energy that give atoms their properties? Etc, etc, etc. Or is it that they just are? IMO, design denial seems a philosophical hang-up.

clerihew said: Calling Poe on Robert Byers. It seemed like a sure thing after the BC/BCE complaint--we didn't hear the rattle of religious sensibility being shaken, just a variety of vague claims about stealing history.

Rolf Aalberg said: Please tell us about the "areas that (Robert Byers) study."

My reply to Darrel's latest post, which I just posted over at his website:

Darrel -

You are defending the indefensible. Meyer has engaged in a twenty year-old campaign of ample lies, omissions and gross distortions of published scientific work. Not once has he or his Dishonesty Institute colleagues done any meaningful scientific research to support their spurious Intelligent Design claims. Instead, we have them bearing false witness against real scientists (e. g. Dembski’s absurd accusation made to the Federal Department of Homeland Security in 2006, stating that University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka was a “bioterrorist”), steal (which is what Dembski did over a year later in “borrowing” a Harvard University cell animation video), attack their critics, and engaging in other, morally dubious behavior that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Meyer doesn’t deserve our respect, but our condemnation, period.

All of that, however, is beside the point. We can just focus on the science. Dr. Meyer makes a simple proposition. Is he right or is he wrong? It is my opinion that he has been so engagingly clear, everyone with a four year degree in biology should be able to see that there is no dead end.

Frank J said:

IMO, design denial seems a philosophical hang-up.

— Steve P.

... we have a rare opportunity - a thread with an old-life-common-descent accepting evolution-denier (you) and a young-earther (Robert) participating. What better way to show that your "theories" are truly scientific, and that you don't merely have a philosophical objection to science, than to have a good old-fashioned debate among yourselves? Start with the basics of "what happened when, and omit any objections you have to "Darwinism," "naturalism," or how real scientists behave.

eric said:

Steve P. said: Are scientists today investigating the properties of force and energy that give atoms their properties? Etc, etc, etc.

....Tell me Steve P., do you judge design proponents using the same standard? No IDer is doing research "investigating the properties of force and energy." Using your own logic, I guess it is fair to say they must have a philosophical hang-up about it.

Robert Byers said: You can’t test what ain’t happening today

Yes you can. We look at light coming from distant objects and - knowing that light does not travel at infinite velocity - we see what happened in the past. Next.

ben said:

TomS said: Maybe we could help with the scientific discussion about "what happened and when" if we didn't raise too many other issues. Let's give a forum to those who have "alternatives" to "darwinism" so they can clearly describe those alternatives.

There is such a forum. It's called the real world. In the real world, no ID promoter has yet proposed a logically valid, scientifically testable hypothesis of intelligent design. For some reason they do not feel that this fact should constrain them from constantly referring to "ID theory" as though such a thing actually exists.

Steve P. said: Frank, sorry but that is your own less than accurate interpretation of what I said previously. Actually, I said that it make no difference to me either way if the earth is 4 billion or 6,000 years old. Second, I don't deny evolution. Actually I adhere strictly to the original definition of evolution as: "A rolling out; an unfolding". However,I do reject Darwin's conjecture that historical biological development is the result of step-wise, random, unguided, undirected mutations building complexity. I further adhere to the conclusion that the adaptive mechanisms displayed in organisms today are not the same mechanisms used in the past to evolve organisms. I do hope this helps clarify my position. Maybe you could scan it onto a post-it note.

Frank J said:

IMO, design denial seems a philosophical hang-up.

— Steve P.

... we have a rare opportunity - a thread with an old-life-common-descent accepting evolution-denier (you) and a young-earther (Robert) participating. What better way to show that your "theories" are truly scientific, and that you don't merely have a philosophical objection to science, than to have a good old-fashioned debate among yourselves? Start with the basics of "what happened when, and omit any objections you have to "Darwinism," "naturalism," or how real scientists behave.

Steve P. said: Hey, ID is just getting started.

Stanton said:

Steve P. said: Hey, ID is just getting started.

That's what they said over two decades ago, when they launched the Discovery Institute. So, why the long hold-up? Is it because Intelligent Design proponents aren't actually interested in doing science?

DS said: Steve wrote: "Mike, so the ancients recognized the properties inherent in matter." Sure, they even recognized that lions have competition. How about you Steve, have you read those papers about lions yet? Are you ready to admit that lions have competition? Are you ready to admit that competition is not teleological in any meaningful sense? Are you willing to admit that you have no idea what you are talking about? How about those papers on endosymbiosis that you promised to read months ago? Have you read them yet? Are you willing to admit that you were completely wrong about that as well? I will keep asking these questions every time you show up here to spout your nonsense. Why don't you make a New Year's resolution to keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about?

Egads a typo, which I correct now as follows:

However, just to set the record straight, the Discovery Institute was founded in 1994 or 1995, not twenty years ago.

Steve P. said: Hey, ID is just getting started.

I do believe the pendulum will swing ID's way and...

It may be a couple hundred years down the road, but you know what they say, a journey of a thousand miles ...

John Kwok said: I think Frank J's assessment of you is on the mark, as your next comment expressing "hope" in Intelligent Design's "scientific" viability (your reply to eric) demonstrates

Steve P. said: Regarding competition, you mentioned lions, hyenas, jackels, I believe. No matter, taking all living organisms as a whole, what do you think is the percentage of animals that display competitive behavior compared to those that engage in symbiotic behavior? Is competition rampant or simply one of many components of environmental change? I think you will find competition is overrated as a driving force of change but I know how important this concept is to a darwinian view of biological change.

John Kwok said: Stanton, You have a ringing endorsement from me:

Stanton said:

Steve P. said: Hey, ID is just getting started.

That's what they said over two decades ago, when they launched the Discovery Institute. So, why the long hold-up? Is it because Intelligent Design proponents aren't actually interested in doing science?

However, just to set the record strait, the Discovery Institute was founded in 1994 or 1995, not twenty years ago.

RBH said: When I read that review the first word that came to mind was "fawning."

Ben said: There is such a forum. It’s called the real world. In the real world, no ID promoter has yet proposed a logically valid, scientifically testable hypothesis of intelligent design. For some reason they do not feel that this fact should constrain them from constantly referring to “ID theory” as though such a thing actually exists.

Steve P. said: No matter, taking all living organisms as a whole, what do you think is the percentage of animals that display competitive behavior compared to those that engage in symbiotic behavior?

Steve wrote:

"Can you explain endosymbiosis strictly using physics and chemistry? Why is this approach discarded in favor of teleological methods of analysis. Why would we use game theory to explain events 2.7 billion years ago? It’s really beyond me."

No I can't and neither can anyone else. Can you explain god strictly using chemistry and physics? Thought not. See how stupid that is. Competition and selection are biological concepts, learn about them or remain in ignorance. And the fact that it is beyond you should tell you something, just not what you think it does.

Look Steve, I don't care how may times you say it, there is absolutely nothing teleological about competition, nothing. Until you can understand that simple fact you will remain ignorant of almost all of biology. I do not have to prove anything to you. You are the one who promised to read the papers, you did not do so. Making up nonsensical arguments about one little point in one paper does not absolve you of all responsibility. You have absolutely no explanation for the evidence. You have absolutely no alternative theory. Why one earth would anyone want to discuss anything with you when you refuse to learn even the most basic facts?

Now, one last time just to be fair. Do you or do you not admit that lions have competition? Yes or no? If you answer no then you must disprove all of the examples provided in the papers I cited.

John Kwok said: Yours is an utterly ridiculous set of statements which would be falsified in any basic undergraduate text on ecology:

Steve P. said: Regarding competition, you mentioned lions, hyenas, jackels, I believe. No matter, taking all living organisms as a whole, what do you think is the percentage of animals that display competitive behavior compared to those that engage in symbiotic behavior? Is competition rampant or simply one of many components of environmental change? I think you will find competition is overrated as a driving force of change but I know how important this concept is to a darwinian view of biological change.

However, I seriously doubt you'll be reading any ecology textbook any time soon, but persist in making your absurd observations replete in their breathtaking inanity.

ID as brand name creationism may not be so many years old, but creationism in the modern antiscience sense is about a century old. The argument from (apparent) design is older and was worthy in its time.

Contemporary creationists show no inclination towards research. Nature just doesn't give them the "right" answers. Progress in science, whether in large or small steps, will come from hard working real scientists.

Steve wrote:

"Regarding competition, you mentioned lions, hyenas, jackels, I believe. No matter, taking all living organisms as a whole, what do you think is the percentage of animals that display competitive behavior compared to those that engage in symbiotic behavior? Is competition rampant or simply one of many components of environmental change? I think you will find competition is overrated as a driving force of change but I know how important this concept is to a darwinian view of biological change."

Obviously you do not understand the first thing about competition. Obviously you did not read the papers that I cited, big surprise. Look Steve, I hate to break it to you , but you are tho only one assuming that competition is teleological. Exactly how do you think it is that organisms compete? Exactly what do you think constitutes "competitive behavior"? The papers I cited describe exactly the mechanisms involved, if you want to understand anything then read them. If not, piss off.

And just to answer your question, competition is pervasive in the biosphere. Any time resources are limiting there will inevitably be competition. That is in fact the selection pressure that drives symbiosis. Get a clue.

Steve P. said: Mr. Kwok, or can I call you Obie? What animal competes with a bee? What animal competes with a worm? What animal competes with a bird? What animal competes with a shark? What animal competes with a fly? What animal competes with a horse? What animal competes with a panda? What animal competes with a rabbit? What animal competes with a salmon? What organism competes with bacteria? What organism competes with mold? What organism competes with amoebas? What plant competes with a Sequoia? What plant competes with moss? What plant competes with a rose? I could go on and on and on and on. Teach me, Obie.

John Kwok said: Yours is an utterly ridiculous set of statements which would be falsified in any basic undergraduate text on ecology:

Steve P. said: Regarding competition, you mentioned lions, hyenas, jackels, I believe. No matter, taking all living organisms as a whole, what do you think is the percentage of animals that display competitive behavior compared to those that engage in symbiotic behavior? Is competition rampant or simply one of many components of environmental change? I think you will find competition is overrated as a driving force of change but I know how important this concept is to a darwinian view of biological change.

However, I seriously doubt you'll be reading any ecology textbook any time soon, but persist in making your absurd observations replete in their breathtaking inanity.

Steve wrote:

"What animal competes with a bee?

Other bees, wasps, hornets, etc.

What animal competes with a worm?

Other worms, slugs, etc.

What animal competes with a bird?

Other birds, bats, etc.

What animal competes with a shark?

Other sharks, fish, whales, etc.

What animal competes with a fly?

Other flies, mosquitoes, etc.

What animal competes with a horse?

Other horses, buffalo, etc.

What animal competes with a panda?

Other pandas, humans, etc.

What animal competes with a rabbit?

Other rabbits, moles, voles, mice, rats, etc.

What animal competes with a salmon?

Other salmon, other fish, etc.

What organism competes with bacteria?

Other bacteria, fungi, humans, etc.

What organism competes with mold?

Other molds, other fungi, bacteria, etc.

What organism competes with amoebas?

Other amoebas, other protozoa, etc.

What plant competes with a Sequoia?

Other Sequoias, other trees, etc.

What plant competes with moss?

Other mosses, club mosses, etc.

What plant competes with a rose?

Other roses, other flowering plants, etc.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. You are just plain wrong and you have no idea what you are talking about. I can provide references for each and every one of these, just as soon as you read the references I already provided about lions and admit that you were wrong about them also. Of course then I won't need to provide any more proof that you were wrong now will I. Just keep up the psycho babble Steve. I makes you and everyone who thinks like you look really bad.

Looks like your website is under attack from supernatural forces…

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,40909.0.html

you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy…

Steve P. said: What animal competes with a bee? What animal competes with a worm? What animal competes with a bird? What animal competes with a shark? What animal competes with a fly? What animal competes with a horse? What animal competes with a panda? What animal competes with a rabbit? What animal competes with a salmon? What organism competes with bacteria? What organism competes with mold? What organism competes with amoebas? What plant competes with a Sequoia? What plant competes with moss? What plant competes with a rose? I could go on and on and on and on.

Shit Eric,

The friggin' resources are always there! You guys can't get that through your skulls!

Why do you think phenotypes have been unchanged for so damn long????

There is stability in the biosphere. The driving force of this stability is cooperation, not competition.

Competition destroys. We know this how? Humanity is 7 billion strong!!! WE are the ONLY ones that know about competition.

And we are kickin' ass with it, to our ultimate demise.

Later folks. Its 1:30 a.m. Taiwan time.

I don't know why people are talking about competition in ecology here, but to help any newbies,

competition is first and foremost within a species.

Members of the same species living in the same area automatically compete for the same resources and must avoid the same problems in nearly the same ways. The gazelle does not have to outrun the cheetah, it has to outrun at least some other gazelle. Competition also occurs between groups of (usually) one species versus other groups of the same species.

Unrelated species can also compete for a limited resource. For example, bees compete with humming birds in places where both are common.

To get back to the topic of the post, BioLogos and Disco are competing to be seen as the right religious response to science.

By the way I don't know why my comment is listed as a response to RBH. It isn't.

Steve P. said: Shit Eric, The friggin' resources are always there! You guys can't get that through your skulls! Why do you think phenotypes have been unchanged for so damn long???? There is stability in the biosphere. The driving force of this stability is cooperation, not competition. Competition destroys. We know this how? Humanity is 7 billion strong!!! WE are the ONLY ones that know about competition. And we are kickin' ass with it, to our ultimate demise.

Steve P. said: But seriously now. Mike, so the ancients recognized the properties inherent in matter. Did they investigate where those properties came from? Are scientists today investigating the properties of force and energy that give atoms their properties? Etc, etc, etc. Or is it that they just are? IMO, design denial seems a philosophical hang-up.

Steve P. said: The friggin' resources are always there! You guys can't get that through your skulls!

Competition destroys. We know this how? Humanity is 7 billion strong!!! WE are the ONLY ones that know about competition.

eric said: What goes on between lion and zebra is competition, ....

There is such a forum. It’s called the real world.

— ben

DS said: There is almost always a limiting resource. Just because you don't know what it is, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Grow up, learn some basic biology and get a life.

DS said:

Steve P. said: Shit Eric, The friggin' resources are always there! You guys can't get that through your skulls! Why do you think phenotypes have been unchanged for so damn long???? There is stability in the biosphere. The driving force of this stability is cooperation, not competition. Competition destroys. We know this how? Humanity is 7 billion strong!!! WE are the ONLY ones that know about competition. And we are kickin' ass with it, to our ultimate demise.

Right Steve. We'll never run out of resources. God will always provide. We can use all the oil we want, we can cut down all the trees we want. We will never go hungry or go without clothes. You live in a freakin fairy land. Here is a news flash for you Steve, organisms tend to increase in numbers until some resource becomes limiting. Then they compete for that resource. There is almost always a limiting resource. Just because you don't know what it is, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Grow up, learn some basic biology and get a life.

Frank J said:

There is such a forum. It’s called the real world.

— ben

Sure, but what's missing is a concise summary, easily read and understood by a public that lacks the time, interest and ability to completely grasp what a horrendous mess of contradictions, word games and evasion there is under the big tent. It's not enough that people know that ID/creationism is failed science and an inherently superstitious view that violates the Establishment Clause. It's deliberate deception, wrapped in a "don't ask, don't tell" cover-up and smothered in pseudoscientific snake oil. Ergo, I second Tom's request (one that he and I have both made before) to devote a PT thread exclusively to "what happened when" questions, with no reference to "weaknesses" or "implications" of "Darwinism."

Steve P. said:

Actually I adhere strictly to the original definition of evolution as: "A rolling out; an unfolding".

Is that was Darwin meant, is that what science says? I don’t think so.

However,I do reject Darwin's conjecture that historical biological development is the result of step-wise, random, unguided, undirected mutations building complexity.

Conjecture? More like a hypothesis and a theory, confirmed by 150 years of study.

I further adhere to the conclusion that the adaptive mechanisms displayed in organisms today are not the same mechanisms used in the past to evolve organisms.

Conclusion? No, that’s conjecture if I ever saw one.

I do hope this helps clarify my position. Maybe you could scan it onto a post-it note.

Doesn’t strike me as worth the waste of a post-it.

Frank J said:

IMO, design denial seems a philosophical hang-up.

— Steve P.

... we have a rare opportunity - a thread with an old-life-common-descent accepting evolution-denier (you) and a young-earther (Robert) participating. What better way to show that your "theories" are truly scientific, and that you don't merely have a philosophical objection to science, than to have a good old-fashioned debate among yourselves? Start with the basics of "what happened when, and omit any objections you have to "Darwinism," "naturalism," or how real scientists behave.

Pete Dunkelberg said:

eric said: What goes on between lion and zebra is competition, ....

No, that's predation.

John Kwok said: Egads a typo, which I correct now as follows: However, just to set the record straight, the Discovery Institute was founded in 1994 or 1995, not twenty years ago.

Pete Dunkelberg said:

eric said: What goes on between lion and zebra is competition, ....

No, that's predation.

eric said:

Pete Dunkelberg said:

eric said: What goes on between lion and zebra is competition, ....

No, that's predation.

I think its both. Predation is when two animals compete over how one (of the) animal's bodies is going to be used. I'm not a biologist however. If you folks draw a technical distinction between predation and competition, I'll retract or rephrase. I would note only that drawing a technical distinction between the two does not make Steve P. any less wrong.

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: Egads a typo, which I correct now as follows: However, just to set the record straight, the Discovery Institute was founded in 1994 or 1995, not twenty years ago.

Not a problem, John. The war started in earnest back in the 1960s and 70s when Duane Gish started terrorizing biology teachers in Kalamazoo, Michigan when he worked on tobacco viruses at what was then the Upjohn Company. Then the formation of the Institute for Creation “Research” was the start of the formal arming of the creationist movement for the political war on science. The “Discovery” Institution is just a later morphing of the original “intellectual terrorism” in response to effective defenses by the courts and the law.

Any two organisms who could consume the same limited food source, each one at the expense of the other, in a world where trillions of organisms starve to death everyday (and therefore fail to further reproduce), can obviously said to be competing. This competition is obviously both relevant to genetic selection, and entirely non-telelogical. A lion and a hyena both trying to eat the same antelope carcass aren't thinking about the concept of competition, they're just competing. One wins, one loses.

If Steve P doesn't grasp this, it's either because he cannot, or does not want to. In any case, what's the point of trying to educate him?

What animal competes with a horse?

Oh brother. I see that wikipedia repeats what must have been a throw-away remark in The Selfish Gene in ancient history.

Guys, believe it or not I'm trying to help. I'm sure Kwok knows the difference between predation and competition, argument notwithstanding. Eric and others with less background, do yourselves a favor. Get the point, and don't brush it aside as a "technical distinction".

Competition and predation are routinely and for good and clear reason treated as two different important things in ecological literature. The literature also takes it for granted that you know what they are and won't confuse one with the other.

Here is an example (pdf) of ecological literature.

Karen S. said:

What animal competes with a horse?

which part of the horse do you mean? Looks like many are competing with the back end of a horse right here.

Rats! The wrong link got into my comment somehow.

right link for example

Edit: incredibly the original link is now fixed.

When I read that review the first word that came to mind was “fawning.”

Actually, I said that it make no difference to me either way if the earth is 4 billion or 6,000 years old.

I believe the only logical way to do so it through a model based solely on physics and chemistry.

Can you explain endosymbiosis strictly using physics and chemistry?

Pete Dunkelberg said: Competition and predation are routinely and for good and clear reason treated as two different important things in ecological literature. The literature also takes it for granted that you know what they are and won't confuse one with the other. Here is an example (pdf) of ecological literature.

Steve P. broadcasts his monumental ignorance to the universe: "What animal competes with a shark?"

harold said: Steve P. wrote -

Actually, I said that it make no difference to me either way if the earth is 4 billion or 6,000 years old.

To me, this is a very dishonest statement. Putting aside the absurd lack of basic intellectual curiosity that is implied, most of those who believe that the earth is ~6000 years old openly state of imply that those who believe otherwise will be damned to Hell for eternity. Steve P. has made numerous mealy-mouthed efforts to have it both ways - to claim no conflict with young earth Biblical literalists, while simultaneously suggesting that they "might" be wrong. It doesn't work that way.

Okay, Pete, that was predation, not competition. :-) Selection pressure, nonetheless.

Robert Byers said: Merry Christmas and happy new year to Good guys and bad guys in the origins troubles of thinking people. (snip the usual incoherence)

I can certainly understand that someone might think that competition does not have that much impact as a selective factor in evolution if one thinks of competition narrowly as competiting for limited [i]food[/i] resources. But the fact is there are all sorts of examples of competition in the natural world. Competition for shelter and mates comes to my mind as being two of the most prominent in terms of influencing natural selection. Indeed, cuttlefish appear to have experienced a recent change in their biology that has provided an opportunity to some males - they have the ability to resemble younger females and thus get close to (and inseminate in many cases) fertile females without arousing aggression/attack from larger competing males. On the former item - shelter - one need only look at a little bit of literature on the plights of the eastern blue bird, spotted owl, barn-owl, red-headed woodpecker, etc to realize that competition is rampant.

http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

I notice in his second post, Falk goes to some length to assure us that there isn't any hint of deceit in what any of the Dishonesty Institute people do. I seriously doubt he's approaching this assessment as a scientist, collecting relevant data and analyzing it logically.

After all, the Meyer/Sternberg affair was pure deceit from the (carefully concealed) conception, to the (blatantly misrepresented) repercussions. Meyer's article itself was deceitful, getting it published in an inappropriate journal was deceitful, sidestepping peer review was deceitful, failure to mention Sternberg's connections to baraminology was deceitful, and the entire PR effort claiming that Sternberg was "punished" for "doing his job" was fabricated from the ground up.

If Falk can find any aspect whatsoever in the entire Sternberg affair that was NOT deceitful, and can keep a straight face while claiming he did, I'd love to watch.

So it’s not at all bad overall, no matter the details that I could and do fault.

http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Pete Dunkelberg said: Oh brother. I see that wikipedia repeats what must have been a throw-away remark in The Selfish Gene in ancient history. Guys, believe it or not I'm trying to help. I'm sure Kwok knows the difference between predation and competition, argument notwithstanding. Eric and others with less background, do yourselves a favor. Get the point, and don't brush it aside as a "technical distinction". Competition and predation are routinely and for good and clear reason treated as two different important things in ecological literature. The literature also takes it for granted that you know what they are and won't confuse one with the other. Here is an example (pdf) of ecological literature.

Stanton said: I agree: Saying that a lion competes with a gazelle over the use of the gazelle's body is an example of pretzel logic

Why don't you post your observation over there, Flint? It might be well worth reminding that the Dishonesty Institute engages in such dishonest behavior like:

1) Billing the Dover Area School District tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees as potential witnesses for the defense, but failing to send the entire corps to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial room except for a mere handful, and of that, the most notable one is Behe.

2) Falsely accusing eminent University of Texas Eric Pianka of being a "bioterrorist" simply because of some ridiculous remarks he made to a Texas Academy of Sciences audience and submitting him to both an online "death threat" campaign and harassment from the Federal Department of Homeland Security (or the FBI or both). A false accusation submitted by the ever so "fair" Bill Dembski to Federal authorities.

3) Claiming to "borrow" a Harvard University cell animation video, used without consent in the Fall of 2007 by the thief in question, the very same Bill Dembski, who apparently "lent" it to Premise Media, the film production company for "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

4) Urging Amazon.com to censor a harsh, but accurate, review I had written in December 2007 of a book co-authored by Dembski; a review that was restored only after I sent Dembski an e-mail ultimatum.

5) Extolling the obvious "ties" between Darwin's thought and Hitler's heinous conception and subsequent execution of the Holocaust; an ongoing theme elaborated by Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer - and resident Orthodox Jew - David Klinghoffer.

6) Urging Dishonesty Institute sycophants to post favorable Amazon.com reviews of Meyer's "Signature in the Cell", simply because "evil Atheist Darwinists" like yours truly and Don Prothero have slammed it in our harsh, but accurate, negative reviews.

Typical comeback by an ID proponent to a well-reasoned ID critic:

"Don't try and fool me with your high fallutin' science talk. I'm the onlyest one in my family to graduate high school. You're not dealing with a moran here!"

Enjoy.

Actually, I said that it make no difference to me either way if the earth is 4 billion or 6,000 years old.

— Steve P.

As far as I can tell, creationists as a group sincerely believe that if their religious goals are correct, then it's not only not deceitful, it's downright honest to lie, misrepresent, connive, game the system, bait and switch, ignore the evidence in a book purporting to examine that evidence, commit perjury, mine quotes, repeat claims known to be false, and whatever else it takes to stack the deck and rig the game in their favor.

Falk's claim to see "lack of deceit" in all of this beggars all credibility. "Fawning" isn't the word for it. At the very best, we're seeing truly profound self-deception. And most likely for the same underlying religious reason. Religion is the ideal vehicle for it. I doubt Falk could ever see the irony in deceiving himself to the point where he can't see systematic, deliberate wholesale deceit on the part of fellow Christion brothers. No deceit here, nope.

They could find it by reading Carl Zimmer’s new textbook, Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True”, Don Prothero’s “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters”, or even Ken Miller’s “Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul”:

— John Kwok

Hey guys, before calling others intentionally dishonest, remember Morton's -- Demon.

Pete Dunkelberg said: Hey guys, before calling others intentionally dishonest, remember Morton's -- Demon.

Flint said: As far as I can tell, creationists as a group sincerely believe that if their religious goals are correct, then it's not only not deceitful, it's downright honest to lie, misrepresent, connive, game the system, bait and switch, ignore the evidence in a book purporting to examine that evidence, commit perjury, mine quotes, repeat claims known to be false, and whatever else it takes to stack the deck and rig the game in their favor. Falk's claim to see "lack of deceit" in all of this beggars all credibility. "Fawning" isn't the word for it. At the very best, we're seeing truly profound self-deception. And most likely for the same underlying religious reason. Religion is the ideal vehicle for it. I doubt Falk could ever see the irony in deceiving himself to the point where he can't see systematic, deliberate wholesale deceit on the part of fellow Christion brothers. No deceit here, nope.

Hey guys, before calling others intentionally dishonest, remember Morton’s – Demon.

harold said: All explanations in biology are already, ultimately, explanations in the terms of physics and chemistry.

... organization (of the lower level parts) is important in itself -- in some cases even the most important thing. The laws of quantum mechanics, the laws of chemistry, the laws of metabolism, and the laws of bunnies running away from foxes in the courtyards of my university all descend from each other, but the last set are the laws that count, in the end, for the bunny. Robert B Laughlin, A Different Universe p 219

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: Egads a typo, which I correct now as follows: However, just to set the record straight, the Discovery Institute was founded in 1994 or 1995, not twenty years ago.

Not a problem, John. The war started in earnest back in the 1960s and 70s when Duane Gish started terrorizing biology teachers in Kalamazoo, Michigan when he worked on tobacco viruses at what was then the Upjohn Company. Then the formation of the Institute for Creation “Research” was the start of the formal arming of the creationist movement for the political war on science. The “Discovery” Institution is just a later morphing of the original “intellectual terrorism” in response to effective defenses by the courts and the law.

By a show of hands, how many PT'ers have read Meyer's book entirely?

chunkdz said: By a show of hands, how many PT'ers have read Meyer's book entirely?

http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Pete Dunkelberg said:

harold said: All explanations in biology are already, ultimately, explanations in the terms of physics and chemistry.

"Ultimately?" Well that's one way to look at it. In practice, higher level concepts, laws and theories are essential. You can't really write a chemical equation for cooking dinner, nor explain pushing a table across the floor with quantum mechanics. How the human-sized world emerges from the quantum world is one of the great puzzles of physics.

D. P. Robin said: Heavens, I grew up in Kalamazoo during that period and heard nothing of that. Might have been better if thinks had stayed that obscure. dpr

chunkdz said: By a show of hands, how many PT'ers have read Meyer's book entirely?

Steve P. said: Shit Eric, The friggin' resources are always there! You guys can't get that through your skulls! Why do you think phenotypes have been unchanged for so damn long???? There is stability in the biosphere. The driving force of this stability is cooperation, not competition. Competition destroys. We know this how? Humanity is 7 billion strong!!! WE are the ONLY ones that know about competition. And we are kickin' ass with it, to our ultimate demise.

Steve P. said: Patience ma' man, patience. We are only 20 years into catching up to Charles' 150 year head start; Charles' hare to ID's tortoise.

...much of my own work on intelligent design has been filling in the details of these otherwise intuitive, pretheoretic ideas of creationists.

chunkdz said: By a show of hands, how many PT'ers have read Meyer's book entirely?

I haven't read the book yet. That's why I am only reviewing a review, to point out that BioLogos isn't buying it. Meyer of course didn't do any new scientific research, and no report indicates any new ideas, just creationism repeated.

Quite a few fossil croc species did not resemble today's species as you likely know. For others:

Sereno's crocs and more

descriptions of some old crocs

RBH said:

chunkdz said: By a show of hands, how many PT'ers have read Meyer's book entirely?

All but the last appendix.

Pete Dunkelberg said: Hey guys, before calling others intentionally dishonest, remember Morton's -- Demon.

However,I do reject Darwin’s conjecture that historical biological development is the result of step-wise, random, unguided, undirected mutations building complexity.

Steve (who still hasn't learned a damn thing) wrote:

"However,I do reject Darwin’s conjecture that historical biological development is the result of step-wise, random, unguided, undirected mutations building complexity."

That's funny, me to. As Darwin showed, you also need selection, a decidedly nonrandom process. Or are you going to claim that that never occurs in nature either? You do know that once you have competition you almost always have selection as well don't you? You do know that there are lots of types of selection that don't depend on competition, don't you? You do know something about biology don't you? My guess would be no, since you have demonstrated an almost pathological inability to learn even the simplest things.

Pete Dunkelberg said: I don't know why people are talking about competition in ecology here, but to help any newbies, competition is first and foremost within a species. Members of the same species living in the same area automatically compete for the same resources and must avoid the same problems in nearly the same ways. The gazelle does not have to outrun the cheetah, it has to outrun at least some other gazelle. Competition also occurs between groups of (usually) one species versus other groups of the same species. Unrelated species can also compete for a limited resource. For example, bees compete with humming birds in places where both are common. To get back to the topic of the post, BioLogos and Disco are competing to be seen as the right religious response to science.

RBH said:

chunkdz said: By a show of hands, how many PT'ers have read Meyer's book entirely?

All but the last appendix.

Frank J said:

Actually, I said that it make no difference to me either way if the earth is 4 billion or 6,000 years old.

— Steve P.

And none of that makes my claim that you accept common descent and mainstream chronolgy "inaccurate." And if I clarify that you deny evolution "as most scientists understand it," neither does that. I am well aware that you do not consider the earth's age (or life's age, or any of the myriad details of mainstream chronology) important. I would have no problem with 6000 years or 5 minutes either, if that's what the data pointed to. But they don't, and you know it. Yet you still refuse to challenge YECs and OECs who deny common descent, even though to you they are at least as wrong about the science as you think "Darwinists" are. Tell us again why that is.

So, Steve P, if competition does not exist in nature, please explain why male animals always engage each other in combat in order to secure mating privileges, why do lions chase away and or kill hyenas and jackals, or why, when two corals of two different species grow close to each other, they shower each other with special strands filled with extra-potent stinging cells, or why squirrels establish territories and chase other squirrels out of these territories, or why scarab beetles cut up and roll dung into balls, thereby denying flies from having material in which to lay eggs in.

Steve P. said: Frank, I dunno. Maybe for the same reason you guys tolerate Mr. Kwok. You(pl) overlook his bombastic, infantile antics probably because he is still marginally in the same camp. No need alienating allies, no matter how close to the fringe they may wade, correct?. The deference paid here to fellow posters is palpable. Seems internicene conflict is frowned upon. Not hard to detect, really. No surprises here.

Frank J said:

Actually, I said that it make no difference to me either way if the earth is 4 billion or 6,000 years old.

— Steve P.

And none of that makes my claim that you accept common descent and mainstream chronolgy "inaccurate." And if I clarify that you deny evolution "as most scientists understand it," neither does that. I am well aware that you do not consider the earth's age (or life's age, or any of the myriad details of mainstream chronology) important. I would have no problem with 6000 years or 5 minutes either, if that's what the data pointed to. But they don't, and you know it. Yet you still refuse to challenge YECs and OECs who deny common descent, even though to you they are at least as wrong about the science as you think "Darwinists" are. Tell us again why that is.

Stanton said: So, Steve P, if competition does not exist in nature, please explain why male animals always engage each other in combat in order to secure mating privileges, why do lions chase away and or kill hyenas and jackals, or why, when two corals of two different species grow close to each other, they shower each other with special strands filled with extra-potent stinging cells, or why squirrels establish territories and chase other squirrels out of these territories, or why scarab beetles cut up and roll dung into balls, thereby denying flies from having material in which to lay eggs in.

John Kwok said: You're really precious, Steve P. for asserting that I am infantile, when you opted to dub me "Obi Wan Kenobi". Yours was a most gratutious, quite infantile, remark, which you have followed subsequently (and previously, I might add), with more infantile comments. But I suppose it's what to be expected from an intellectually-challenged buffoon currently residing in Taiwan (I am referring to Taiwan only because you mentioned it; I have the utmost respect for the Taiwanese, even the unfortunate few who are your business partners and/or clients there.):

Steve P. said: With all due respect, I believe this is a common misperception. The gazelle does not outrun other gazelles. The only gazelles that get caught are the old, infirm, and very young. So the lion keeps the gazelle genome fit. Gazelles are neither consciously or unconsciously competing... This cannot be interpreted as competition.

Competition as we know it means actively consuming resources in order to deny another party the same resources.

Animals do not have this conscious capability to 'deny' resources to another population. Resources in nature are consumed on a as needed basis.

Stanton said: I find it hard that anyone would think that your comments are infantile, John, especially when they're being compared to statements claiming that competition in nature is illusionary, or that competition is solely a human invention. I mean, Steve P talks like he has never, ever, ever seen an animal interact with another animal in his entire life. Has he never seen two dogs fight over food, or ever tried to watch two cats try to assert dominance over each other or even never tried to put a mirror up to a betta before? All his talk about animals is pure bullshit.

John Kwok said: You're really precious, Steve P. for asserting that I am infantile, when you opted to dub me "Obi Wan Kenobi". Yours was a most gratutious, quite infantile, remark, which you have followed subsequently (and previously, I might add), with more infantile comments. But I suppose it's what to be expected from an intellectually-challenged buffoon currently residing in Taiwan (I am referring to Taiwan only because you mentioned it; I have the utmost respect for the Taiwanese, even the unfortunate few who are your business partners and/or clients there.):

Steve wrote:

"With all due respect, I believe this is a common misperception. The gazelle does not outrun other gazelles. The only gazelles that get caught are the old, infirm, and very young. So the lion keeps the gazelle genome fit. Gazelles are neither consciously or unconsciously competing. They do what they do, nothing more."

With all due respect, you are full of shit. If the ones that get caught more often are the slower ones, why would they have to be doing anything consciously or unconsciously? They are just getting caught and eaten, this is selection pure and simple. What exactly are you trying to say? You have just proven that selection is important.

"As for food resources, the whole heard will suffer since they all graze at the same time. Once all the grass is gone, they all starve. If there is another heard nearby, will we see the other heard speeding up their grass cutting? There will be no reaction, simply one population surviving, one starving."

And the one who eats the grass first, or faster or better will be the one who survives more often and the one who does not will die more often. If one survives and one dies, how is this not competition, how is this not selection?

"This cannot be interpreted as competition. Competition as we know it means actively consuming resources in order to deny another party the same resources. Animals do not have this conscious capability to ‘deny’ resources to another population. Resources in nature are consumed on a as needed basis. In the case of squirrels, they collect acorns. But are they denying them to other squirrels or are they hedging against environmental change?"

They do not need any conscious ability you twit! Why do you think that they do? How can one species that consumes a resource not deny it to another species if it is now gone? If a squirrel eats an acorn, how can another squirrel eat it later? Why does the squirrel have to know what it is doing to the other squirrel? What difference would it make if it did? Why can't you imagine competition without foresight and planning? What exactly do you think is so special about intelligence?

"Competition is a human endeavor, where foresight and planning is involved. For example, Chinese textile manufacturers deny small textile companies resources by buying fiber in large forecast bulk, pushing up raw material prices, denying smaller firms a margin, pushing them out of the market, thus accelerating their expansion of market share."

Competition is NOT a human endeavor. You are taking an analogy and assuming that it must mean the exact same thing in every circumstance. Ironically, this is exactly what you are accusing others of doing. For you information, you are not using the term appropriately. I presume that you know that you are not, therefor you are just being dense.

"The point is foresight and planning. In your opinion, do we observe organisms engaging in foresight and planning in order to deny resources to other organisms?"

The point is not foresight and planning. If lions eat all of the game in an area and all of the cheetahs starve to death, were the lions more intelligent that=n the cheetahs? Did they plan to kill all the cheetahs? Did they care? You are just making shit up and you are very bad at it. This doesn't even make any sense.

"Again, any appearance of or actual competition is countered by the greater observance of symbiotic activity between the lower and higher taxa. This is what many miss. The focus is always on what is observed in the higher taxa. But what percentage of the animal kingdom do these higher taxa represent?"

Again, you are full of shit. You are just plain wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. There isn't even such a thing as lower and higher taxa. Symbiosis only evolves when it has a selective advantage as I have demonstrated. If you had read the rest of the paper I cited you might understand. SInce you didn't bother, you are still ignorant.

"In a word, I believe it is a mistake to apply the human experience and concept of competition and apply it to the whole or even a large portion of the biosphere, regardless of any appearance of or actual competition. At best, it is a minor player in the biological world."

In a word, you are the only one doing this. Are you really so stupid that you cannot see that? Competition exists regardless of any human concept. Deal with it already, you nitwit.

"Heck, even humanity is slowly getting to understand the destructive nature of competition. But we are still too immature to contemplate utopian scenarios. We all know the result of that 20th century coerced cooperation initiative."

Competition destroys those less fit more often, it usually does not destroy everything. It is responsible for the adaptations that we observe in living organisms all around us. You don't have the slightest clue what your are even trying to talk about. You can't even make a post without contradicting yourself. Why exactly do you think that you know better than experts in these fields? Why do you think that you can just define words to mean whatever you want and then claim that that proves something? Why do you think that anyone will be convinced of anything by your ignorance? Anyone can see that you are just plain wrong. No wonder you didn't read those papers, you couldn't understand them if you ever did try.

Hi Steve,
First, I want to apologize for the uncalled for personal remarks some have directed toward you. In my view such remarks do not reflect well on their maker. In addition, your post shows that you are actually thinking! Most of us, most of the time, cruise on past thoughts.

For instance, when it comes to the concept of competition in ecology, I have the advantage of already knowing scientific usage. You make some good points, but the phrase

"... in order to deny another party the same resources."

is not what ecologists are talking about. There is no "in order" in the ecological concept.

Competition is understood and measured in field studies solely in terms of consequences. Thus plants compete for light in situations where one may grow faster and overshade the other. Of course the plants are not thinking about it.

The cheetah catches the gazelle that is slowest for whatever reason. But even when there is no cheetah around, the gazelles eat as quickly as they can process the food. Sometimes there is plenty of grass, so grass is not a limiting factor as ecologists put it. But when there is not so much grass, the gazelles are competing with each other just by standing around eating. Again, this is measured by consequences. Do some gazelles grow more slowly than normal, or even become weak, with shortage of food the only reason in sight? If not, no competition is measured.

To be sure, in many situations animals at least appear to act purposefully. Since we can't read their minds this is usually put down to instinct. Nevertheless, many animals compete for mates, defend territories, and seem to eat quickly with the effect of depriving another animal of the food. Squirrels and especially birds don't just collect acorns, they bury them in hundreds of spots which they can somehow remember much later. They are also capable of watching another bird bury an acorn, then taking it and moving it to another spot which the first bird will not know of. Whether an animal appears to act with purpose or not, the ecologist measures competition by consequences only.

All organisms need some resources before they can reproduce. However, they may not be resource limited (for instance when predation keeps the population low, but see the paper I linked earlier). If individuals or a population is resource limited, the limitation may not be caused by other organisms. Thus there is not always competition. But competition within the same species is hard to completely avoid.

Talk of competition is not meant to deny other things. Just because there is some competition does not mean there is not also some cooperation (again, in effect. Bacteria cooperate a lot, but they don't do it on purpose).

Just remember: the ecological concept of competition has nothing to do with purpose and planning. Whenever you start to think that way, remember about plants competing for light. That will keep you on the right track.

The way some comments are loaded with insults is not explained by any visible cause from without.

Steve P. said: The gazelle does not outrun other gazelles. The only gazelles that get caught are the old, infirm, and very young.

So the lion keeps the gazelle genome fit.

Gazelles are neither consciously or unconsciously competing. They do what they do, nothing more.

As for food resources, the whole heard will suffer since they all graze at the same time. Once all the grass is gone, they all starve. If there is another heard nearby, will we see the other heard speeding up their grass cutting? There will be no reaction, simply one population surviving, one starving.

This cannot be interpreted as competition.

Competition as we know it means actively consuming resources in order to deny another party the same resources.

Animals do not have this conscious capability to 'deny' resources to another population.

Resources in nature are consumed on a as needed basis.

In the case of squirrels, they collect acorns. But are they denying them to other squirrels or are they hedging against environmental change?

Competition is a human endeavor, where foresight and planning is involved.(snip)

The point is foresight and planning.

In your opinion, do we observe organisms engaging in foresight and planning in order to deny resources to other organisms?

Again, any appearance of or actual competition is countered by the greater observance of symbiotic activity between the lower and higher taxa. This is what many miss. The focus is always on what is observed in the higher taxa. But what percentage of the animal kingdom do these higher taxa represent?

In a word, I believe it is a mistake to apply the human experience and concept of competition and apply it to the whole or even a large portion of the biosphere, regardless of any appearance of or actual competition. At best, it is a minor player in the biological world.

Heck, even humanity is slowly getting to understand the destructive nature of competition. But we are still too immature to contemplate utopian scenarios. We all know the result of that 20th century coerced cooperation initiative.

To try again to ward off muddles: the cheetahs and gazelles are not competing with each other. One species preys on the other.

The gazelles are competing with each other in various ways. The cheetahs, being sparsely distributed, do not at first seem to be competing. But they need large territories. When a young one leaves its mother, it needs to carve out a territory for itself....

Pete Dunkelberg said: The way some comments are loaded with insults is not explained by any visible cause from without.

How exactly does that prevent you from being civil?

“Ultimately?” Well that’s one way to look at it. In practice, higher level concepts, laws and theories are essential. You can’t really write a chemical equation for cooking dinner,

nor explain pushing a table across the floor with quantum mechanics.

How the human-sized world emerges from the quantum world is one of the great puzzles of physics.

Biologists rarely need to discuss chemistry when talking about evolution and natural selection in populations of living organisms.

I dunno. Maybe for the same reason you guys tolerate Mr. Kwok. You(pl) overlook his bombastic, infantile antics probably because he is still marginally in the same camp. No need alienating allies, no matter how close to the fringe they may wade, correct?. The deference paid here to fellow posters is palpable. Seems internicene conflict is frowned upon. Not hard to detect, really. No surprises here.

Well, I’ve read that essay several times, and I have a very hard time applying it to, let’s say, the Leonard case. Recall, that’s where Leonard got together with the only two creationist professors at Ohio State University, and conspired to create a Ph.D. committee composed of too few members (which they were well aware of), who weren’t even in the right speciality (which they were also well aware of), for the purpose of sleazing through a “thesis” which was nothing more than a way of using OSU’s reputation to whitewash an unconstitutional public school curriculum (which they were also well aware of).

In US culture, there does sometimes seem to be a little less empathy on the right.

Pete Dunkelberg -

1) I am 100% in agreement that civility is the way to go.

2) I always strive to use civility. However, accurate, civil descriptions which others find unpleasant may be mistaken for "insults" or "incivility". Indeed, it is common for those who advance irrational arguments to insist that all logical rebuttals are "insults".

For example, above, I note that Steve P. displays "dissembling and flawed logic". These are not outright "insults", at least in the culture I belong to. Nor is there a straightforward way to point out these tendencies with more tender language.

3) In fact, this thread is actually originally about Falk's reply to Meyers. A number of people have noted that due to excessive concern with "civility", Falk's reply - which I respect him for having the guts to make - is weakened by its appearance of being excessively deferential.

A concern for civility does not necessitate an abandonment of rigor. Very flawed and deceptive claims from individuals with no understanding of the subject matter on which they pontificate should be exposed as what they are.

4) Finally, I will note that civility is a matter of style, and perhaps strategy. An insult-laden accurate comment is still worth far, far more than a civil comment which is deceptive and/or irrational.

harold said: Of course, my view is that they have a character flaw or psychological problem. They literally don't have a concept of honesty. It's meaningless to them, the way that the written word is meaningless to someone with a brain lesion that leaves them incapable of ever understanding it. They adhere to rigid dogma and ideology as a substitute for empathy and social contract based ethical norms, but however rigid the proscriptions for others, the dogma invariably becomes self-serving and infinitely flexible for them. (Yet comically, they wildly project that it is others whose ethics are "relativistic"). All they really understand, in my view, is power struggle. If you can force, intimidate or trick someone else into overtly "conceding" something (whatever they may think inwardly), that makes it truth.

With all due respect, I believe this is a common misperception. The gazelle does not outrun other gazelles.

The only gazelles that get caught are the old, infirm, and very young. So the lion keeps the gazelle genome fit.

Gazelles are neither consciously or unconsciously competing. They do what they do, nothing more.

As for food resources, the whole heard will suffer since they all graze at the same time. Once all the grass is gone, they all starve. If there is another heard nearby, will we see the other heard speeding up their grass cutting? There will be no reaction, simply one population surviving, one starving. This cannot be interpreted as competition. Competition as we know it means actively consuming resources in order to deny another party the same resources. Animals do not have this conscious capability to 'deny' resources to another population. Resources in nature are consumed on a as needed basis. In the case of squirrels, they collect acorns. But are they denying them to other squirrels or are they hedging against environmental change? Competition is a human endeavor, where foresight and planning is involved. For example, Chinese textile manufacturers deny small textile companies resources by buying fiber in large forecast bulk, pushing up raw material prices, denying smaller firms a margin, pushing them out of the market, thus accelerating their expansion of market share. The point is foresight and planning. In your opinion, do we observe organisms engaging in foresight and planning in order to deny resources to other organisms? Again, any appearance of or actual competition is countered by the greater observance of symbiotic activity between the lower and higher taxa. This is what many miss. The focus is always on what is observed in the higher taxa. But what percentage of the animal kingdom do these higher taxa represent? In a word, I believe it is a mistake to apply the human experience and concept of competition and apply it to the whole or even a large portion of the biosphere, regardless of any appearance of or actual competition. At best, it is a minor player in the biological world. Heck, even humanity is slowly getting to understand the destructive nature of competition. But we are still too immature to contemplate utopian scenarios. We all know the result of that 20th century coerced cooperation initiative.

I think the "politician" example can be chalked up to good ol' conscious hypocrisy rather than cognitive impairment 9 times out of 10.

Pete Dunkelberg said: How exactly does that prevent you from being civil?

DS said:

Pete Dunkelberg said: How exactly does that prevent you from being civil?

Peter, I tried that, multiple times. It didn't work. After you have provided over twenty references for this guy which he promises to read but doesn't, then keeps spouting his own personal definitions of words after you repeatedly pointed out that those definitions are not correct and explained why, then claims that he was right about all of the ludicrous claims that he made previously which you demonstrated were absolutely wrong, then continues to trash up thread after thread with off-topic nonsense that has already been disproven, then repeats the above sequence twice more, then you can lecture us about being civil. I have answered all of his questions at least four different times now, so have others, he has ignored most of out=r responses. Why should we continue to be civil to someone who is so blatantly uncivil in return? If you want some "cause from without", take a look at the thread where he demanded evidence for the endosymbiosis theory, which he brought up. If you can read that and still maintain that civility is called for in this case, I will comply. Until then, you can ignore my responses just as easily as I can ignore his. I strongly suspect that this individual doesn't really believe a word of what he posts. It doesn't matter how many references you cite or how many examples you give or how many times you correct him, two years from now he will still be claiming that competition doesn't exist in nature! Do you think that that is civil behavior? He refused to acknowledge that competition existed between prokaryotes because the authors of one paper used game theory to analyze it! That's like trying to claim that they guy who was a match for all thirteen loci on the paternity test is not your father because he doesn't like the same football team that you do. He deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule. There is absolutely no point in trying to teach him anything as he has no intention of learning, he only comes here to disrupt conversations. I have no idea why such foolishness is allowed on this site, we may have to tolerate it for some reason, but we certainly don't have to respect it. You have the power to banish such nonsense to the bathroom wall, perhaps you should use it.

DS said:

Pete Dunkelberg said: How exactly does that prevent you from being civil?

Peter, I tried that, multiple times. It didn't work. After you have provided over twenty references for this guy which he promises to read but doesn't, then keeps spouting his own personal definitions of words after you repeatedly pointed out that those definitions are not correct and explained why, then claims that he was right about all of the ludicrous claims that he made previously which you demonstrated were absolutely wrong, then continues to trash up thread after thread with off-topic nonsense that has already been disproven, then repeats the above sequence twice more, then you can lecture us about being civil. I have answered all of his questions at least four different times now, so have others, he has ignored most of out=r responses. Why should we continue to be civil to someone who is so blatantly uncivil in return? If you want some "cause from without", take a look at the thread where he demanded evidence for the endosymbiosis theory, which he brought up. If you can read that and still maintain that civility is called for in this case, I will comply. Until then, you can ignore my responses just as easily as I can ignore his. I strongly suspect that this individual doesn't really believe a word of what he posts. It doesn't matter how many references you cite or how many examples you give or how many times you correct him, two years from now he will still be claiming that competition doesn't exist in nature! Do you think that that is civil behavior? He refused to acknowledge that competition existed between prokaryotes because the authors of one paper used game theory to analyze it! That's like trying to claim that they guy who was a match for all thirteen loci on the paternity test is not your father because he doesn't like the same football team that you do. He deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule. There is absolutely no point in trying to teach him anything as he has no intention of learning, he only comes here to disrupt conversations. I have no idea why such foolishness is allowed on this site, we may have to tolerate it for some reason, but we certainly don't have to respect it. You have the power to banish such nonsense to the bathroom wall, perhaps you should use it.

DS said:

Pete Dunkelberg said: How exactly does that prevent you from being civil?

Peter, I tried that, multiple times. It didn't work. After you have provided over twenty references for this guy which he promises to read but doesn't, then keeps spouting his own personal definitions of words after you repeatedly pointed out that those definitions are not correct and explained why, then claims that he was right about all of the ludicrous claims that he made previously which you demonstrated were absolutely wrong, then continues to trash up thread after thread with off-topic nonsense that has already been disproven, then repeats the above sequence twice more, then you can lecture us about being civil. I have answered all of his questions at least four different times now, so have others, he has ignored most of out=r responses. Why should we continue to be civil to someone who is so blatantly uncivil in return? If you want some "cause from without", take a look at the thread where he demanded evidence for the endosymbiosis theory, which he brought up. If you can read that and still maintain that civility is called for in this case, I will comply. Until then, you can ignore my responses just as easily as I can ignore his. I strongly suspect that this individual doesn't really believe a word of what he posts. It doesn't matter how many references you cite or how many examples you give or how many times you correct him, two years from now he will still be claiming that competition doesn't exist in nature! Do you think that that is civil behavior? He refused to acknowledge that competition existed between prokaryotes because the authors of one paper used game theory to analyze it! That's like trying to claim that they guy who was a match for all thirteen loci on the paternity test is not your father because he doesn't like the same football team that you do. He deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule. There is absolutely no point in trying to teach him anything as he has no intention of learning, he only comes here to disrupt conversations. I have no idea why such foolishness is allowed on this site, we may have to tolerate it for some reason, but we certainly don't have to respect it. You have the power to banish such nonsense to the bathroom wall, perhaps you should use it.

As someone who has written a well cited review article on the role of competition in seasonal changes in lake plankton (as well as some primary research articles, search under W.R. DeMott), I would suggest that a search on Google Scholar would yield enough research articles on competition, both intra- and interspecific to provide at least a few decades of full time reading. Darwin's finches are a good example that ties together exploitative competition and natural selection

I dunno. Maybe for the same reason you guys tolerate Mr. Kwok. You(pl) overlook his bombastic, infantile antics probably because he is still marginally in the same camp. No need alienating allies, no matter how close to the fringe they may wade, correct?.

— Steve P.

Could it be that Steve might be Slimey Sal in disguise?

— John Kwok

I was away from network connection for a day, and when I came back to this, there were about 140 new postings. So I probably missed it where somebody gave a sketch of the theory of intelligent design. The one that told us "what happened when". The one that went beyond "something's wrong with evolutionary biology". But all that I saw was that all of those scientists that we're told about there's so many of haven't had enough time yet to make even a beginning at it. And don't care about "when".
Did I miss something?

Steve P. said: Hey, ID is just getting started.

Steve P. said:

The Greeks (e.g., Democritus, Lucretius) already recognized that the many properties of matter seen in nature were probably due to the interactions of a few underlying constituents they dubbed atoms.

But seriously now. Mike, so the ancients recognized the properties inherent in matter. Did they investigate where those properties came from? Are scientists today investigating the properties of force and energy that give atoms their properties? Etc, etc, etc.

So I probably missed it where somebody gave a sketch of the theory of intelligent design. The one that told us “what happened when”.

— TomS

Stuart Weinstein said:

Steve P. said: Hey, ID is just getting started.

What rot. It at least goes as far back as Paley. And some form of an intelligent design hypothesis probably goes back even further.

By the way I defended a teacher in the Freshwater case because the scientific consensus on many things is hard to keep track of. One thing that was brought up was the speed of light, and I pointed out that believing there were small changes over time and space even in the in vacuuo speed was not fringe or unscientific.

I have to add that some Fermi observations have lowered the magnitude of such possible changes considerably, though not perhaps for changes over long periods of time.

You’re really precious, Steve P. for asserting that I am infantile, when you opted to dub me “Obi Wan Kenobi”. Yours was a most gratutious, quite infantile, remark, which you have followed subsequently (and previously, I might add), with more infantile comments. But I suppose it’s what to be expected from an intellectually-challenged buffoon currently residing in Taiwan (I am referring to Taiwan only because you mentioned it; I have the utmost respect for the Taiwanese, even the unfortunate few who are your business partners and/or clients there.):

In his “Living with Darwin”, Kitcher has argued persuasively that Intelligent Design such be viewed as “dead science” since it inspired much important scientific research from the 16th through 18th Centuries; Paley’s statement was the most extensive, best presented, exposition of it, but by that time, many scientists - ironically both members of the clergy and genuine “scientific” creationists - recognized that it was no longer suitable as scientific theory.

— John Kwok

Dave C said:

RBH said:

chunkdz said: By a show of hands, how many PT'ers have read Meyer's book entirely?

All but the last appendix.

Hey RBH, pardon me if you've already posted it and I missed it, but is there any chance you might want to write a review of the book here at PT at some point?

Steve P. said: Hurts, doesn't it Mr. Kwok. Dun like it when someone sends it right back atcha. But then we couldn't expect a change of style on your part, could we? Too busy tooting your own horn, jumpin' up and down trying to get noticed. Please do keep up that frantic pace of vitriol against Dembski and Meyers. It can only help ID.

Sorry Pete, but I have to agree with harold and DS. Steve P. is unworthy of any respect from us period. He's merely yet another intellectually-challenged DI IDiot Borg drone "driving by" to stir up some trouble. He's not worth much more of my time or yours.

Steve wrote:

"Hurts, doesn’t it Mr. Kwok.

Dun like it when someone sends it right back atcha. But then we couldn’t expect a change of style on your part, could we? Too busy tooting your own horn, jumpin’ up and down trying to get noticed."

One big difference between you and John is that John can admit when he makes a mistake and learn from it. I have seen absolutely no evidence of such an ability on your part. You are wasting our time on a science blog if you are intellectually and emotionally incapable of learning.

A word about civility:

Which is civil?

1. There are many virtues to the good citizen Joe Jones, but he wears white socks so his position on Health Care Reform must be rejected.

2. Joe Jones gives a fucking stupid argument on Health Care Reform because he considers only physician visits and not hospital stays.

Position 1 is expressed in gracious language, but the reasoning is irrelevant. Position 2 uses foul language, but it attacks the argument and not the person. I consider statement 2 to be civil and statement 1 to be uncivil.

Steve P. said: Hurts, doesn't it Mr. Kwok.

Pete Dunkelberg said: How exactly does that prevent you from being civil?

Frank J said: But - Steve are you paying attention? - I blame "Darwinists" more than anyone, because we ought to know better than to keep "taking the bait" by letting our opponents keep the "debate" almost exclusively on what is "weak" or "strong" about "Darwinism," whether there is/isn't a designer, who/what the designer is, etc.

Stanton said:

Frank J said: But - Steve are you paying attention? - I blame "Darwinists" more than anyone, because we ought to know better than to keep "taking the bait" by letting our opponents keep the "debate" almost exclusively on what is "weak" or "strong" about "Darwinism," whether there is/isn't a designer, who/what the designer is, etc.

As opposed to forgetting to steer the debate towards explaining why forcing scientists to search for evidence of an overarching "intelligent designer" is useful and productive when its proponents have demonstrated a lack of ability or desire to show how searching for evidence of an "intelligent designer" manipulating nature from behind the scenes is science or how it would benefit science, especially since such proponents demonstrate an inability to search for this "intelligent designer" themselves beyond making appeals to ignorance and slander in varying degrees of eloquence?

John Kwok said: Stabton, I surmise Frank J was being sarcastic. And, of course, as for me, I know who the Intelligent Designer(s) was (were). God bless the scientists and soldiers of those Klingon Defense Force battlecruisers that trekked backward in time, using Admiral Kirk's "slingshot" method of time travel, arriving in time to seed the primordial Earth with microbial life:

Stanton said:

Frank J said: But - Steve are you paying attention? - I blame "Darwinists" more than anyone, because we ought to know better than to keep "taking the bait" by letting our opponents keep the "debate" almost exclusively on what is "weak" or "strong" about "Darwinism," whether there is/isn't a designer, who/what the designer is, etc.

As opposed to forgetting to steer the debate towards explaining why forcing scientists to search for evidence of an overarching "intelligent designer" is useful and productive when its proponents have demonstrated a lack of ability or desire to show how searching for evidence of an "intelligent designer" manipulating nature from behind the scenes is science or how it would benefit science, especially since such proponents demonstrate an inability to search for this "intelligent designer" themselves beyond making appeals to ignorance and slander in varying degrees of eloquence?

I have read "Signiture in the Cell." I am a little bit less intelligent now. However, beer is the great restoritive.

Gary Hurd said: I have read "Signiture in the Cell." I am a little bit less intelligent now. However, beer is the great restoritive.

Stanton:

I'm not sure how to interpret your long sentence, but if you mean that we must spend part of our criticism exposing the tactics and double standards of anti-evolution activists, of course we must. Defending the claims of evolution against misrepresentation is also necessary, even though doing so only gives the activists more facts to take out of context and spin as a "weakness." Not unlike how every new transitional fossil turns one "gap" into two.

What is all too rare, especially in recent years, is hammering these people with detailed questions about what happened, when, and how according to their "theory." Sure most of them will evade the questions, or regurgitate a pathetic "we don't need to connect no stinkin' dots" excuse. But how many times can they repeat that before most people (all but the hopeless ~25% that would not concede evolution under any circumstances) realize that they have no theory, and know it?

Gary Hurd said: I have read "Signiture in the Cell." I am a little bit less intelligent now. However, beer is the great restoritive.

Frank J said:

Gary Hurd said: I have read "Signiture in the Cell." I am a little bit less intelligent now. However, beer is the great restoritive.

I see it affected your speling. ;-)

Frank J said: What is all too rare, especially in recent years, is hammering these people with detailed questions about what happened, when, and how according to their "theory." Sure most of them will evade the questions, or regurgitate a pathetic "we don't need to connect no stinkin' dots" excuse. But how many times can they repeat that before most people (all but the hopeless ~25% that would not concede evolution under any circumstances) realize that they have no theory, and know it?

Which is civil? 1. There are many virtues to the good citizen Joe Jones, but he wears white socks so his position on Health Care Reform must be rejected. 2. Joe Jones gives a fucking stupid argument on Health Care Reform because he considers only physician visits and not hospital stays. Position 1 is expressed in gracious language, but the reasoning is irrelevant. Position 2 uses foul language, but it attacks the argument and not the person. I consider statement 2 to be civil and statement 1 to be uncivil.

I have a copy of Falk/s "Coming to Peace with Science" which I was planning on reading last night. Instead, I read-looked at, "The Book of Genesis- Illustrated by R. Crumb." Magnificent.

Steve P. said: Hey, ID is just getting started.

John Kwok said: You have my condolences. Have you tried Guinness as a great restoritive? I heard Guinness Stout is supposedly superb:

I can back up that claim anecdotally. My mother was a nurse in the UK during the 1960s. She said that they used to give people a bottle of Guinness Stout after giving blood, as a restorative. Only one bottle. On the topic of restoratives and blood (and off the topic of SitC) I have also heard that coconut water, directly from the coconut, can be used as blood plasma. Now, I wonder if Guinness Stout, delivered intravenously would be useful in a pinch. Terrible waste of Guinness otherwise. -DU-

One can insult an honest man or an honest woman, but to tell a thief that he is a thief is merely la constation d'un fait [the establishing of a fact].

Gary Hurd said: I have a copy of Falk/s "Coming to Peace with Science" which I was planning on reading last night. Instead, I read-looked at, "The Book of Genesis- Illustrated by R. Crumb." Magnificent.

utidjian said:

John Kwok said: You have my condolences. Have you tried Guinness as a great restoritive? I heard Guinness Stout is supposedly superb:

I can back up that claim anecdotally. My mother was a nurse in the UK during the 1960s. She said that they used to give people a bottle of Guinness Stout after giving blood, as a restorative. Only one bottle. On the topic of restoratives and blood (and off the topic of SitC) I have also heard that coconut water, directly from the coconut, can be used as blood plasma. Now, I wonder if Guinness Stout, delivered intravenously would be useful in a pinch. Terrible waste of Guinness otherwise. -DU-

harold said: Referring to an idiotic argument as "idiotic" is not civil, and I usually restrain myself from using such terms. But to me, it does not really cross the line, as it is not threatening or personal.

Frank J said: What is all too rare, especially in recent years, is hammering these people with detailed questions about what happened, when, and how according to their "theory." Sure most of them will evade the questions, or regurgitate a pathetic "we don't need to connect no stinkin' dots" excuse. But how many times can they repeat that before most people (all but the hopeless ~25% that would not concede evolution under any circumstances) realize that they have no theory, and know it?

Mike wrote:

"Perhaps we should all start out by asking them to explain all the details of their own “theory” before taking any of their bait. If they refuse, they and their narcissism should be simply ignored."

I asked on fifteen different occasions Mike, not a peep was to be heard. I was certainly not the only to ask either. He simply ignored all requests for alternatives and kept spouting incoherent gibberish about lions having no competition, as if that had anything to do with endosymbiosis, even if it were somehow true by some convoluted redefinition of the term. As for Frank's question, apparently he can ignore all requests for any alternative as many times as necessary. Man, it sure must be hard work ignoring so much, but then again this guy has years of practice ignoring all of science.

I suppose on some level he realizes that if there is competition there will be selection and if there is selection there will be evolution, no intelligence is required. Therefore, he desperately needs to inject intelligence into every action taken by every organism. Still, as far as I can recall, this is the first guy actually ignorant enough to try to claim that intelligence is required for competition. All he has proven is that no intelligence is required in order to spout nonsense.

Dan,

In his essay published on January 30 (31st?), 2008 in the British newspaper Telegraph, eminent invertebrate paleontologist Richard Fortey made a most persuasive case stating why we should refer to Intelligent Design advocates as IDiots. Basically, it boils down to whatever is good for the goose, must be good for the gander. Since Intelligent Design advocates enjoy mocking the "evil Liberal Atheistic Darwinists", then it is only fitting to refer to them as IDiots. We weren't the ones who opted for name calling; they did and it seems hypocritcal on their part when they complain about us.

Sincerely yours,

John

DS said: Man, it sure must be hard work ignoring so much, but then again this guy has years of practice ignoring all of science.

Frank J said: Stanton: I'm not sure how to interpret your long sentence, but if you mean that we must spend part of our criticism exposing the tactics and double standards of anti-evolution activists, of course we must. Defending the claims of evolution against misrepresentation is also necessary, even though doing so only gives the activists more facts to take out of context and spin as a "weakness." Not unlike how every new transitional fossil turns one "gap" into two. What is all too rare, especially in recent years, is hammering these people with detailed questions about what happened, when, and how according to their "theory." Sure most of them will evade the questions, or regurgitate a pathetic "we don't need to connect no stinkin' dots" excuse. But how many times can they repeat that before most people (all but the hopeless ~25% that would not concede evolution under any circumstances) realize that they have no theory, and know it?

raven said:

Steve P. said: Hey, ID is just getting started.

Totally false. A lie. ID in one form or another goes back to the ancient Greeks. It precedes Xianity. In over 2,000 years, it has gone nowhere and accomplished nothing. That is why we gave it up for a new methodology. Called science. So how did science work? The results have been spectacular. ID spends ca. $50 million USD/year. Almost all on propaganda, very little on research. Even the IDists know it is nonsense and a dead direction. Creationism isn't new. It is mythology thousands of years old on par with the demon theory of disease. We gave that up too for modern medicine.

Frank J said:

raven said:

Steve P. said: Hey, ID is just getting started.

Totally false. A lie. ID in one form or another goes back to the ancient Greeks. It precedes Xianity. In over 2,000 years, it has gone nowhere and accomplished nothing. That is why we gave it up for a new methodology. Called science. So how did science work? The results have been spectacular. ID spends ca. $50 million USD/year. Almost all on propaganda, very little on research. Even the IDists know it is nonsense and a dead direction. Creationism isn't new. It is mythology thousands of years old on par with the demon theory of disease. We gave that up too for modern medicine.

Yet, in a way Steve is right. The modern ID movement, despite it's roots in "scientific" creationism, and ripping off Paley's ideas (which several people think that Paley would not have appreciated), is just recently finding its true identity. If current trends are any indication, ID's future will have little use for Dembski's "specified complexity," Behe's "irreducible complexity" and the other assorted incredulity arguments ripped off from "scientific" creationism. But it will have a lot of whining about pseudoscientists being "expelled" when they simply flunk (or never show up), and baseless accusations of how "Darwinism" leads to all sorts of bad behavior. Pay attention to the rants of David Klinghoffer in particular.

Dan said:

harold said: Referring to an idiotic argument as "idiotic" is not civil, and I usually restrain myself from using such terms. But to me, it does not really cross the line, as it is not threatening or personal.

To me, it is civil to call an idiotic argument "idiotic". The argument has no feelings and can't be offended. But it is uncivil to call a person "idiotic". I know many smart people who slipped up and burped out an idiotic argument. (For example, two-time Nobel laureate Linus Pauling proposed a triple-helix structure for deoxyribonucleic acid -- DNA -- in which the molecule would not have been an acid.)

Do you have to remind me of Klinghoffer? I greatly regret that he is a fellow alumnus, along with Chuck Colson and Bobby Jindal, of our undergraduate Ivy League alma mater. He’s on a zealous mission to prove that Darwin was responsible for Hitler, as the resident DI Orthodox Jew:

— John Wwok

Smart people sometimes say stupid things, but a person who continually makes claims that were disproved decades ago after numerous attempts to give him the correct evidence is simply a complete idiot.

— Alex H

Frank J said:

Do you have to remind me of Klinghoffer? I greatly regret that he is a fellow alumnus, along with Chuck Colson and Bobby Jindal, of our undergraduate Ivy League alma mater. He’s on a zealous mission to prove that Darwin was responsible for Hitler, as the resident DI Orthodox Jew:

— John Wwok

Don't forget DI fellow Michael Medved, and close DI associate Ben Stein. Some people think that, if the DI ever "wins," those Jews, along with Catholics like Behe and agnostics like Berlinski, will be "out on the street." I doubt it. To me the DI's first allegiance is to their authoritarian ideology, and any pseudoscience it takes to advance it.

Apparently Darrel Falk has grown tired of my comments over at his website and has blocked them. These comments I tried posting over at his blog entry for his "Signature in the Cell" review. They are addressed to one "Cist" who admits finally that he is an IDiot:

Cist -

As someone who is a Christian, may I ask that you condone these acts:

1) Larceny via false billing of legal fees to the Dover, PA Area School District as potential witneses on its behalf (prior to the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial)

2) false accusation (Accusing University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka of being a potential "bioterrorist" to the Federal Department of Homeland Security)

3) theft (stealing a Harvard University cell animation video and using it without Harvard or the video producer's permission in your talks)

4) censorship (Asking Amazon.com to pull a harsh, but accurate review of my book written by one John Kwok since his is the only negative one star review at the time; the others written by my Dishonesty Institute friends and colleagues are all five star reviews)

5) Lying to someone about the true purposes of a film documentary (which Meyer apparently did to paleontologists James Valentine and Simon Conway Morris with regards to his film "Darwin's Dilemma)

If you can condone these acts then you are IMHO not a Christian at all, period.

Mike Elzinga said: This is something that I have almost always noticed with the extreme, proselytizing fundamentalists I know; there is clearly something missing in their ability to conceptualize ethics and morality. This may explain why they think nobody can have any ethical or moral standards without their sectarian dogma; it is the case for them, therefore they think it must be the case for everyone else. ... Whether fundamentalism is a cause of this kind of mental illness or this kind of mental illness predisposes people to fundamentalism may be arguable, and it may be a bit of both. But the correlation is pretty clear.

Scott,

I agree. I only hope that humanity can eventually outgrow the need for such external controls before those that require them destroy the rest of humanity with their misplaced sense of morality. If they can't be bothered to develop their own moral code, they could at least acknowledge that others are capable of doing it.

Perhaps it is time to rewrite the constitution in terms of rational moral criteria, rather than basing it on outdated Judeo-Christian traditions. Perhaps it is time that we become one nation under Canada rather than one nation "under God". At least then the creationists might stop lying about this being a christian nation. Perhaps we could, for the first time in history, actually try to live up to the ideals stated in the First Amendment. Somehow, I think that would make us a much more "christian" nation as well.

Cue FL, Byers, Todd, chunkydz and Steve, etc. displaying the moral outrage that exemplifies this type of infantile thinking. You have described them beautifully.

DS said: Scott, I agree. I only hope that humanity can eventually outgrow the need for such external controls before those that require them destroy the rest of humanity with their misplaced sense of morality. If they can't be bothered to develop their own moral code, they could at least acknowledge that others are capable of doing it. Perhaps it is time to rewrite the constitution in terms of rational moral criteria, rather than basing it on outdated Judeo-Christian traditions. Perhaps it is time that we become one nation under Canada rather than one nation "under God". At least then the creationists might stop lying about this being a christian nation. Perhaps we could, for the first time in history, actually try to live up to the ideals stated in the First Amendment. Somehow, I think that would make us a much more "christian" nation as well. Cue FL, Byers, Todd, chunkydz and Steve, etc. displaying the moral outrage that exemplifies this type of infantile thinking. You have described them beautifully.

Scott said: It's a very strange and twisted personal reality, but it's what they have to live with. Taken further, once a strong fundamentalist has risen in the ranks to the top, where is the external locus? They have become that external locus. By definition, whatever they say is truth, whatever they want is moral.

Scott said: It appears that those with a strong fundamentalist bent never outgrow the need for an external locus of control. ...to them life without external control literally means chaos.

Mike Elzinga said:

Scott said: It's a very strange and twisted personal reality, but it's what they have to live with. Taken further, once a strong fundamentalist has risen in the ranks to the top, where is the external locus? They have become that external locus. By definition, whatever they say is truth, whatever they want is moral.

That is a very interesting description, Scott; it captures the phenomenon quite well. Many of the fundamentalists I know also display other attitudes and behaviors that suggest they are stuck in pre-adolescence. The ones at the top of the personality cult food chain are some of the scariest people I have seen. Those sectarian acolytes who are gunning for top dog positions (e.g., some of our trolls like FL or Mark Hausam, and a few others), display a mixture of adolescent angst and a cocky bar brawler attitude in their attempts to become scary authority figures in their cults. Swaggering into the “enemy” camp and kicking some “evolutionist” butt appears to be a right-of-passage for them; much like cop-killing or beating up kids carrying books home from school becomes a right-of-passage into a street gang. I have often suspected that, down deep, these fundamentalists have the potential to be violent gang members but have found a more “socially acceptable outlet” for their internal anger and hatreds. As they approach the upper levels of their cults, especially as they enter their final training, one can get a palpable sense of that internal rage. They prefer to call it “fire in the belly”, but I suspect that is simply a euphemism for something much darker.

Perhaps it is time that we become one nation under Canada rather than one nation “under God”.

Oops; that should be rite-of-passage.

Frank J said:

Smart people sometimes say stupid things, but a person who continually makes claims that were disproved decades ago after numerous attempts to give him the correct evidence is simply a complete idiot.

— Alex H

Would you still use the term "idiot" for someone who has a PhD in a related field, keeps repeating long-refuted claims and refuses to test them (suggesting that he knows they are wrong), and subscribes to an ideology that is known to believe that the "masses" can't handle the truth?

Why not call a spade a spade?
An IDiot will remain an idiot regardless of label, so it is just as easy to get the terminology straight right away.

As to Falk's review, I found it nauseating in its sycophancy, till I realised what BioLogos promotes. As Aussies would call 'em: Asswipes!

shonny said: Why not call a spade a spade? An IDiot will remain an idiot regardless of label, so it is just as easy to get the terminology straight right away. As to Falk's review, I found it nauseating in its sycophancy, till I realised what BioLogos promotes. As Aussies would call 'em: Asswipes!

Just in, even "lifeless" prions are capable of evolution:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8435320.stm

I strongly doubt Meyer can address this, since it illustrates that even "non living matter" can follow Natural Selection.

Pete Dunkelberg said: I don't know why people are talking about competition in ecology here, but to help any newbies, competition is first and foremost within a species. Members of the same species living in the same area automatically compete for the same resources and must avoid the same problems in nearly the same ways. The gazelle does not have to outrun the cheetah, it has to outrun at least some other gazelle. Competition also occurs between groups of (usually) one species versus other groups of the same species. Unrelated species can also compete for a limited resource. For example, bees compete with humming birds in places where both are common. To get back to the topic of the post, BioLogos and Disco are competing to be seen as the right religious response to science.

Steve P, you are not fooling anyone with your pseudo-philosophical babbling. It's also quite apparent from your pseudo-philosophical babbling that you have never encountered a live animal before.

Steve P, you are not fooling anyone with your pseudo-philosophical babbling. It's also quite apparent from your pseudo-philosophical babbling that you have never encountered a live animal before.

Steve P, you are not fooling anyone with your pseudo-philosophical babbling. It's also quite apparent from your pseudo-philosophical babbling that you have never encountered a live animal before.

Steve,

There is no goal of achieving overall stability. This is just nonsense pure and simple. Why do you assume that there are no wild oscillations? How many mass extinctions do you think have occurred?

With all due respect, there is absolutely nothing in your post that is even close to being true. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You can continue to humiliate yourself here if you want, but as has already been demonstrated, you are just plain wrong. You don't even know what the words that you use mean.

If you want people to treat you with civility, you should not show such contempt for knowledge. Why do you think that your half-baked ideas are better than the last two hundred years of research by professional biologists? Why don't you let me tell you how to make textiles? I know absolutely nothing about it, so my ideas will be way better than yours.

Stanton said: Steve P, you are not fooling anyone with your pseudo-philosophical babbling. It's also quite apparent from your pseudo-philosophical babbling that you have never encountered a live animal before.

Steve P. -

DS, yours truly, Stanton, and a few others have tried to teach you modern biology. But alas you seem most resistant, as though we were greedy competitors of yours in the textile business, moving with ample alacrity to ruin your business.

When will you pick up a basic biology textbook and try learning real science for once?

Mike Elzinga said:

Stanton said: Steve P, you are not fooling anyone with your pseudo-philosophical babbling. It's also quite apparent from your pseudo-philosophical babbling that you have never encountered a live animal before.

Absolutely amazing; no intraspecies competition? Anyone who even has a bird feeder in the back yard can watch this going on every day among birds, squirrels, chipmunks and other ground feeders. He has never watched a cat fight? Never observed territorial wars? Some people never seem to get outside the fog within their own skulls.

Anyone who even has a bird feeder in the back yard can watch this going on every day among birds,

Stanton said: If they weren't trying to drive each other out of the neighborhood, like Steve P alleges, then what were they trying to do to each other?

John Kwok said: When will you pick up a basic biology textbook and try learning real science for once?

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: When will you pick up a basic biology textbook and try learning real science for once?

They have an old saying in Sichuan, in that Steve P. will pick up a biology textbook and learn real science "in the Year of the Porcupine; which means never."

Mike, absolutely right. I will never get the point of a negative argument like 'there is no purpose. there is no guidance. there is no direction'.

Good luck in trying to provide evidence for your darwinian view of evolution.

Like I said to DS -

"Out of sight is not out of Mind".

Nature behaves as if there is no observable guidance. Unless you count wishful thinking and campfire stories.

DS said: Steve, There is no goal of achieving overall stability. This is just nonsense pure and simple. Why do you assume that there are no wild oscillations? How many mass extinctions do you think have occurred? With all due respect, there is absolutely nothing in your post that is even close to being true. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You can continue to humiliate yourself here if you want, but as has already been demonstrated, you are just plain wrong. You don't even know what the words that you use mean. If you want people to treat you with civility, you should not show such contempt for knowledge. Why do you think that your half-baked ideas are better than the last two hundred years of research by professional biologists? Why don't you let me tell you how to make textiles? I know absolutely nothing about it, so my ideas will be way better than yours.

fnxtr said:

Steve P. broadcasts his monumental ignorance to the universe: "What animal competes with a shark?"

So Steve, do you have any other questions that will show everyone how clueless you are? Please ask, we're all enjoying this.

To me, this is a very dishonest statement. Putting aside the absurd lack of basic intellectual curiosity that is implied, most of those who believe that the earth is ~6000 years old openly state of imply that those who believe otherwise will be damned to Hell for eternity.

Pete,

I want to apologize for my last post to you. I coulnd't find the post I was looking for and assumed you may have modified it.

I have found it. Again, I apologize for insinuating that you may have deleted or erased the comments I was looking for.

Steve P. said: As a side note, I think special creation, i.e. God handmaking each and every organism is putting Him into a box. Creating design programs that unfold on their own is much more of a complement to Him than insisting His cookies are homemade. And if Byers or whoever call me on it, then you can pull up a chair. Don't forget your beer and popcorn.

Pete Dunkelberg said: Hi Steve, First, I want to apologize for the uncalled for personal remarks some have directed toward you. In my view such remarks do not reflect well on their maker. In addition, your post shows that you are actually thinking! Most of us, most of the time, cruise on past thoughts. For instance, when it comes to the concept of competition in ecology, I have the advantage of already knowing scientific usage. You make some good points, but the phrase "... in order to deny another party the same resources." is not what ecologists are talking about. There is no "in order" in the ecological concept. Competition is understood and measured in field studies solely in terms of consequences. Thus plants compete for light in situations where one may grow faster and overshade the other. Of course the plants are not thinking about it. The cheetah catches the gazelle that is slowest for whatever reason. But even when there is no cheetah around, the gazelles eat as quickly as they can process the food. Sometimes there is plenty of grass, so grass is not a limiting factor as ecologists put it. But when there is not so much grass, the gazelles are competing with each other just by standing around eating. Again, this is measured by consequences. Do some gazelles grow more slowly than normal, or even become weak, with shortage of food the only reason in sight? If not, no competition is measured. To be sure, in many situations animals at least appear to act purposefully. Since we can't read their minds this is usually put down to instinct. Nevertheless, many animals compete for mates, defend territories, and seem to eat quickly with the effect of depriving another animal of the food. Squirrels and especially birds don't just collect acorns, they bury them in hundreds of spots which they can somehow remember much later. They are also capable of watching another bird bury an acorn, then taking it and moving it to another spot which the first bird will not know of. Whether an animal appears to act with purpose or not, the ecologist measures competition by consequences only. All organisms need some resources before they can reproduce. However, they may not be resource limited (for instance when predation keeps the population low, but see the paper I linked earlier). If individuals or a population is resource limited, the limitation may not be caused by other organisms. Thus there is not always competition. But competition within the same species is hard to completely avoid. Talk of competition is not meant to deny other things. Just because there is some competition does not mean there is not also some cooperation (again, in effect. Bacteria cooperate a lot, but they don't do it on purpose). Just remember: the ecological concept of competition has nothing to do with purpose and planning. Whenever you start to think that way, remember about plants competing for light. That will keep you on the right track.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: As a side note, I think special creation, i.e. God handmaking each and every organism is putting Him into a box. Creating design programs that unfold on their own is much more of a complement to Him than insisting His cookies are homemade. And if Byers or whoever call me on it, then you can pull up a chair. Don't forget your beer and popcorn.

Too bad you have been thoroughly outgunned by Philip Bruce Heywood. His theory of “superconduction” plus the Earth, Moon, Sun gravitational system that imparts intelligence to electrons is far superior to your theory.

Steve P. said: Mike, absolutely right. I will never get the point of a negative argument like 'there is no purpose. there is no guidance. there is no direction'. Good luck in trying to provide evidence for your darwinian view of evolution. Like I said to DS - "Out of sight is not out of Mind".

Steve wrote:

"Show me how there is no holistic characteristic in nature. Show me how all of life does not act in tandum to keep the whole in existence."

No, you show me. You are the one making the claims her. You are the one who must provide evidence. You have no evidence and no clue.

"Show me how the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts. Show me that by reducing life to its component parts, you can know the whole."

The whole is greater that the sum of the parts. However, it does not follow that the whole has a plan or a purpose or that it has the ability to optimize itself. Once again, you have provided no evidence, only ridiculous claims about your make believe fairy land. It is really amusing seeing someone try to deny all of reality without a clue of what actually happens in reality. Keep it up Steve, it's very amusing.

And by the way, you are wrong about competition in bears and sequoias and whales and everything else. You would think that you would get at least one thing right by chance alone. Congratulations, you have reached a new high in lows. As for being called on something, you have been called on endosymbiosis, you failed to defend your position. You have been called on competition, you have not only flailed to defend your position, you have dug yourself even deeper into the morass of ignorance. I am going for the popcorn now, this is highly entertaining.

Steve P., tell us again why we should trust your word on anything, when you are also the same person who once scolded me for literally trusting what scientists say, and not what Intelligent Design proponents say about science in general?

Steve P. said: What theory of mine is that, Mike? I missed it.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: As a side note, I think special creation, i.e. God handmaking each and every organism is putting Him into a box. Creating design programs that unfold on their own is much more of a complement to Him than insisting His cookies are homemade. And if Byers or whoever call me on it, then you can pull up a chair. Don't forget your beer and popcorn.

Too bad you have been thoroughly outgunned by Philip Bruce Heywood. His theory of “superconduction” plus the Earth, Moon, Sun gravitational system that imparts intelligence to electrons is far superior to your theory.

Steve P. said: Pete, Re your last comment, why should we view plants as competing? For example, the sequoia grows extremely high. Yet, we see less tall trees also growing near Sequoias, right? So, they have a symbiotic relation, each taking a niche of light. Sequoias to the top, smaller tree at mid-range, then, shrubs at their feet, and moss at ground zero. It does not appear to me to be competition for light, but organisms simply filling in all the availabe niches of light. I don't need to refer to competition to explain the difference in height of each plant.

Pete Dunkelberg said: Hi Steve, First, I want to apologize for the uncalled for personal remarks some have directed toward you. In my view such remarks do not reflect well on their maker. In addition, your post shows that you are actually thinking! Most of us, most of the time, cruise on past thoughts. For instance, when it comes to the concept of competition in ecology, I have the advantage of already knowing scientific usage. You make some good points, but the phrase "... in order to deny another party the same resources." is not what ecologists are talking about. There is no "in order" in the ecological concept. Competition is understood and measured in field studies solely in terms of consequences. Thus plants compete for light in situations where one may grow faster and overshade the other. Of course the plants are not thinking about it. The cheetah catches the gazelle that is slowest for whatever reason. But even when there is no cheetah around, the gazelles eat as quickly as they can process the food. Sometimes there is plenty of grass, so grass is not a limiting factor as ecologists put it. But when there is not so much grass, the gazelles are competing with each other just by standing around eating. Again, this is measured by consequences. Do some gazelles grow more slowly than normal, or even become weak, with shortage of food the only reason in sight? If not, no competition is measured. To be sure, in many situations animals at least appear to act purposefully. Since we can't read their minds this is usually put down to instinct. Nevertheless, many animals compete for mates, defend territories, and seem to eat quickly with the effect of depriving another animal of the food. Squirrels and especially birds don't just collect acorns, they bury them in hundreds of spots which they can somehow remember much later. They are also capable of watching another bird bury an acorn, then taking it and moving it to another spot which the first bird will not know of. Whether an animal appears to act with purpose or not, the ecologist measures competition by consequences only. All organisms need some resources before they can reproduce. However, they may not be resource limited (for instance when predation keeps the population low, but see the paper I linked earlier). If individuals or a population is resource limited, the limitation may not be caused by other organisms. Thus there is not always competition. But competition within the same species is hard to completely avoid. Talk of competition is not meant to deny other things. Just because there is some competition does not mean there is not also some cooperation (again, in effect. Bacteria cooperate a lot, but they don't do it on purpose). Just remember: the ecological concept of competition has nothing to do with purpose and planning. Whenever you start to think that way, remember about plants competing for light. That will keep you on the right track.

Steve P. said: Harold, Not dishonest in the least. From my ID perspective, how would time affect the unfolding of creation from an initial design? And how would time affect the creation of several interfacing programs executed some simultaneously and some consecutively? Whether it all happened in 6 billion years or six thousand years, it wouldn't matter. But for the record, since you all seem to like putting others on the record, I lean more towards 6 billion since it appears the original hebrew was translated as six days, whereas the Hebrew word for day can easily be interpreted as six eras depending on context. But if someone came along and showed that radio-carbon dating was flawed, and in fact the world is only 6 thousand years old, it wouldn't affect my perspective. However, it would affect someone who's view depends on the earth to be 6 billion years old. Seems the darwinian view of evolution is an example of a concept dependent on deep time. As a side note, I think special creation, i.e. God handmaking each and every organism is putting Him into a box. Creating design programs that unfold on their own is much more of a complement to Him than insisting His cookies are homemade. And if Byers or whoever call me on it, then you can pull up a chair. Don't forget your beer and popcorn.

To me, this is a very dishonest statement. Putting aside the absurd lack of basic intellectual curiosity that is implied, most of those who believe that the earth is ~6000 years old openly state of imply that those who believe otherwise will be damned to Hell for eternity.

Steve P. said: Show me how there is no holistic characteristic in nature. Show me how all of life does not act in tandum to keep the whole in existence.

Steve P. said: Pete, Re your last comment, why should we view plants as competing? For example, the sequoia grows extremely high. Yet, we see less tall trees also growing near Sequoias, right? So, they have a symbiotic relation, each taking a niche of light. Sequoias to the top, smaller tree at mid-range, then, shrubs at their feet, and moss at ground zero. It does not appear to me to be competition for light, but organisms simply filling in all the availabe niches of light. I don't need to refer to competition to explain the difference in height of each plant.

But if someone came along and showed that radio-carbon dating was flawed, and in fact the world is only 6 thousand years old, it wouldn’t affect my perspective.

phantomreader42 said: Yeah, Steve doesn't HAVE a theory.

Steve P. said: Show me how there is no holistic characteristic in nature. Show me how all of life does not act in tandum to keep the whole in existence.

Stuart Weinstein said: Are you for real? So extinction is impossible in your view? How does that square with the fossil record?

Just received this complaint from the BioLogos webmaster:

Mr. Kwok,

We have received complaints from other readers regarding your conduct on our blog “Science and the Sacred”. The topic of Darrel's posts was the scientific validity of Meyer's book, and whether or not ID proponents have committed crimes bears no impact on the scientific accuracy of Meyer's "Signature in the Cell".

We certainly hope you'll continue to post on our blog, but do ask that future posts maintain a more charitable and less accusatory tone towards those with whom you disagree, be it ID-proponents or otherwise. Failure to do so will result in a revoking of posting rights on our blog.

Thank you,

Webmaster, BioLogos.org

In reply I wrote this:

Dear Sir:

But I was commenting on the scientific validity - which is absolutely nil - of Meyer's work and readers need to know exactly who Meyer is. It is relevant therefore to mention the dubious history of his organization, the Discovery Institute, and of his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, especially William Dembski.

As a recent example of the Discovery Institute's most uncharitable, quite un-Christian behavior, I suggest you look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-cmHJthuq8

I also suggest that you and your colleagues become familiar with Paul Gross and Barbara Forrest's "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design", which merely underscores what I have been writing with regards to Meyer and his colleagues over at the Discovery Institute.

In general, I do appreciate what Drs. Falk and Giberson are trying to accomplish at BioLogos, but they ought to be mindful that organizations like Answers in Genesis and especially, the Discovery Institute, are merely paying lip service to Jesus Christ's teachings.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Stuart Weinstein said:

Steve P. said: Show me how there is no holistic characteristic in nature. Show me how all of life does not act in tandum to keep the whole in existence.

Are you for real? So extinction is impossible in your view? How does that square with the fossil record?

eric said:

Stuart Weinstein said: Are you for real? So extinction is impossible in your view? How does that square with the fossil record?

He's not arguing that as long as a species exists its members cannot be said to compete. He's arguing that as long as genes exist - in any form - life forms cannot be said to be competing. [See paragraph starting "So what..."] He also seems to be arguing that as long as there is sunlight, an atmosphere, and matter from which critters can extract chemical energy, competition doesn't exist. [See paragraph starting "But the key..."] And, to boot, that if the competition is not fully deterministic (i.e. if the most fit do not always survive), then competition doesn't happen. [See paragraph starting "As well..."] Except in people, where he acknowledges competition does happen. Even though all his arguments above would apply to humans and thus seemingly prove (a) we never compete and (b) we could go extinct and God's design would be intact. In other words, his arguments are not only wrong, they aren't even self-consistent. AFAICT he's just stringing words together to make pretty sounding sentences, without regard for informational content.

John Kwok said: Just received this complaint from the BioLogos webmaster: Mr. Kwok, We have received complaints from other readers regarding your conduct on our blog “Science and the Sacred”. The topic of Darrel's posts was the scientific validity of Meyer's book, and whether or not ID proponents have committed crimes bears no impact on the scientific accuracy of Meyer's "Signature in the Cell". We certainly hope you'll continue to post on our blog, but do ask that future posts maintain a more charitable and less accusatory tone towards those with whom you disagree, be it ID-proponents or otherwise. Failure to do so will result in a revoking of posting rights on our blog. Thank you, Webmaster, BioLogos.org In reply I wrote this: Dear Sir: But I was commenting on the scientific validity - which is absolutely nil - of Meyer's work and readers need to know exactly who Meyer is. It is relevant therefore to mention the dubious history of his organization, the Discovery Institute, and of his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, especially William Dembski. As a recent example of the Discovery Institute's most uncharitable, quite un-Christian behavior, I suggest you look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-cmHJthuq8 I also suggest that you and your colleagues become familiar with Paul Gross and Barbara Forrest's "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design", which merely underscores what I have been writing with regards to Meyer and his colleagues over at the Discovery Institute. In general, I do appreciate what Drs. Falk and Giberson are trying to accomplish at BioLogos, but they ought to be mindful that organizations like Answers in Genesis and especially, the Discovery Institute, are merely paying lip service to Jesus Christ's teachings. Respectfully yours, John Kwok

So, in other words, Steve, you're nothing but an armchair philosopher who learned all his science from the snake oil theologists at the Discovery Institute, and have never actually seen a live animal in your entire life.

BTW, Steve, do you have any research papers that demonstrate competition is illusionary and or that life is designed by an Intelligent Designer?

Steve P. said: You are assuming that Sequoia's are somehow taking the fight to other plant's and outdoing them, thus getting bigger. If that were the case, they would outdo all other plants and conceivably take over a larger part of the environment.

So what IYO makes the observance of competition real but the observance of design illusory? It makes more sense the other way around.

We are 7+billion strong now. What are we competing for?

So how is the (competitive) outcome of our biological activity a necessary component and driver of our survival? It seems more of a liability than anything else.

phantomreader42 said:

Steve P. said: Show me how there is no holistic characteristic in nature. Show me how all of life does not act in tandum to keep the whole in existence.

Once again a creationist moron flees in abject terror from the burden of proof. Steve, YOU are the one claiming that "all of life acts in tandem to keep the whole in existence". Why don't YOU provide evidence to support YOUR claim? We all know why, it's because you CAN'T. But since you're so keen to show off your own standard of "proof", wherein the person making a claim is never under any obligation whatsoever to support it, how about you prove you don't owe me ten million dollars? If you are unable to do this to my satisfaction within 24 hours, we'll make arrangements for you to send your first payment.

phantomreader42 said: How about proving that I am not god? If you are unable to do this to my satisfaction within 48 hours, I, being the all-powerful ruler of the entire fucking universe, hereby order you to fly to Atlanta and dance naked in the streets, singing showtunes at the top of your lungs and dropping candy in your path. When the police come to arrest you, tell them you saw Jesus in your toast and he ordered you to do this after eating him. I think a Chaotic Neutral god is an improvement on a Lawful Evil one any day :P

phantomreader42 said: How does that sound to you, Steve? Are you going to give me all your money and make a total fool of youself (well, more than you have already here)? Or are you going to admit that making shit up and demanding other people disprove it while you refuse to defend any of your bullshit assertions and ignore all evidence to the contrary is a dishonest and stupid thing to do?

Just received this complaint from the BioLogos webmaster:

Karen S. said:

Just received this complaint from the BioLogos webmaster:

Wow, and to think that Mere_Christian and Gregory Arago are allowed to post any old asinine thing they want! And now Gregory is attacking me! I used to support Biologos since I'm a Christian, but I'm beginning to think it's a front for the DI.

I agree that nothing good has come from the DI. And I think that BioLogos should distance themselves from the DI, politely but firmly (if indeed they truly disagree with them). But I do think that BioLogos is moving in the direction of the DI.

I wonder if they are aware of what the DI thinks of BioLogos? Nitwit Denyse O'Leary has called Francis Collins an intellectual lightweight because she doesn't like his book!

As for Gregory, it's like enduring a combination of the inquisition and a 3-hour rectal exam with a rusty crowbar. Now he's pretending to be oh-so-polite.

Karen S. said: I agree that nothing good has come from the DI. And I think that BioLogos should distance themselves from the DI, politely but firmly (if indeed they truly disagree with them). But I do think that BioLogos is moving in the direction of the DI. I wonder if they are aware of what the DI thinks of BioLogos? Nitwit Denyse O'Leary has called Francis Collins an intellectual lightweight because she doesn't like his book! As for Gregory, it's like enduring a combination of the inquisition and a 3-hour rectal exam with a rusty crowbar. Now he's pretending to be oh-so-polite.

FYI, I just got this, and am not surprised. Was wasting my time posting over there anyway. IMHO, BioLogos is really not much different or better than either the Dishonesty Institute or Uncommonly Dense:

Dear Mr. Kwok
Due to your failure to adhere to our Commenting Guidelines, as well as earlier warnings, we have revoked your commenting privileges on “Science and the Sacred.” Your earlier comments have been removed for the following reason(s):
OFFENSIVE/ACCUSATORY TONE
ATTACK AGAINST ANOTHER COMMENTER
OFF-TOPIC/IRRELEVANT
COMPLAINTS FROM OTHER VISITORS

You may continue to post on our blog provided you contact the Webmaster, issue an apology in the comment section upon returning, and adhere to our Commenting Guidelines. Any further need for moderation will result in a permanent ban.
Thank you,
Webmaster, BioLogos.org

Of course I greatly appreciate these comments from AusAdrian over at the "Footprints in the Sand" blog entry (http://biologos.org/blog/footprints-in-the-sand/):

AusAdrian - #2423

January 12th 2010

@ John Kwok
In any other forum, I would say, “John Kwok, you are god”. That wouldn’t be appropriate in this forum, but in Australia it would just mean that you are to be applauded on your intellect. I found your writings so refreshing and reinforcing.

I have always been worried about how so called “Christians” can be so dishonest and deceitful in their writings. DI constantly misrepresents “The Theory of Evolution”. To say it is just a “theory”, is to display an ignorance of the status of scientific theory.

Secondly, why should we waste time in schools teaching ID? Do we waste time with the “flat earthers” in Geology classes? What about the “geocentric” in astronomy classes? Do they deserve equal time?

Thanks again John.