Well that was interesting

After reading your blog entry, I anticipate some Meyer supporters complaining that the examples used in your questions your examples may have been too arcane. After all, one cannot expect Meyer to be aware of the state of research in every field! That's a legitimate point, I suppose. But I also think it exposes just how shallow the ID knowledge base is about biology in general. The list of examples ID has used to build its case is astonishingly small, yet that has not stopped them from coming to ludicrously broad conclusions. It should come as no surprise then, that critics have appeared with counter examples from their own research with which the IDers are unaware. It remains to be seen how intellectually honest the ID leaders are in assessing these counter examples. My own experience doesn't give me a warm fuzzy about
it.

One other thing. I hope you continue to try and build cordial relationships with them. I know you and Paul Nelson have done that already, and neither of you seems to have acquired cooties from the other. Too often we gauge our opinion of the other other side from what we encounter on teh Internetz.

(Well, actually, this was the lead-in to some big hoopla about the release of a new Illustra DVD entitled “Darwin’s Dilemma”. But that will have to be the subject of someone else’s writing, since I didn’t go to the screening, nor did I bother to scarf up a DVD.)

Featured Scientists Simon Conway Morris is Professor of Palaeobiology at the University of Cambridge and one of the world’s leading evolutionary paleontologists. He is noted in particular for his contributions to the understanding of the Cambrian Explosion and the fossils found in the Burgess Shale. Elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society (United Kingdom) in 1990, he also has been awarded the Walcott Medal of the National Academy of Sciences (United States). Dr. Conway Morris is author of the noted books The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals (1998) and Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (2003). His views about the extent as well as the limits of Neo-Darwinism can be found in his article “Darwin was right. Up to a point.” James Valentine is Emeritus Professor in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, where he is also affiliated with the Museum of Paleontology and the Center for Integrative Genomics. He is one of the world’s leading experts on the Cambrian Explosion, and is the author of numerous technical articles on the subject, as well as author of the books On the Origin of Phyla and Evolutionary Paleoecology of the Marine Biosphere, co-author of Evolution and Evolving, and editor of Phanerozoic Diversity Patterns: Profiles in Macroevolution.

Dr. James Valentine, an evolutionary biologist and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of California at Berkeley, is featured in the intelligent design movie Darwin’s Dilemma. I wish to clarify my role in the new film Darwin’s Dilemma. When I was interviewed about a decade ago for the material used in this movie, I was unaware that this interview might appear in a film promoting intelligent design. My appearance should not be misconstrued as support for any creationist agenda. I support evolution. I disagree with the view that the best explanation for the Cambrian record is the action of an “intelligent designer” instantaneously creating phyla. Had the filmmakers bothered to read my book On the Origin of Phyla, they would have understood that I do not support a creationist interpretation of the Cambrian explosion or the fossil record. Scientific findings in many fields, including my own (paleobiology) as well as geology, geophysics, geochemistry, developmental biology, and systematics, have led to a synthesis of the events surrounding the Cambrian explosion that is in full accord with well-established evolutionary principles. When watching Darwin’s Dilemma, I ask viewers to note: My interview statements do not criticize evolution My interview statements do not promote creationism or intelligent design Even though my interview is interspersed with several intelligent design advocates, I do not share their interpretation of the Cambrian record I would like viewers to know: I think evolution is the best scientific interpretation of the fossil record While the religious views of individuals should be respected, scientists also merit respect earned by generations of hard work in their fields. Dr. James Valentine University of California, Berkeley

This documentary will examine what many consider to be the most powerful refutation of Darwinian evolution—the Cambrian fossil record. Charles Darwin realized that the fossil evidence did not support his theory of gradual, step-by-step evolutionary development. He hoped that future generations of scientists would make the discoveries necessary to validate his ideas. Today, after more than 150 years of exploration fossil evidence of slow, incremental biological change has yet to be excavated. Instead, we find a picture of the rapid appearance of fully developed, complex organisms during the outset of the Cambrian geological era. Organisms that embody almost all of the major animal body plans that exist today. This remarkable explosion of life is best explained by the existence of a transcendent intelligence

This remarkable explosion of life is best explained by the existence of a transcendent intelligence

All references to "Biola University" should be stated as "The former Bible Institute Of Los Angeles, currently using the stealth name "BIOLA University," a private, conservative evangelical Christian, liberal arts university stressing Biblical inerrancy."

BIOLA is every bit as much a hotbed of scientific research as Liberty University and Bob Jones University, i.e., not at all.

BIOLA is also well known to historians of intelligent design creationism as the location of one of the important Founders' meetings in 1996.

This meeting at the BIOLA venue just adds one more proof that intelligent design creationism is 100% religion, and has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

BIOLA is every bit as much a hotbed of scientific research as Liberty University and Bob Jones University, i.e., not at all.

Meyer seems to be using a fascinating tactic.

I didn't document it, but feel as if I've seen him do this before.

Basically, when confronted with an actual scientifically literate person from the biomedical sciences, he more or less admits that he's doesn't know what he's talking about. It's worth noting that his book amounts to more of an argument against abiogenesis than against evolution, at that, something he also seems to let slip from time to time.

I'm not sure how he responds to a genuine math/information theory expert but wouldn't be surprised if it's about the same way.

But when he's talking to the uninformed, he simply uses language that is both non-specific and beyond their vocabulary, and let's them assume that he has "disproved evolution". And when he's conceding to a scientifically literate person, he keeps the language at a level above what can be understood by the uninformed.

He seems to have deduced that most creationists don't even care if he confronts and humiliates the "evolutionist" or even says anything they can understand. Indeed, in the post-Dover environment, they probably prefer the stealthiest approach.

It's both a retreat from the most confrontational approaches like old-time "creation science" or early Dembski/Behe ID, and a refusal to back all the way to non-denialist theistic evolution.

Remember that creationists perceive it as a battle between social/political "sides". Anything that denies evolution is currently on their "side", the same way there were unlikely allies on the same sides during WWII. As long as there are "evolutionists" to team up against, Meyer is welcome at BIOLA. If the dominionists ever really took over, though, Meyer would be in hotter water than a Trotskyite after the Soviet revolution. Unless he himself is a "true believer" using a "stealth" approach, which is entirely possible.

No, I think both Simon Conway Morris and James Valentine were deceived by the producers and director (or both) of "Darwin's Dilemna", which sadly, is yet another example of "Lying for Jesus".

While creos - including the Dishonesty Institute IDiots - insist that the "Cambrian Explosion" was so "unusual", they merely betray their gross ignorance of the metazoan marine fossil record, since the later Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event in the Middle and Late Ordovician accounted for substantially more increases in marine metazoan biodiversity than in the prior, so-called "Cambrian Explosion", which Donald Prothero in his "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" has referred - and I think it is a most apt description - as the "Cambrian Slow Fuse", since the "explosion" occurred over the span of approximately 60 to 80 million years, which roughly corresponds to the length of our present geological era, the Cenozoic, whose duration, according to the most recent radiometric dating, is 65.5 million years.

Paul Burnett said: All references to "Biola University" should be stated as "The former Bible Institute Of Los Angeles, currently using the stealth name "BIOLA University," a private, conservative evangelical Christian, liberal arts university stressing Biblical inerrancy." BIOLA is every bit as much a hotbed of scientific research as Liberty University and Bob Jones University, i.e., not at all. BIOLA is also well known to historians of intelligent design creationism as the location of one of the important Founders' meetings in 1996. This meeting at the BIOLA venue just adds one more proof that intelligent design creationism is 100% religion, and has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Dave Wisker said: After reading your blog entry, I anticipate some Meyer supporters complaining that the examples used in your questions your examples may have been too arcane. After all, one cannot expect Meyer to be aware of the state of research in every field! That's a legitimate point, I suppose. But I also think it exposes just how shallow the ID knowledge base is about biology in general. The list of examples ID has used to build its case is astonishingly small, yet that has not stopped them from coming to ludicrously broad conclusions. It should come as no surprise then, that critics have appeared with counter examples from their own research with which the IDers are unaware. It remains to be seen how intellectually honest the ID leaders are in assessing these counter examples. My own experience doesn't give me a warm fuzzy about it. One other thing. I hope you continue to try and build cordial relationships with them. I know you and Paul Nelson have done that already, and neither of you seems to have acquired cooties from the other. Too often we gauge our opinion of the other other side from what we encounter on teh Internetz.

Natman wrote:

"If the universe was created in 6 days, around 6000 years ago, why bother with the Cambrian Explosion at all?

When it comes down to cDesign advocates refuting biological incidents that shouldn’t even had occurred according to their own warped chronology, then you know they’re grasping at straws."

Exactly. You can't say that the biggest problem for evolution is evidence that proves conclusively that the creation myth could not possibly be true and therefore conclude that creation must be true! That's more dishonest than absurd.

Every time one of these morally bankrupt cretins spouts off about the so called "cambrian explosion", just point out to them that there is an extensive fossil record prior to the so called "explosion" and an extensive fossil record after the "explosion" and that the so called "explosion" did not include most organism that are alive today. Ask them how that somehow supports a six day creation and how it somehow invalidates evolution. Ask them if any real evolutionary biologists think that the so called "cambrian explosion" is a problem for evolution. Ask them if the evidence was discovered by creationists or is somehow being repressed by real biologists. Ask them how their alternative somehow explains the "explosion" better than the theory of evolution. Or maybe just ask them where their conclusions have been published. That alone should demonstrate the basic dishonesty of their position to anyone who knows how science works.

harold said: Meyer seems to be using a fascinating tactic. ...Basically, when confronted with an actual scientifically literate person from the biomedical sciences, he more or less admits that he's doesn't know what he's talking about... But when he's talking to the uninformed, he simply uses language that is both non-specific and beyond their vocabulary, and let's them assume that he has "disproved evolution"...

This documentary will examine what many consider to be the most powerful refutation of Darwinian evolution—the Cambrian fossil record. Charles Darwin realized that the fossil evidence did not support his theory of gradual, step-by-step evolutionary development. He hoped that future generations of scientists would make the discoveries necessary to validate his ideas. Today, after more than 150 years of exploration fossil evidence of slow, incremental biological change has yet to be excavated. Instead, we find a picture of the rapid appearance of fully developed, complex organisms during the outset of the Cambrian geological era. Organisms that embody almost all of the major animal body plans that exist today. This remarkable explosion of life is best explained by the existence of a transcendent intelligence.

eric said:

harold said: Meyer seems to be using a fascinating tactic. ...Basically, when confronted with an actual scientifically literate person from the biomedical sciences, he more or less admits that he's doesn't know what he's talking about... But when he's talking to the uninformed, he simply uses language that is both non-specific and beyond their vocabulary, and let's them assume that he has "disproved evolution"...

That's part of it. But I think if Profs. Hunt and Matheson were to go to Meyer's next talk, another tactic would be obvious: rather than revise his presentation or his conclusions based on the examples they provide, Meyer will just ignore their insights. This is just my guess, but I'd guess his 'concession' here was more rhetorical than intellectual (i.e. done in order to move quickly on to another question). I predict that tomorrow's message will be the same as the one before Prof. Hunt spoke, and in future presentations there will be no mention of, for instance, the disconnect between protein information content and function that Prof. Hunt mentioned.

Dale Husband said: If Biblical Creationism had any merit whatsoever, we wouldn't even be talking of a Cambrian period; we would see a sudden appearance of not only hard bodied animals, but modern fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals all together in the fossil record, with very few extinctions. Once one line of organisms developed hard shells or skeletons, it would have caused other lines to quickly develop hard shells or skeletons within a few million years. It's natural competition. The Cambrian explosion merely was the appearance of those hard shelled animals, but there must have been many species of soft bodied animals that lived prior to that, but they were not preserved in the fossil record. There are a few Precambrian fossils that have been found, so the "explosion" in the Cambrian period has been exaggerated by Creationists to decieve people.

Regarding Pete Henderson's description of the DVD-- In Darwin's time, the last of the true scientific creationists, especially Louis Agassiz, were trying to salvage divine creation-- NOT biblical inerrancy-- by claiming there had been a series of catastrophic mass extinctions, each followed by a new divine creation. Their theory was called catastrophism.

In opposition to catastrophism was Charles Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism, which argued that the world we see is the result of the normal processes we see-- volcanism, erosion, etc. Darwin was an admirer of Lyell and a firm believer in uniformitarianism.

Of course, neither uniformitarianism nor catastrophism had the picture right; we now know that catastrophic extinctions, relatively rapid evolutionary radiations, and slow, gradual evolutionary development-- and even periods of stasis-- are all part of earth's history.

So Darwin was unquestionably wrong in expecting the fossil record would show nothing but gradual change. But it's obviously a side issue, which in no way threatens modern evolutionary theory.

The thing that bothers me here is that no scientist, no historian of science-- in fact, no thinking lay person-- is under the impression that Darwin was right 100 per cent of the time. The people who put together that DVD must know that. This looks like a really cynical imposition on the uninformed public, creating the impression that Darwin being wrong on a relatively minor point calls into question all of modern biology.

I haven't seen the DVD, but I know that modern evolutionary theory isn't dependent in any way on Lyell's uniformitarianism being right, any more than it's based on protoplasm, or genes being made out of protein, or coelecanths being extinct, or any one of a hundred other hypotheses that have been tested and rejected.

I can't help thinking this is just one more instance of the cynical manipulations of the cdesign proponentsists.

"since I didn’t go to the screening, nor did I bother to scarf up a DVD."

You can watch the whole thing on Youtube. Pretty standard fare up to about halfway through the film (overview of Cambrian deposits, Walcott and the Ediacaran fauna, etc.) then the typical creationist stuff kicks in. It ends with a fairly predictable "but there are just TOO many changes that would have to have taken place in TOO short a time. The only one who could have done this is the God of Abraham (uhh I mean an intelligent agency)."

Pretty much like everything else from Illustra Video.

John Kwok said: Unfortunately this is classic creationist operating procedure, which is why I think it is dubious at best to have any kind of amicable relationship with these liars:

eric said: It's even worse then that. On several occasions when Gish the pish was advised of his mistakes, he admitted that his critics were right and then went on on the next lecture to make the same mistakes. This tendency on his part makes me suspicious that he really didn't believe in what he was prattling on about.

harold said: Meyer seems to be using a fascinating tactic. ...Basically, when confronted with an actual scientifically literate person from the biomedical sciences, he more or less admits that he's doesn't know what he's talking about... But when he's talking to the uninformed, he simply uses language that is both non-specific and beyond their vocabulary, and let's them assume that he has "disproved evolution"...

That's part of it. But I think if Profs. Hunt and Matheson were to go to Meyer's next talk, another tactic would be obvious: rather than revise his presentation or his conclusions based on the examples they provide, Meyer will just ignore their insights. This is just my guess, but I'd guess his 'concession' here was more rhetorical than intellectual (i.e. done in order to move quickly on to another question). I predict that tomorrow's message will be the same as the one before Prof. Hunt spoke, and in future presentations there will be no mention of, for instance, the disconnect between protein information content and function that Prof. Hunt mentioned.

Elsewhere, on many occasions, have heard from Don Prothero and others how Duane Gish would repeat the same errors, even after he was correctly criticized for them. IMHO, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Gish's modus operandi nor that of Nelson and Meyer's (or their fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers).

SLC said:

John Kwok said: Unfortunately this is classic creationist operating procedure, which is why I think it is dubious at best to have any kind of amicable relationship with these liars:

eric said: It's even worse then that. On several occasions when Gish the pish was advised of his mistakes, he admitted that his critics were right and then went on on the next lecture to make the same mistakes. This tendency on his part makes me suspicious that he really didn't believe in what he was prattling on about.

harold said: Meyer seems to be using a fascinating tactic. ...Basically, when confronted with an actual scientifically literate person from the biomedical sciences, he more or less admits that he's doesn't know what he's talking about... But when he's talking to the uninformed, he simply uses language that is both non-specific and beyond their vocabulary, and let's them assume that he has "disproved evolution"...

That's part of it. But I think if Profs. Hunt and Matheson were to go to Meyer's next talk, another tactic would be obvious: rather than revise his presentation or his conclusions based on the examples they provide, Meyer will just ignore their insights. This is just my guess, but I'd guess his 'concession' here was more rhetorical than intellectual (i.e. done in order to move quickly on to another question). I predict that tomorrow's message will be the same as the one before Prof. Hunt spoke, and in future presentations there will be no mention of, for instance, the disconnect between protein information content and function that Prof. Hunt mentioned.

Elsewhere, on many occasions, have heard from Don Prothero and others how Duane Gish would repeat the same errors, even after he was correctly criticized for them. IMHO, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Gish's modus operandi nor that of Nelson and Meyer's (or their fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers).

Illustra Media, producer of the DVD "Darwin’s Dilemma," is a wholly-owned subsidiary of "Discovery Media," which used to be known as the "Moody Institute of Science," a well-known producer of fundamentalist Christian media and which is in turn the propaganda arm of the Moody Bible Institute.

(For more on this, see the NCSE's 2003 article at http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/unlocking-mystery-illustra-media)

Discovery Media's mission statement reads, "We believe that God reveals Himself, today, through His creation and the Biblical record. Our mission is to utilize every form of available media to present the reality of His existence through compelling scientific evidence and academic research."

Stephen Meyer co-wrote the script for a previous Illustra Media product, another anti-science video, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life."

Just more proof that this is not - and never has been - about science. The whole intelligent design creationism scam is about religion.

SLC said:

SLC said:

John Kwok said: Unfortunately this is classic creationist operating procedure, which is why I think it is dubious at best to have any kind of amicable relationship with these liars:

eric said: It's even worse then that. On several occasions when Gish the pish was advised of his mistakes, he admitted that his critics were right and then went on on the next lecture to make the same mistakes. This tendency on his part makes me suspicious that he really didn't believe in what he was prattling on about.

harold said: Meyer seems to be using a fascinating tactic. ...Basically, when confronted with an actual scientifically literate person from the biomedical sciences, he more or less admits that he's doesn't know what he's talking about... But when he's talking to the uninformed, he simply uses language that is both non-specific and beyond their vocabulary, and let's them assume that he has "disproved evolution"...

That's part of it. But I think if Profs. Hunt and Matheson were to go to Meyer's next talk, another tactic would be obvious: rather than revise his presentation or his conclusions based on the examples they provide, Meyer will just ignore their insights. This is just my guess, but I'd guess his 'concession' here was more rhetorical than intellectual (i.e. done in order to move quickly on to another question). I predict that tomorrow's message will be the same as the one before Prof. Hunt spoke, and in future presentations there will be no mention of, for instance, the disconnect between protein information content and function that Prof. Hunt mentioned.

Elsewhere, on many occasions, have heard from Don Prothero and others how Duane Gish would repeat the same errors, even after he was correctly criticized for them. IMHO, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Gish's modus operandi nor that of Nelson and Meyer's (or their fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers).

Apparently, my response to Mr. Kwok didn't take. I will repeat it below. It's even worse then that. On many occasions, Gish was advised of mistakes he had made in his presentation, admitted that his critics were correct and that he was indeed mistaken, and then went on in his next lecture to repeat the same mistakes.

If the universe was created in 6 days, around 6000 years ago, why bother with the Cambrian Explosion at all? When it comes down to cDesign advocates refuting biological incidents that shouldn’t even had occurred according to their own warped chronology, then you know they’re grasping at straws.

— Natman

Paul Burnett said: Illustra Media, producer of the DVD "Darwin’s Dilemma," is a wholly-owned subsidiary of "Discovery Media," which used to be known as the "Moody Institute of Science," a well-known producer of fundamentalist Christian media and which is in turn the propaganda arm of the Moody Bible Institute. (For more on this, see the NCSE's 2003 article at http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/unlocking-mystery-illustra-media) Discovery Media's mission statement reads, "We believe that God reveals Himself, today, through His creation and the Biblical record. Our mission is to utilize every form of available media to present the reality of His existence through compelling scientific evidence and academic research." Stephen Meyer co-wrote the script for a previous Illustra Media product, another anti-science video, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." Just more proof that this is not - and never has been - about science. The whole intelligent design creationism scam is about religion.

Biola's mission statement pretty well outlines their approach:

Education:
Our business is to inspire student's learning so that they are empowered to think and practice from a Christian worldview in their fields of service.

Research:
Our faculty, students, and graduates seek to grapple with the intellectual, ethical, and cultural issues of our time by partnering in discerning Christ-centered scholarship[?]through learning, rigorous research[?], publications and performance.

Like other church schools I wouldn't be surprised if Biola required a student to take an oath of allegience.

Then SLC said:
"It’s even worse then that. On many occasions, Gish was advised of mistakes he had made in his presentation, admitted that his critics were correct and that he was indeed mistaken, and then went on in his next lecture to repeat the same mistakes."

This is easy for them because each talk they give is to a different set of rubes who haven't heard the previous talk, so whatever these creationists say can change from day to day.

But I think if Profs. Hunt and Matheson were to go to Meyer’s next talk, another tactic would be obvious: rather than revise his presentation or his conclusions based on the examples they provide, Meyer will just ignore their insights.

Here's a new story about Universal Common Ancestry (UCA) that's quite interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100512131513.htm

DavidK said: Here's a new story about Universal Common Ancestry (UCA) that's quite interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100512131513.htm

What his actual motivations are is unclear. He could be making it all up to sell to the saps. He could be doing exactly what he seems to be doing - trying to create a better Trojan Horse to get some creationism snuck into schools, and the original Dembski/Behe ID Trojan Horse failed. These two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

— harold

I hope you continue to try and build cordial relationships with them.

bah.

why? what's the point of building cordial relationships with proven liars?

I've argued with Nelson directly myself.

He's nothing but a dishonest hack, all the way down.

your attempt at outreach is misplaced. Reach out to real believers if you wish (I have my doubts as to the efficacy of that, but that's another issue). Nelson is not a believer. he is a liar.

there's a reason many of us call it the "Dishonesty Institute"

Ichthyic said: I hope you continue to try and build cordial relationships with them. bah. why? what's the point of building cordial relationships with proven liars? I've argued with Nelson directly myself. He's nothing but a dishonest hack, all the way down. your attempt at outreach is misplaced. Reach out to real believers if you wish (I have my doubts as to the efficacy of that, but that's another issue). Nelson is not a believer. he is a liar. there's a reason many of us call it the "Dishonesty Institute"

I agree with Ichthyic. There is no more point in developing "cordial" relationships with creationists.

At some point the DI will herald that the Epic Confrontation between poor little Stevie Meyer and the big bad Scientists was a reenactment of David and Goliath. Stevie held his own and Science capitulated.

Sorry, Arthur, but playing nice with creationists only hurts science education. Thanks for nothing, buddy.

After all, one cannot expect Meyer to be aware of the state of research in every field! That’s a legitimate point, I suppose.

“since I didn’t go to the screening, nor did I bother to scarf up a DVD.” You can watch the whole thing on Youtube. Pretty standard fare up to about halfway through the film (overview of Cambrian deposits, Walcott and the Ediacaran fauna, etc.) then the typical creationist stuff kicks in.

Sorry, Arthur, but playing nice with creationists only hurts science education. Thanks for nothing, buddy.

I'm afraid that I endorse the comments of Icthyic, John Kwok and Doc Bill. There is no point in trying to build goodwill with the DI. They are not acting with goodwill. They are lying, not merely about the evidence, but about their very purpose and motive.

Those lies are knowing. Meyer and Nelson and the others are perfectly well aware that their purpose has nothing to do with scientific enquiry or criticism of theory. It consists entirely of a purely political agenda aimed at getting religious creationism taught in the public schools and hence accepted in the public mind.

That agenda is covert. They do not, and cannot, admit to it, for they know that religious creationism, as such, is Constitutionally barred from public education in science. They have tried, first ignoring, then overthrowing, the Constitution on this matter, and they failed miserably. They must therefore resort to deception.

That is, they are acting from first to last in bad faith, using dishonest means to promote an agenda that is actually hostile to science. Of course they welcome scientists who treat them as if they were sincere or honest. It makes their task easier. But they are neither, and the attack must necessarily be not only on their perversion and misrepresentation of the evidence - essential as that may be - but on their bona fides. They are attempting an arrant swindle, and they know that's what they're doing.

It's impossible to know that a person is a knowing swindler, and to deal with him cordially. The proper response is a distant, correct reserve, fuelled by cold contempt.

hoary puccoon said: Regarding Pete Henderson's description of the DVD-- In Darwin's time, the last of the true scientific creationists, especially Louis Agassiz, were trying to salvage divine creation-- NOT biblical inerrancy-- by claiming there had been a series of catastrophic mass extinctions, each followed by a new divine creation. Their theory was called catastrophism.

In opposition to catastrophism was Charles Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism, which argued that the world we see is the result of the normal processes we see-- volcanism, erosion, etc. Darwin was an admirer of Lyell and a firm believer in uniformitarianism. Of course, neither uniformitarianism nor catastrophism had the picture right; we now know that catastrophic extinctions, relatively rapid evolutionary radiations, and slow, gradual evolutionary development-- and even periods of stasis-- are all part of earth's history.

So Darwin was unquestionably wrong in expecting the fossil record would show nothing but gradual change.

But it's obviously a side issue, which in no way threatens modern evolutionary theory. The thing that bothers me here is that no scientist, no historian of science-- in fact, no thinking lay person-- is under the impression that Darwin was right 100 per cent of the time. The people who put together that DVD must know that. This looks like a really cynical imposition on the uninformed public, creating the impression that Darwin being wrong on a relatively minor point calls into question all of modern biology.

I haven't seen the DVD, but I know that modern evolutionary theory isn't dependent in any way on Lyell's uniformitarianism being right, any more than it's based on protoplasm, or genes being made out of protein, or coelecanths being extinct, or any one of a hundred other hypotheses that have been tested and rejected. I can't help thinking this is just one more instance of the cynical manipulations of the cdesign proponentsists.

Dave Luckett said: I'm afraid that I endorse the comments of Icthyic, John Kwok and Doc Bill. There is no point in trying to build goodwill with the DI. They are not acting with goodwill. They are lying, not merely about the evidence, but about their very purpose and motive. Those lies are knowing. Meyer and Nelson and the others are perfectly well aware that their purpose has nothing to do with scientific enquiry or criticism of theory. It consists entirely of a purely political agenda aimed at getting religious creationism taught in the public schools and hence accepted in the public mind. That agenda is covert. They do not, and cannot, admit to it, for they know that religious creationism, as such, is Constitutionally barred from public education in science. They have tried, first ignoring, then overthrowing, the Constitution on this matter, and they failed miserably. They must therefore resort to deception. That is, they are acting from first to last in bad faith, using dishonest means to promote an agenda that is actually hostile to science. Of course they welcome scientists who treat them as if they were sincere or honest. It makes their task easier. But they are neither, and the attack must necessarily be not only on their perversion and misrepresentation of the evidence - essential as that may be - but on their bona fides. They are attempting an arrant swindle, and they know that's what they're doing. It's impossible to know that a person is a knowing swindler, and to deal with him cordially. The proper response is a distant, correct reserve, fuelled by cold contempt.

Negative, Arthur, you have damaged science education. Thanks for nothing, buddy, stands.

Luskin was here in Texas trumpeting creationism as our State School Board, led by a creationist who I'm sure you'd love to invite to tea, introduced anti-science provision after anti-science provision.

Thanks for nothing, buddy, for being so civil.

Meyer was there in Kansas in 2005 promoting his dreck as the creationist led State School Board introduced anti-science provision after anti-science provision.

Thanks for nothing, buddy, for having such a polite discussion. I'm sure they loved you at the Bible Institute.

What you fail to understand, Dr. Ivory Tower, is that Meyer and his DI care nothing about science. All they care about is advancing their agenda to introduce creationism into secondary school education which you so helpfully assisted. Thanks for nothing, buddy.

Science education was most assuredly not advanced by this event. At the very least you gave the DI another tick in their checkbox of "confronting scientists" which will be used in future assaults on state science education standards.

Thanks for nothing, buddy. I hope you enjoyed yourself because the rest of us will be cleaning up after your mess.

Whilst I don't think rational scientists should ever stoop to the level of those who perpetuate the Creation Myth, lest it be thought that some form of credability is given to their cause. It's not to be forgotten that these people claim to be Christians, with all the humility and selflessness that such believers are supposed to embody. By keeping it civil, regarding them with politeness and avoiding overtly hostile antagonism, they cannot occupy any moral high ground based on their supposed better moral ethics.

My suggestion is, that when engaging in Creationists who use the tactic of 'concede flawed technical details that the lay person won't understand, but continue to use them' that the question is worded as such:

"If you concede that -insert technical detail used- is wrong, will you be ammending your video/presentation/speech to recognise the error in your data?"

If the cDesignist concedes that their detail is flawed, as they seem to do at the moment (mainly to move the discussion onwards), they are also commiting to altering their propaganda to reflect this. If then, at the next presentation, they are still putting out the wrong data, the question "Why are you still using this flawed data?" can be used. This removes any technical aspect from the question and opens the eyes, ears and minds of the lay people present to the fact that the IDists know their data is wrong and yet they're still using it, the layperson understanding of the data is irrelevant.

Its fine to see attention and fame being gained by I.D folks. I welcome it.
Yet to biblical creationists there is no such thing as a cambrian explosion of life.
Its just a cast of life at a moment of time. It is simply from the same processes that are responsible for all fossilization of sediment/life below the k-p line.
It would show a wonderful diversity because its close to the original great diversity of the world and its pre-flood. Its just a segregated area.

By the way some of said here Darwin wasn't 100% right. Read the "Descent of man" and the % of his accuracy will drop like a cambrian slab of fossils.

Yet to biblical creationists there is no such thing as a cambrian explosion of life.

— Robert Byers

My 2c on Arthur vs. his "Darwinist" critics:

I agree in part with "both sides." If the DI makes a "scientific" claim, we owe it to their potential fans to politely ask them to back it up. And watch how they backpedal, evade, and use every pseudoscientific trick in the book to weasel out of an answer. If anyone in the audience still stands by the DI after that, they probably never needed the DI's propaganda in the first place.

As for the DI's "denial" of their religious motive and coziness with Biblical creationists, I don't think they try too hard anymore - or need to.

Robert Byers said: By the way some of said here Darwin wasn't 100% right. Read the "Descent of man" and the % of his accuracy will drop like a cambrian slab of fossils.

Doc Bill said: What you fail to understand, Dr. Ivory Tower, is that Meyer and his DI care nothing about science. All they care about is advancing their agenda to introduce creationism into secondary school education which you so helpfully assisted. Thanks for nothing, buddy. Science education was most assuredly not advanced by this event. At the very least you gave the DI another tick in their checkbox of "confronting scientists" which will be used in future assaults on state science education standards.

I’m afraid that I endorse the comments of Icthyic, John Kwok and Doc Bill. There is no point in trying to build goodwill with the DI. They are not acting with goodwill.

Negative, Arthur, you have damaged science education. Thanks for nothing, buddy, stands.

My read on Prof. Hunt’s comments are that the ID agenda was not advanced because the Biola students in attendence appeared to understand Hunt and Matheson’s points, while Meyer failed to make his case to the students. We may be suprised at this given that most of us thought Biola would be a creationist bastion, but I’m not going to argue with Hunt’s first-hand account of how the students responded.

harold said: my analysis above is based, as it says, on the assumption that BIOLA students are committed to science denial. If that is not the case, and some of them tend toward theistic evolution, then rebutting Meyer was extremely useful.

Stuart Weinstein--

Thank you so much for your thoughtful response to my post. I will back down somewhat on Darwin claiming "nothing but" gradual change. I don't have the OoS in this house, but I was very struck in reading it at how cautious Darwin was about jumping beyond firm data.

Arthur Hunt--

I watched the DVD of Darwin's dilemma. Except for flipping hallucogenia upright, the animals look pretty much like the illustrations in S J Gould's 'Wonderful Life.'

But by far the best part of the DVD for me was that it used a timeline of hundreds of millions and billions of years. This puts a huge rip in the 'big tent', as a creationist poster above demonstrated. As far as I'm concerned, this should be exploited relentlessly. The biblical literalists should know that the Discovery Institute is not going to get the bible smuggled into science classes. And of course, everyone else should know that "intelligent design" misrepresents modern science. So all ID is going to do is give kids lousy science education, without any biblical instruction at all.

But by far the best part of the DVD for me was that it used a timeline of hundreds of millions and billions of years. This puts a huge rip in the ‘big tent’, as a creationist poster above demonstrated.

— hoary puccoon

Frank J said:

But by far the best part of the DVD for me was that it used a timeline of hundreds of millions and billions of years. This puts a huge rip in the ‘big tent’, as a creationist poster above demonstrated.

— hoary puccoon

Unfortunately the only ones who can see that "big rip" (or care about it) are critics of the "big tent" strategy, namely the strange bedfellows of us "Darwinists" and some old-style YEC and OEC activists. The rank and file mostly dismisses it all as "a long time ago," whether they are committed YECs, young-earth-old-lifers, "progressive" OECs (agree with all mainstream science "whens" if not "whats" or "hows), or even accept common descent. If Prof. Hunt got anyone in the BIOLA audience to agree that ID and other forms of "scientific" creationism are scams, I consider that progress, even if they still "take on faith" their particular alternate account of biological history. We'll never stop belief in some "kind" of "creation," but if we can discourage the spreading of misrepresentation of evolution, that can only be good (though "how good" is anyone's guess).

harold,

I concur with virtually all of your points, but sadly, I also think Doc Bill did have a valid point in criticizing Arthur Hunt's participation as a means of damaging science education. I strongly doubt that, in such a polarized environment as Biola University, that Hunt was able to make any progress period. IMHO it is highly unlikely that any of the faculty or students were persuaded (Incidentally, I believe Biola is the very venue where the DI "big tent" strategy was devised at a 1994 conference organized by Philip Johnson.).

I approached this as a sort of thesis defense. My attitude was and is that Meyer should know everything in his book at least as well as I do, just I expect a Ph.D. candidate to have mastered the stuff in the thesis

Dave Wisker said: Art wrote:

I approached this as a sort of thesis defense. My attitude was and is that Meyer should know everything in his book at least as well as I do, just I expect a Ph.D. candidate to have mastered the stuff in the thesis

Actually, I agree with your approach. I was thinking about a remark Richard Dawkins made about Mary Midgely's review of The Selfish Gene, where he sarcastically said how unreasonable it was to expect a critic to have actually read every word of the book whose author the critic chose to insult.

John Kwok said: I would agree with your observation Dave if any only if the setting was at a mainstream college or university such as Occidental College or USC, not Biola:

Dave Wisker said: Art wrote:

I approached this as a sort of thesis defense. My attitude was and is that Meyer should know everything in his book at least as well as I do, just I expect a Ph.D. candidate to have mastered the stuff in the thesis

Actually, I agree with your approach. I was thinking about a remark Richard Dawkins made about Mary Midgely's review of The Selfish Gene, where he sarcastically said how unreasonable it was to expect a critic to have actually read every word of the book whose author the critic chose to insult.

I dunno, John. I think one of the interesting things about this particular presentation was the invitation of new, relatively unknown ID critics, rather than 'The Usual Suspects". It informs anyone still trying to make up their mind about ID that, not only is the opposition to ID deeper than they realize, but that it is also formidably knowledgeable.

John Kwok said: Let me observe, however, that in lieu of Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson, one of the speakers should have been someone like invertebrate paleontologist Keith Miller (no relation to Ken Miller BTW), an Evangelical Protestant Christian who accepts the reality of biological evolution and has been actively fighting against evolution denialists. Had he been able to "connect" with the Biola faculty and students, then I think we could say that real "progess" was made.

Steve Matheson said:

John Kwok said: Let me observe, however, that in lieu of Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson, one of the speakers should have been someone like invertebrate paleontologist Keith Miller (no relation to Ken Miller BTW), an Evangelical Protestant Christian who accepts the reality of biological evolution and has been actively fighting against evolution denialists. Had he been able to "connect" with the Biola faculty and students, then I think we could say that real "progess" was made.

While I am sympathetic to the criticisms of those who feel that the Biola event was counterproductive, I've been annoyed by the fact that none of these critics actually know what happened. Now reading John Kwok's comment, I realize it's worse than that: many of you just don't know what the hell you're talking about, despite your eagerness to offer abundant commentary. When I feel like it, I'll post my own summary of the event, but before you offer attaboys to the non-ivory-tower know-it-alls who appear to have consumed the same Culture War Kool-Aid as Casey Luskin has, try checking to see if you have minimal access to clues. In John Kwok's case, he seems not to know that the most significant difference between Keith Miller and me is paleontology vs. developmental biology. (Unless you count good looks.) Like Keith, I'm an evangelical Christian, and beyond that I'm one who teaches at a Christian institution that belongs to a consortium with Biola (the CCCU). I worked hard to establish rapport, and considered that to be a major goal of the trip from the beginning. Come on, guys. To bitch about stuff you don't understand, based on inaccurate assumptions, is to flatter the DI by imitation. Give me a break.

Dave Wisker said: I dunno, John. I think one of the interesting things about this particular presentation was the invitation of new, relatively unknown ID critics, rather than 'The Usual Suspects". It informs anyone still trying to make up their mind about ID that, not only is the opposition to ID deeper than they realize, but that it is also formidably knowledgeable.

Steve,

Also bear in mind that my perception as to what should be done to the Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers is based on my reaction to the American Museum of Natural History's decision to have an Intelligent Design there (which I protested in the strongest possible terms imaginable to Natural History contributing editor Richard Milner and his colleague, who, at the time, was the head of the Education Department). My objections included not only my dismay that this debate was somehow conferring legitimacy on these Intelligent Design "scientists", but that it was also inappropriate since AMNH was - and still remains - one of the world's leading centers of evolutionary biological research (And had been among those institutions whose scientists developed the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution back in the 1930s and 1940s.).

It is also based on the egregious behavior demonstrated again and again by Steve Meyer and his colleagues, of which, unfortunately, Dembski has been the worst. And by worst in the sense that he falsely accused University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka of being a potential "bioterrorist" to the Federal Department of Homeland Security in 2005, all but admitted in the Fall of 2007 that he had stolen a cell animation video produced by the CT-based scientific animation firm XVIVO for Harvard University, and engaged in other, quite personal, attacks upon his critics, including attempted censorship at Amazon.com of a harsh, but accurate, review I had written of one of his books.

It is under these circumstances that I don't believe anyone should seek any kind of "dialogue" with them, especially when there are some, like Darrel Falk and Karl Giberson of BioLogos, who think that it is worthwhile to have dialogue with some at the Dishonesty Institute simply because they are fellow "Brothers in Christ" (I wonder if they would concur in having a similar dialogue with King Leopold of Belgium as he was systematically killing off the inhabitants of his personal fiefdom in the Belgian Congo.).

John Kwok said: Steve, Also bear in mind that my perception as to what should be done to the Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers is based on my reaction to the American Museum of Natural History's decision to have an Intelligent Design there (which I protested in the strongest possible terms imaginable to Natural History contributing editor Richard Milner and his colleague, who, at the time, was the head of the Education Department). My objections included not only my dismay that this debate was somehow conferring legitimacy on these Intelligent Design "scientists", but that it was also inappropriate since AMNH was - and still remains - one of the world's leading centers of evolutionary biological research (And had been among those institutions whose scientists developed the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution back in the 1930s and 1940s.). It is also based on the egregious behavior demonstrated again and again by Steve Meyer and his colleagues, of which, unfortunately, Dembski has been the worst. And by worst in the sense that he falsely accused University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka of being a potential "bioterrorist" to the Federal Department of Homeland Security in 2005, all but admitted in the Fall of 2007 that he had stolen a cell animation video produced by the CT-based scientific animation firm XVIVO for Harvard University, and engaged in other, quite personal, attacks upon his critics, including attempted censorship at Amazon.com of a harsh, but accurate, review I had written of one of his books. It is under these circumstances that I don't believe anyone should seek any kind of "dialogue" with them, especially when there are some, like Darrel Falk and Karl Giberson of BioLogos, who think that it is worthwhile to have dialogue with some at the Dishonesty Institute simply because they are fellow "Brothers in Christ" (I wonder if they would concur in having a similar dialogue with King Leopold of Belgium as he was systematically killing off the inhabitants of his personal fiefdom in the Belgian Congo.).

John, no worries. Your concerns are completely valid, and I share every one. Let's just be a little more careful and a little more thoughtful. Let's expect from each other what we know we can't expect from the DI. I'm not saying that we have to agree on science education strategy or on the wisdom of interacting with DI people. I'm saying that I ought to expect the critics (of Art and I) to at least try to understand that which they are trashing. Doc Bill sure hasn't done that, and until any of you knows what happened at Biola, there's not much point in attending to your reviews of the events.

Robert Byers said: Its fine to see attention and fame being gained by I.D folks. I welcome it. Yet to biblical creationists there is no such thing as a cambrian explosion of life. Its just a cast of life at a moment of time. It is simply from the same processes that are responsible for all fossilization of sediment/life below the k-p line. It would show a wonderful diversity because its close to the original great diversity of the world and its pre-flood. Its just a segregated area. By the way some of said here Darwin wasn't 100% right. Read the "Descent of man" and the % of his accuracy will drop like a cambrian slab of fossils.

John Kwok said: Dave, I have to disagree respectfully. See my reply to Steve Matheson:

Dave Wisker said: I dunno, John. I think one of the interesting things about this particular presentation was the invitation of new, relatively unknown ID critics, rather than 'The Usual Suspects". It informs anyone still trying to make up their mind about ID that, not only is the opposition to ID deeper than they realize, but that it is also formidably knowledgeable.

Dave Wisker said:

John Kwok said: Dave, I have to disagree respectfully. See my reply to Steve Matheson:

Dave Wisker said: I dunno, John. I think one of the interesting things about this particular presentation was the invitation of new, relatively unknown ID critics, rather than 'The Usual Suspects". It informs anyone still trying to make up their mind about ID that, not only is the opposition to ID deeper than they realize, but that it is also formidably knowledgeable.

John, Like Steve, I share some of your concerns. For what it's worth, I think some ID critics have gotten too chummy with the DI and their ilk. Micheal Ruse for example. His arguments seem to have no teeth anymore, lest he offend the IDers delicate sensibilities (they are masters of phony outrage).

Steve Matheson said: John, no worries. Your concerns are completely valid, and I share every one. Let's just be a little more careful and a little more thoughtful. Let's expect from each other what we know we can't expect from the DI. I'm not saying that we have to agree on science education strategy or on the wisdom of interacting with DI people. I'm saying that I ought to expect the critics (of Art and I) to at least try to understand that which they are trashing. Doc Bill sure hasn't done that, and until any of you knows what happened at Biola, there's not much point in attending to your reviews of the events.

ID is nothing but politics and PR, plain and simple. That is how it should be treated.

Robert Byers said: Its fine to see attention and fame being gained by I.D folks. I welcome it. Yet to biblical creationists there is no such thing as a cambrian explosion of life.

Its just a cast of life at a moment of time. It is simply from the same processes that are responsible for all fossilization of sediment/life below the k-p line. It would show a wonderful diversity because its close to the original great diversity of the world and its pre-flood. Its just a segregated area.

By the way some of said here Darwin wasn't 100% right. Read the "Descent of man" and the % of his accuracy will drop like a cambrian slab of fossils.

Frank J said: My 2c on Arthur vs. his "Darwinist" critics: I agree in part with "both sides." If the DI makes a "scientific" claim, we owe it to their potential fans to politely ask them to back it up. And watch how they backpedal, evade, and use every pseudoscientific trick in the book to weasel out of an answer. If anyone in the audience still stands by the DI after that, they probably never needed the DI's propaganda in the first place.

RBH said:

Frank J said: My 2c on Arthur vs. his "Darwinist" critics: I agree in part with "both sides." If the DI makes a "scientific" claim, we owe it to their potential fans to politely ask them to back it up. And watch how they backpedal, evade, and use every pseudoscientific trick in the book to weasel out of an answer. If anyone in the audience still stands by the DI after that, they probably never needed the DI's propaganda in the first place.

What he said. If we do not critically engage the specifically scientific-sounding claims the IDists make, we're abandoning any opportunity to reach the merely ignorant who can otherwise be seduced by the science-mimicing blather of the neo-creos. That's not all we need to do, but it's a non-trivial part of it. The sciency-sounding stuff from the neo-creos is a form of Batesian mimicry, and we cannot decline to take a bite of it. We have to constantly show that it's merely mimicry, not reality.

Dale Husband said:

Robert Byers said: Its fine to see attention and fame being gained by I.D folks. I welcome it. Yet to biblical creationists there is no such thing as a cambrian explosion of life.

OK, that was phunny! Next.

Its just a cast of life at a moment of time. It is simply from the same processes that are responsible for all fossilization of sediment/life below the k-p line. It would show a wonderful diversity because its close to the original great diversity of the world and its pre-flood. Its just a segregated area.

It's amazing how Byers can take an obviously true idea and totally screw it up! LOL!

By the way some of said here Darwin wasn't 100% right. Read the "Descent of man" and the % of his accuracy will drop like a cambrian slab of fossils.

Here is more damning evidence that Robert Byers is a pathological liar. Note that he doesn't specify the percentage of Darwin's wrongness.

The issue about civility towards these id/creationists is that they will use it against you every chance they get. Scientists are expected to be truthful and act accordingly, they have to wear kid's gloves so as not to offend, whereas these bimbos couldn't give a damn. They'll lie, lie, lie and it doesn't matter what you do, for ultimately they become religious martyrs for their cause if you dare to paint them as dishonest in the eyes of their rube followers. That's how they're getting away with the equal time/freedom of speech crap, it sounds good even though they're lying through their teeth. If you attack therm you attack their religion and they'll always run and hide behind their god's skirts. Religion is their ace in the hole every time.

Personally I prefer the ambush predator mode with respect to dealing with creos, especially Dishonesty Institute IDiots:

— John Kwok

Frank J said:

Personally I prefer the ambush predator mode with respect to dealing with creos, especially Dishonesty Institute IDiots:

— John Kwok

With the DI, if not with those Biblical YEC and OEC outfits, one can do both - "critically engage the specifically scientific-sounding claims" as RBH says, and be in "ambush predator mode" as you say. All one has to do is bombard them with "what happened when" questions and watch them weasel their way out of them. Before I get the usual objection, no, I don't think that approach is a "magic bullet." But if we keep at it, in a decade or 2, not many people will put up with the DI's new-agey nonsense. Many fans will run back to the Biblical YEC and OEC outfits, of course, but I can't imagine that it could ever be nearly as many as the 50-70% that currently have "some to many doubts" about evolution.

the attack must necessarily be not only on their perversion and misrepresentation of the evidence - essential as that may be - but on their bona fides

John Kwok said: Well both can be complimentary - and used simultaneously - as in the case of what transpired at the University of Oklahoma back in September 2007. There people were publicly protesting Dembski's visit (and I have heard that Dembski devoted the first fifteen to twenty minutes of his "talk" whining and moaning about the ad in the student newspaper protestig his visit, observing that something like this had never been done before to him) before launching into him during the Q & A followed. If people took a more aggressive approach, such as pointing out his Satanic behavior in newspaper advertisements, then we'd be ahead of the game. Again that aim shouldn't be to coddle them, but instead to expose them for the malevolent frauds that they are and then do our utmost to destroy them:

Frank J said:

Personally I prefer the ambush predator mode with respect to dealing with creos, especially Dishonesty Institute IDiots:

— John Kwok

With the DI, if not with those Biblical YEC and OEC outfits, one can do both - "critically engage the specifically scientific-sounding claims" as RBH says, and be in "ambush predator mode" as you say. All one has to do is bombard them with "what happened when" questions and watch them weasel their way out of them. Before I get the usual objection, no, I don't think that approach is a "magic bullet." But if we keep at it, in a decade or 2, not many people will put up with the DI's new-agey nonsense. Many fans will run back to the Biblical YEC and OEC outfits, of course, but I can't imagine that it could ever be nearly as many as the 50-70% that currently have "some to many doubts" about evolution.

Dave Luckett said: We are in agreement, then. I did say:

the attack must necessarily be not only on their perversion and misrepresentation of the evidence - essential as that may be - but on their bona fides

To clarify: I believe refutation of their assertions is essential but insufficient.

RBH said: The sciency-sounding stuff from the neo-creos is a form of Batesian mimicry, and we cannot decline to take a bite of it. We have to constantly show that it's merely mimicry, not reality.

John Kwok said: No, I think both Simon Conway Morris and James Valentine were deceived by the producers and director (or both) of "Darwin's Dilemna", which sadly, is yet another example of "Lying for Jesus". While creos - including the Dishonesty Institute IDiots - insist that the "Cambrian Explosion" was so "unusual", they merely betray their gross ignorance of the metazoan marine fossil record, since the later Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event in the Middle and Late Ordovician accounted for substantially more increases in marine metazoan biodiversity than in the prior, so-called "Cambrian Explosion", which Donald Prothero in his "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" has referred - and I think it is a most apt description - as the "Cambrian Slow Fuse", since the "explosion" occurred over the span of approximately 60 to 80 million years, which roughly corresponds to the length of our present geological era, the Cenozoic, whose duration, according to the most recent radiometric dating, is 65.5 million years.

Robert Byers said: Its fine to see attention and fame being gained by I.D folks. I welcome it. Yet to biblical creationists there is no such thing as a cambrian explosion of life. Its just a cast of life at a moment of time. It is simply from the same processes that are responsible for all fossilization of sediment/life below the k-p line. It would show a wonderful diversity because its close to the original great diversity of the world and its pre-flood. Its just a segregated area. By the way some of said here Darwin wasn't 100% right. Read the "Descent of man" and the % of his accuracy will drop like a cambrian slab of fossils.

SLC said: Issac Newton was wrong about his theory that a particulate theory of light could explain diffraction and interference.

The issue about civility towards these id/creationists is that they will use it against you every chance they get. Scientists are expected to be truthful and act accordingly, they have to wear kid’s gloves so as not to offend, whereas these bimbos couldn’t give a damn.

Now, I’m in favor of basic civility (not obsequiousness) because it is overwhelming the most effective way to get one’s point across to third party observers. But it is critical not to think that exaggerated “respect” for a patently absurd and/or dishonest position is part of civility. Nor is “goodwill” toward absurd and/or dishonest claims a good idea. A civil approach refrains from irrelevant abuse, but is fully honest, accurate, and rigorous.

harold said: David K said -

The issue about civility towards these id/creationists is that they will use it against you every chance they get. Scientists are expected to be truthful and act accordingly, they have to wear kid’s gloves so as not to offend, whereas these bimbos couldn’t give a damn.

I am opposed to "wearing kid gloves", or otherwise trying not to "offend" creationists, particularly as the latter is impossible.

MrG said:

SLC said: Issac Newton was wrong about his theory that a particulate theory of light could explain diffraction and interference.

Well, forgive my nitpick, but ... we know today it DOES. Of course that IS a nitpick, because Newton's contraption was unworkable. And the notion of a photon doesn't sound much better: "Fundamentally unreasonable" as Millikan called it, after proving its existence. (Millikan, unlike a creationist, had to believe the evidence whether he liked it or not.)

SLC said: As an old physics professor of mine once put it, the photons go where the electromagnetic field tells them to go.

harold said: The above paragraph is perfectly civil. It does not contain threats, false or irrelevant accusations, or even profanity.

MrG said:

harold said: The above paragraph is perfectly civil. It does not contain threats, false or irrelevant accusations, or even profanity.

I think Ken Miller has the ideal approach to dealing with creationists. He will debate them -- it may be argued as to whether that's a good idea or not, but there is a case for it -- but when he does so he does his homework and takes them down logically and carefully. However, more importantly, Miller spends most of his effort trying to teach science, writing some very good textbooks and establishing standards for science education. The bottom line is: that comes first, not fighting creationists, no tail wags dog. Beware of forgetting about "defending the right" and focusing on "punishing the guilty." And if we must fight with creationists, there is a question of effectiveness. Dismantling them cooly and logically is effective; calling them names, throwing a tantrum, kicking your heels on the floor is just being a jerk. Now when I do get into fights with creationists, I resort to parody, and they are terribly vulnerable to it. However, I am just doing it for an amusement. If I honestly thought anybody was paying much attention, I wouldn't consider it particularly credible. And it end up taking too much time to be much of an amusement anyway.

But I also believe we need to confront and to challenge the worst of that ill begotten lot (e. g. Dembski and Ham) and do our utmost not only to expose them, but also to destroy them (By "destroy" I mean destroying their credibility, though I wouldn't lose sleep if they were to assume room temperature via naural causes.).

John Kwok said: Sorry, but Ken no longer spends time debating creationists. He doesn't think it's as productive as going out on his own to educate his audiences. I agree.

John Kwok said: Sorry, but Ken no longer spends time debating creationists. He doesn't think it's as productive as going out on his own to educate his audiences. I agree.

MrG said:

SLC said: As an old physics professor of mine once put it, the photons go where the electromagnetic field tells them to go.

As they say in Japan, "chigau" (like saying "wrong" but in a nonconfrontational fashion). The photons ARE the EM field, under quantum electrodynamics they are EM field quanta. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction is no more than the distribution of probabilities of detecting the photons. The deBroglie-Bohm interpretation suggests that the wavefunction does represent a "pilot wave" but this has some problems. SEE: http://www.vectorsite.net/tpqm.html Of course, clearly photons are not particles in the Newtonian sense. They're not actually particles in any sense that we can reasonably articulate.

If you shine light between two parallel slits it gives a set of light versus dark bars on the other side. That is a demonstration of its wave nature. If it were a classic particle phenomenon, there would simply be two bright slits on the other side.

However, photons are by all appearances simple point particles. Feed them one at a time at the slits, imaging them, they show up as little dots one at a time. Keep on doing this, however, and the form the set of light and dark bars. Where does the wave come from? Bohr would have just defined it as the probability distribution of where the photons would be detected and left it at that. De Broglie and Bohm would have said the photons were guided by a "pilot wave", which given that it can build up an interference pattern one photon at a time obviously has counterintuitive properties. In any case, if you observe light, you are collecting photons, nothing else. In the macroscale they add up to classical optics.

Light obviously has wave properties, but it can propagate through space without a transmission medium, which is a particulate property, and which is I believe why Newton thought it a particle. He was clearly not completely wrong. It is both particle and wave. It is neither classical particle and not remotely classical wave.

Maybe a photon should be called a neoclassical wave?

Sorry, but Ken no longer spends time debating creationists. He doesn’t think it’s as productive as going out on his own to educate his audiences. I agree.

— John Kwok

Oops, I hit "submit" before proofreading:

By "latter 2 groups" I meant "pseudoskeptics" and "fence sitters".

The DI ID'ers have just published another book to blast the negative comments that Meyer's book has received:

http://www.discoveryinstitutepress.com/signature-of-controversy/

You can download the nauseating material.

Frank J said: * Welcome back Mr. G! (if you are the same one of ~last year). I hope you don't mind that I have been frequently using the term "pseudoskeptic" that you brought to my attention.

MrG said:

John Kwok said: Sorry, but Ken no longer spends time debating creationists. He doesn't think it's as productive as going out on his own to educate his audiences. I agree.

Yeah, tail doesn't wag dog. I'm a bit surprised he gave up the debates, he was a strong presence in them. However, they have always been a bit iffy, Dawkins has articulated why he refuses such debates. He can't really win anything in them and it gives creationists airtime just to conduct them. This is one of the problems with arguing with creationists -- it just gives them more opportunity to stir the pot and muddy the waters. If all you intend to do is bark long and loud, it's another opportunity to do so. Now there ARE valid reasons to argue with them and I have done so, but this is an inescapable drawback on the negative half of the balance sheet.

Natman said:

Robert Byers said: By the way some of said here Darwin wasn't 100% right. Read the "Descent of man" and the % of his accuracy will drop like a cambrian slab of fossils.

I think you'll find a lot of what Darwin said wasn't 100% right. No one has ever claimed that Darwin was infalliable, unlike God and the Pope. However, the fact that he wasn't always right doesn't preclude the concept that his ideas and theories have merit and since then have gathered more and more evidence and have been refined. No scientific theory has ever claimed to be 'right', it's just the method that best explains the available data and can offer predictable and repeatable hypothesis based on that evidence. The Bible, however, despite claims of infalliability, has lost ground, as purviews of 'creation' that were once attributed to a God are now easily explained by science. In addition, the Bible has never had any one of it's 'predictions' come true in a way that's provable or repeatable. Even Nostradamus has a better track record than the Bible.

Of course, clearly photons are not particles in the Newtonian sense. They’re not actually particles in any sense that we can reasonably articulate.

Since then his ideas should of gained evidence. Yet we say they havn't.

Its not about being wrong but rather then the errors are based on the presumptions and reasoning of his whole approach. Its a bigger issue of his basic understanding of natures workings.

Just the other day I was surprised to read he believed it possible that women could rise to the level of men intellectually by late in life acquiring attributes and then by reproduction passing them on to the females born. It seems like that Lamarkism thing. The whole book goes on and on like this. "Descent of man"

Who is “we”? Creationists?

— Dale Husband

Robert Byers said: Since then (Darwin's) ideas should of gained evidence. Yet we say they havn't.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Since then (Darwin's) ideas should of gained evidence. Yet we say they havn't.

Booby, have you ever read any articles in Science, Nature, Cell, Genetics or similar journals? Because you haven't, can you understand that that might provide an example of what we call "willful ignorance" in scientifically illiterate persons such as yourself?

Asking Robert to read science articles is 'uncivil'. Didn't your mother tell you not to mock the afflicted?

Rolf Aalberg said: Thank you! Now I know I can forget about trying to understand photons. Because I don't, but have never been able to find out why.

But seriously, a statement like 'photons are not accessible to reasonable articulation' makes sense to me, but is science fully comfortable with photons from a mathematical POW?

Amadan said: Asking Robert to read science articles is 'uncivil'. Didn't your mother tell you not to mock the afflicted?

Robert Byers said: Since then his ideas should of gained evidence. Yet we say they havn't. Its not about being wrong but rather then the errors are based on the presumptions and reasoning of his whole approach. Its a bigger issue of his basic understanding of natures workings. Just the other day I was surprised to read he believed it possible that women could rise to the level of men intellectually by late in life acquiring attributes and then by reproduction passing them on to the females born. It seems like that Lamarkism thing. The whole book goes on and on like this. "Descent of man"

Sorry, but Ken no longer spends time debating creationists. He doesn’t think it’s as productive as going out on his own to educate his audiences. I agree.

Robert Byers said: Since then his ideas should of gained evidence. Yet we say they havn't. Its not about being wrong but rather then the errors are based on the presumptions and reasoning of his whole approach. Its a bigger issue of his basic understanding of natures workings. Just the other day I was surprised to read he believed it possible that women could rise to the level of men intellectually by late in life acquiring attributes and then by reproduction passing them on to the females born. It seems like that Lamarkism thing. The whole book goes on and on like this. "Descent of man"

Stanton said:

Amadan said: Asking Robert to read science articles is 'uncivil'. Didn't your mother tell you not to mock the afflicted?

If he chose not to afflict us with his affliction, we would be less inclined to mock him.

harold said: John Kwok said -

Sorry, but Ken no longer spends time debating creationists. He doesn’t think it’s as productive as going out on his own to educate his audiences. I agree.

I hope it's obvious that I also agree with this. Let me summarize the points I am trying to make here - 1) I have suggested that the single, specific debate being discussed here, that of Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson with Meyers, appears, granted by their own report, not to have been harmful. This is most certainly not a general endorsement of live "debates" with creationists. 2) I also noted that I personally endorse "civility" in responses to creationists. But let me make it crystal clear once again that I am not endorsing the creationist/dumb TV journalist version of "civility". By civility I basically mean the following - a) Honest arguments b) relevant arguments c) never, ever initiating personal threats (and responding to their threats in a rational, legal way, such as contacting law enforcement*, in extreme circumstances) c) limited and good-natured profanity only and d) complete lack of ethnic and homophobic slurs, whether of overt or "coded" "dog whistle" style. There is no reason why a civil response to a ridiculous and or fraudulent claim can't include satire/sarcasm, judgmental language with respect to the honesty, character or competence of those who would use such an argument, legitimate conjecture as to underlying ulterior motives, or, in general, rip apart the argument and deride the user. For the most part every pro-science argument on PT is almost always civil, by my reasonable standards.

Sorry, a typo to my last comment. The final sentence of which should read:

I don't see anything uncivil in stating the obvious with respect to Dembski; that he is a liar, a thief and a thug who claims to be acting in the name of Jesus Christ, but instead, he is really serving his one and true master, Lucifer.

John Kwok -

Although I don't personally believe in Lucifer (except as a symbolic entity), I do agree that it is perfectly reasonable and civil to note that the behaviors of Dembski (or most other creationists) are not compatible with the stated ethical principles of any traditional Christian denomination, and that self-serving, deceptive behavior is, indeed, traditionally attributed to Lucifer and his followers, rather than to the Biblical character Jesus. That's just plain fact.

harold said: John Kwok - Although I don't personally believe in Lucifer (except as a symbolic entity), I do agree that it is perfectly reasonable and civil to note that the behaviors of Dembski (or most other creationists) are not compatible with the stated ethical principles of any traditional Christian denomination, and that self-serving, deceptive behavior is, indeed, traditionally attributed to Lucifer and his followers, rather than to the Biblical character Jesus. That's just plain fact.

Just got this from Nota Bene on claiming Stephen Matheson agrees with Steven Meyer on ID.

Which Steve said "design is an excellent and irrefutable explanation"?
Q: Which Steve said design is an excellent and irrefutable explanation?
Hint: He didn’t write Signature in the Cell.

This incredible interaction came at last Friday night’s presentation of Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer at Biola University in front of 1,400 attendees and hundreds more watching the event streamed live on the internet. In a panel discussion after his lecture, Meyer met two of his critics head-on, one of whom essentially conceded that intelligent design is a better explanation than an unguided process like Darwinian evolution.

The critics were Steve Matheson, a theistic evolutionist from Calvin College, and Arthur Hunt a Darwinist and biologist from the University of Kentucky. Both have written critically of SITC and intelligent design and were clearly not very enamored of the thesis of Meyer’s book, that the best explanation for the origins of biological information is that it comes from an intelligent source, a mind.

At least they started out seemingly unimpressed. I am certain Hunt remained so, but I’m not so sure about Matheson. He was critical to be sure, but in an amazingly candid and very revealing moment, he exposed his own presupposition that keeps him from accepting intelligent design theory.

Matheson basically conceded that ID is the best explanation currently on the table, but not one that he likes. Yes, he agreed, codes are produced by minds. Yes, there is digital code in DNA. Yes, design is a good explanation for that code. So, Meyer responded, you are admitting that the explanation I’ve offered, intelligent design, is currently best? The point wasn’t lost on the audience, or on Matheson I suspect. Here's a transcript of the amazing exchange (emphases added by me):

Matheson: I don’t find the argument convincing, I really don’t, but I think I know why. And the reason why is, I just figured out tonight, you said that we reason backwards from what we know works, which is that intelligence makes codes. I’ll agree with that. Can I see the hands of people that don’t agree? Of course not. Okay, well we reason back and say, therefore, this is the one explanation we know that can do this. I buy that, I get it, it’s, it’s obvious. But I see the world differently than you do. And so here’s the thing. I haven’t yet [pause] well, you said intelligence always creates information. And my view is a little different. Everywhere I look, and every time I look, if I wait long enough, there is a natural and even materialistic explanation to things. Now, don’t I have the right to say, you know, I’m going to go ahead and extrapolate that back, like Steve’s book, not because I’m an obnoxious Calvinist—maybe that’s true—but because, well that’s just kinda my preference? And so what I want all of us to agree on is that it’s fruitless, it’s pointless to say, Steve, don’t be stupid, design doesn’t explain what you want it to. Well, of course it does—how could it not? But wouldn’t it be reasonable for some of the Christians in this room to say, You know—

Meyer: You’re comfortable waiting for another explanation.

Matheson: I am.

Meyer: Which, in a strict sense, concedes that the one I offer is currently best—[The audience erupts into applause. Unintelligible between Meyer and Matheson]—and we have a different philosophy of science, which is where the locus of our disagreement probably lies, and where we should continue to converse.

Matheson: I’ll offer the acknowledgment: [pause] Design will always be an excellent and irrefutable explanation. How can it [pause] I just don’t see how it couldn’t be. I’m just saying it doesn’t look designed to me. He’s right, and there’s some stuff that goes on in the cell, I don’t know how you get design into there. But it’s easy to simply say, Well, and maybe you [referring to Arthur Hunt] do say this, let’s wait, maybe there’s a good reason why the cell, those proteins, billions of day, go straight into the wood-chipper. Maybe there’s a good reason for that. You said that. There’s nothing wrong with talking like that. There’s also nothing wrong with saying, Wow, man, I don’t know.

Matheson can’t endorse intelligent design because he, like Hunt, is committed to waiting to see if there is ever a natural, materialistic answer for the origins of biological information. My hunch is that he’s going to be waiting an awfully long time indeed.

natural, materialistic answer for the origins of biological information

So Michael, please explain how Intelligent Design "Theory" explains the origin of nylonase enzyme in bacteria, or how Intelligent Design "Theory" explains the rise and extinct of placoderms, or even how Intelligent Design "Theory" is supposed to be science when all it says is that "biological structures are too complicated for people to imagine them evolving, therefore GOD A DESIGNER DID IT in ways beyond the ken of pitiful mortal scientists, end of story"?

John Kwok said: Indeed:

Stanton said:

Amadan said: Asking Robert to read science articles is 'uncivil'. Didn't your mother tell you not to mock the afflicted?

If he chose not to afflict us with his affliction, we would be less inclined to mock him.

Am ever so grateful that the ever intellectually-challenged Booby Byers and his intellectual "cousin", Dishonesty Institute whore Denyse O'Leary, are not representative of the many Canadians I know - including relatives - who consistently demonstrate far more intelligence than either one is capable of.

Steve Matheson did not concede "that there is digital code in DNA". That would be ridiculous, and it is utterly, disgustingly dishonest to say he made any such concession. There is information, in a sense, and intelligence may create information, but so does nature without needing intelligence or a mind at all, and that fact is everywhere around us.

He most unwisely agreed - almost certainly without thinking about it - that he was "comfortable waiting for another explanation". Of course he is. So he should be. Scientists are always open to other, better explanations. But Meyer instantly exploited what is no more than a scientist's commendable open-mindedness to make two thoroughly dishonest inferences, neither of which follow. One, that evolution is not a good explanation for the information in DNA, (which it is) and that design is a better one (which it isn't).

Those inferences and that exploitation were completely unfounded and entirely dishonest. No matter. The audience roared. And now we have a smug recap from a creationist pushing the idea that some important concession has been made, which is a further dishonest extrapolation that doesn't follow.

No better demonstration can possibly be offered that these people are not interested in information, or knowledge, or honest debate. They are interested in sound bites, and their purpose is propaganda.

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: Since then his ideas should of gained evidence. Yet we say they havn't. Its not about being wrong but rather then the errors are based on the presumptions and reasoning of his whole approach. Its a bigger issue of his basic understanding of natures workings. Just the other day I was surprised to read he believed it possible that women could rise to the level of men intellectually by late in life acquiring attributes and then by reproduction passing them on to the females born. It seems like that Lamarkism thing. The whole book goes on and on like this. "Descent of man"

2.8 Strong flirtation with unreality--but note the unintended admission that Robbie HASN'T read Darwin. He just reads ABOUT him. On AIG maybe? Some even wackier website?

Dear Michael,

I also subscribe too to Nota Bene, that most odd samizdat agitprop e-mail newsletter which the likes of Goebbel and Trotsky would have appreciated it simply for its superb ability in confusing intellectually-challenged minds such as yourself.

What you've just described is a typical example of Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornography IMHO. Glad harold and Stanton and Dave Luckett have been quick to point the usual, quite typical, mendacious scam performed by our "pals" at the Dishonesty Institute (I agree with Dave Luckett's assessment of Steve Matheson's desire to wait for another explanation. But mere waiting of that does not imply that Steve would endorse an Intelligent Design solution any more than I, a former paleobiologist, would concur with the likes of Massimo Pigliucci and Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, among others, who believe that what is needed is an "Expanded Modern Synthesis" that would take into account much better, evidence from evolutionary developmental biology and paleobiology. Just because we may think the Modern Synthesis is imperfect doesn't mean that we throw that out in lieu of mendacious intellectual pornography like Intelligent Design creationism which has never, ever, be subjected to any rigorous scientific test by its so-called "scientists" such as Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Scott Minnich or Jonathan Wells.).

I should note that given the latest risible effort by Nota Bene to put a "positive spin" showing how Steve Matheson supports Intelligent Design, it merely strengthens my conviction that, unlike Intelligent Design, there is indeed more credible proof in support of Klingon Cosmology and KRID
(Kwok - Roddenberry Intelligent Design hypothesis, in which I propose that the primordial Earth was seeded with microbes courtesy of time-traveling Klingon warships crewed by Klingon molecular biologists.) than there will ever be for Intelligent Design. And, moreover, unlike Intelligent Design, no one needs to lie about Klingon Cosmology to demonstrate how and why it contains far more "truth" than we shall ever see in Intelligent Design.

nmgirl said:

John Kwok said: Indeed:

Stanton said:

Amadan said: Asking Robert to read science articles is 'uncivil'. Didn't your mother tell you not to mock the afflicted?

If he chose not to afflict us with his affliction, we would be less inclined to mock him.

Am ever so grateful that the ever intellectually-challenged Booby Byers and his intellectual "cousin", Dishonesty Institute whore Denyse O'Leary, are not representative of the many Canadians I know - including relatives - who consistently demonstrate far more intelligence than either one is capable of.

That's a disgusting image: cross breeding byers and o'leary.

Alex H said:

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: Since then his ideas should of gained evidence. Yet we say they havn't. Its not about being wrong but rather then the errors are based on the presumptions and reasoning of his whole approach. Its a bigger issue of his basic understanding of natures workings. Just the other day I was surprised to read he believed it possible that women could rise to the level of men intellectually by late in life acquiring attributes and then by reproduction passing them on to the females born. It seems like that Lamarkism thing. The whole book goes on and on like this. "Descent of man"

2.8 Strong flirtation with unreality--but note the unintended admission that Robbie HASN'T read Darwin. He just reads ABOUT him. On AIG maybe? Some even wackier website?

Given the "command" of the English language Byers has demonstrated, I'm guess it was Jack Chick.

Dave Luckett said: Steve Matheson did not concede "that there is digital code in DNA". That would be ridiculous, and it is utterly, disgustingly dishonest to say he made any such concession. There is information, in a sense, and intelligence may create information, but so does nature without needing intelligence or a mind at all, and that fact is everywhere around us. He most unwisely agreed - almost certainly without thinking about it - that he was "comfortable waiting for another explanation". Of course he is. So he should be. Scientists are always open to other, better explanations. But Meyer instantly exploited what is no more than a scientist's commendable open-mindedness to make two thoroughly dishonest inferences, neither of which follow. One, that evolution is not a good explanation for the information in DNA, (which it is) and that design is a better one (which it isn't). Those inferences and that exploitation were completely unfounded and entirely dishonest. No matter. The audience roared. And now we have a smug recap from a creationist pushing the idea that some important concession has been made, which is a further dishonest extrapolation that doesn't follow. No better demonstration can possibly be offered that these people are not interested in information, or knowledge, or honest debate. They are interested in sound bites, and their purpose is propaganda.

Rolf Aalberg said:

Of course, clearly photons are not particles in the Newtonian sense. They’re not actually particles in any sense that we can reasonably articulate.

Thank you! Now I know I can forget about trying to understand photons. Because I don't, but have never been able to find out why. But seriously, a statement like 'photons are not accessible to reasonable articulation' makes sense to me, but is science fully comfortable with photons from a mathematical POW?

Oh dear, this is a mirror imgae on posting on the british Christian Premier Forum where I am usually called an atheist.

I simply quoted all the Nota Bene tripe on s Matheson, who knows that I have no truck with the Dishonesty Inst.

It seems that they are as many kneejerks without the knee as on a creationist site.

I simply brought this to the attention of the Thumb.

Quoting does not mean agreement

Michael Roberts, my deep apologies for having misunderstood you. I did not realise that you were quoting a creationist site, rather than seconding it. I am very sorry for my misapprehension, and ask your pardon.

Michael Roberts said: Oh dear, this is a mirror imgae on posting on the british Christian Premier Forum where I am usually called an atheist. I simply quoted all the Nota Bene tripe on s Matheson, who knows that I have no truck with the Dishonesty Inst. It seems that they are as many kneejerks without the knee as on a creationist site. I simply brought this to the attention of the Thumb. Quoting does not mean agreement

Stuart Weinstein said: If it gives the right answers as borne out by experiments, physicists are comfortable with it. We don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

eric said: "The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. I can't explain why Nature behaves in this peculiar way." R. Feynman, QED, 1985.

eric said:

Stuart Weinstein said: If it gives the right answers as borne out by experiments, physicists are comfortable with it. We don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Or, to put it another way: "The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. I can't explain why Nature behaves in this peculiar way." R. Feynman, QED, 1985.

Thanks for apologies.

I think I have a long track record of opposing creationism, probably longer than any here.

As an Anglican vicar it does not always go down with seniors or colleagues, especially as I have identified one clear yEC bishop and several possibles.

Further I did the first review of Behe in britain describing his ideas as "godofthegaps wrapped up in amino acids"

If you like read my book Evangelicals and Science pub by Greenwood Press.

Another quote from the late Prof. Feynman: “if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” A quote from Steven Weinberg: “Quantum Mechanics is a totally preposterous theory which, unfortunately, appears to be correct.”

Henry J said: Oh, that's what's not to understand... well, some of it, anyway.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Since then (Darwin's) ideas should of gained evidence. Yet we say they havn't.

Booby, have you ever read any articles in Science, Nature, Cell, Genetics or similar journals? Because you haven't, can you understand that that might provide an example of what we call "willful ignorance" in scientifically illiterate persons such as yourself?

This is worth a 7 at least, just on the logical mcgonigal alone. Evolution has enormous support from all fields of science, and this is its secret weakness.

Evolution has enormous support from all fields of science, and this is its secret weakness.

For those who haven't noticed, Steve Matheson has written an open letter to Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Stephen Meyer. While it is written in a friendly tone, Matheson is quite forthright in condemning the Dishonesty Institute and Meyer's participation in it and Meyer's willingness to stay within the intellectual ghetto that he has constructed for himself:

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/06/open-letter-to-stephen-meyer.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+QuintessenceOfDust+%28Quintessence+of+Dust%29